Troll Lord Games

Posted: **Thu Feb 22, 2007 3:05 am**

I put together YACCSS (Yet Another Castles & Crusades Skill System). I've read others' house rules for skill and some of what I saw really inspired me to take a stab at it with my own twist on things. Hmm, notice that I play a fighter when I get to PC?
My approach is keep things dead simple and not deviate from what I think Castles & Crusades is and keep its feel intact. Here goes:
Edge Skill System
Rule of Thumb

The Edge modifier is never added when a character is able to add their level/HD to a die roll.
Acquiring and Advancing Skills

* At 2nd level characters receive 3 skill points + Int modifier. This represents the character getting their "adventuring legs" under them after making it past 1st level.

* Every other level thereafter, characters receive 1 skill point.
Skill Ranks

* Each skill rank confers +1 to appropriate die rolls.

* Each skill is capped at a maximum of +3.
Skill Costs
Class: 1 point
Non-class: 2 points
Class Skills
Fighter

* Craft

* Handle Animal

* Intimidate

* Knowledge (small unit tactics)

* Ride
Ranger

* Concentration

* Craft

* Handle Animal

* Heal

* Hide

* Knowledge (geography)

* Knowledge (nature)

* Listen

* Search

* Spot

* Use Rope
Rogue

* Appraise

* Bluff

* Craft

* Diplomacy

* Disguise

* Forgery

* Gather Information

* Jump

* Knowledge (local)

* Search

* Sense Motive

* Spot

* Use Rope
Assassin

* Bluff

* Craft

* Diplomacy

* Escape Artist

* Gather Information

* Intimidate

* Jump

* Knowledge (local)

* Search

* Sense Motive

* Spot
Barbarian

* Climb

* Craft

* Handle Animal

* Intimidate

* Jump

* Listen

* Ride

* Survival

* Swim
Monk

* Balance

* Climb

* Craft

* Diplomacy

* Hide

* Jump

* Knowledge (arcana)

* Knowledge (religion)

* Listen

* Perform

* Sense Motive

* Spot
Wizard

* Concentration

* Knowledge (specific)
Illusionist

* Concentration

* Craft

* Diplomacy

* Disguise

* Knowledge (bureaucracy)

* Ride
Cleric

* Concentration

* Craft

* Diplomacy

* Heal

* Spellcraft
Druid

* Concentration

* Craft

* Diplomacy

* Handle Animal

* Ride

* Spellcraft

* Swim
Knight

* Climb

* Craft

* Jump

* Knowledge (nobility)

* Sense Motive

* Swim
Paladin

* Concentration

* Craft

* Knowledge (nobility and royalty)

* Knowledge (religion)

* Ride

* Sense Motive
Bard

* Balance

* Concentration

* Disguise

* Gather Information

* Jump

* Knowledge (wine, women & song)

* Listen

* Perform

* Sense Motive

* Sleight of Hand

* Speak Language (specific)

* Tumble
General Skill List

Straight out of the D20 3.5 SRD minus the following skills:

* Autohypnosis

* Disable Device

* Profession

* Psicraft

* Remote View

* Stabilize Self

* Use Magic Device

* Use Psionic Device

Posted: **Thu Feb 22, 2007 6:45 am**

Pretty comprehensive list you got there.
_________________
Basic Action Games http://www.bashrpg.com

Check us out for free demos and downloads or visit us onFacebook.

Posted: **Thu Feb 22, 2007 8:33 am**

That's a very nice list you have there. 8)

Posted: **Thu Feb 22, 2007 9:29 am**

Why Illusionists are bureaucrats?!

Posted: **Thu Feb 22, 2007 11:01 am**

rabindranath72 wrote:
Why Illusionists are bureaucrats?!

What is bureaucracy, but an illusion that things are getting done?

Posted: **Thu Feb 22, 2007 11:13 am**

rabindranath72 wrote:
Why Illusionists are bureaucrats?!

I went with the class description in the Players Handbook that Illusionists are often found in high levels of government so I made the Knowledge (bureaucracy) a class skill.

Posted: **Thu Feb 22, 2007 11:21 am**

Jason wrote:
That's a very nice list you have there. 8)

BASH Man wrote:
Pretty comprehensive list you got there.

Thanks! What I did was go through the 3.5 SRD for each class (or extrapolated for non-SRD classes) and dropped class skills that overlapped with class abilities as found in C&C.

Next up EDGE Backgrounds. This will be even simpler. I'm thinking that I'll base my list on the non-weapon proficiency list from AD&D. A selected profession can confer a +1 die roll bonus if the player can narrate why that background would help the task at hand. A player can only ever get +1 on a die roll from a background profession because that's what they did before becoming adventurers. Want something specific from another class? Take a level from that class. Pretty simple and I think it fits the C&C mould.

Posted: **Thu Feb 22, 2007 1:48 pm**

Gnostic Gnoll wrote:
What is bureaucracy, but an illusion that things are getting done?

Posted: **Fri Feb 23, 2007 4:29 am**

I updated and refined class skills.

Posted: **Fri Feb 23, 2007 5:03 am**

Great list, although I would also also give illusionists Disguise, as it is one of their class abilities...
_________________
----------------

Moorcrys

Posted: **Fri Feb 23, 2007 6:07 am**

Eisenmann wrote:
Rule of Thumb

The Edge modifier is never added when a character is able to add their level/HD to a die roll.

Looks Good
Could you give some examples...

looks like you took out all skills that are abilities for various classes...
_________________

Posted: **Fri Feb 23, 2007 11:48 am**

Moorcrys wrote:
Great list, although I would also also give illusionists Disguise, as it is one of their class abilities...

Done!

Posted: **Fri Feb 23, 2007 12:25 pm**

Emryys wrote:
Looks Good
Could you give some examples...

looks like you took out all skills that are abilities for various classes...

That's exactly what I did. I also removed all skills based on a particular class' prime stat. I want to eliminate stacking and just worry about a character needing a slight boost or edge inorder to round them out in other skill areas.

Here's an example that I've had in mind the whole time:

Garulf a Fighter approaches a fortified camp of the invading enemy army. He needs to at least attempt to move silently to sneak into the camp. Even though that is a Rogue class ability, I as CK allow it because if he's caught, he's in big, big trouble. (Or maybe he's the only PC at the moment. It's no fun to disallow some thing that are class abilities of others if no one else is around to play the game too)

Garulf has Dex (11) as a Prime with: Move Silently +1. The CL is deemed to be pretty danged difficult so it's set to 5. The total modified minimum roll to succeed would be 17. Garulf's player rolls and comes up with a 16. Without Garulf having Move Silently as a skill Edge he would have failed. The skill's +1 bonus allows him to make his way into the camp relatively unnoticed or done in an inconspicuous manner.

Once inside, Garulf begins sizing up the enemy's defenses. Wisdom is a secondary stat for him so a target number of 18 must be rolled in order to succed. It is determined that this is relatively easy due to Garulf's past as a military man. He has the Skill: Knowledge (Small Unit Tactics) +3. The wisdom based check is made and a modified 19 is rolled (16 rolled + 3 skill). Garulf sizes up the make-shift gate and determines the exact number of warriors he needs to have the best chance of breaking through.

His original path in is now blocked and the only way out is to climb over the pallisade to make his way back to his garrison. The climb task is deemed to be relatively easy so +1 is added to the difficulty. Garulf is a 5th level fighter with Strength 16 (+2) as a prime stat. At this point, essentially only 6+ on a d20 roll is required for Garulf to succed. And he does, barely. 7 is rolled which is modified to 9 with the +2 Str modifier and is again modified by Garulf's level (+5) which takes the total modified roll to 14 beating the task's challenge number of 13.

Garulf fades into the darkness with battle tactics whirling in his mind as he works the numbers to maximize damage to the enemy while minimizing his own losses.

Posted: **Fri Feb 23, 2007 2:40 pm**

Quote:
* Each skill rank confers +1 to appropriate die rolls.

Yes, good. Makes sense.

Quote:
* Each skill is capped at a maximum of +3.

Huh? Why? I think it's a waste of time for a PC to put 23 skill points into weapon-smith (just hire a damn smith, get your sword, and go kill some orcs), but that doesn't mean there should be a cap.

As for your other proposed rules, I have some problems with systems like this.

1. I would strike all skills that I think a particular class would become better at merely as a matter of class advancement (Balance, Intimidate, Listen, Spot, Concentration, and Spellcraft are ones that come to mind).

2. I would also remove skills which (beyond basic proficiency) would have no purpose except to infringe on another classes' ability. I'm looking at you, Ride and Disable Device.

3. I would get rid of Skills which are so variable and specific to the circumstances, that they are better handled through roleplaying. I'm thinking of Appraise and Knowledge (Local), but possibly others. You either know what a longsword costs in Mirabar, or you don't, and taking a day to familiarize yourself with prices at the local market does not warrant a skill system.

4. As a matter of preference, I don't like the idea of class/cross-class skills. Why don't mages get handle animal, for instance? Why is it harder for them to learn how to train dogs than for fighters? This never made much sense to me. Some skills will be more useful for some classes than others, but that doesn't mean they're harder to learn.

5. For an extra cost, I would allow some classes to take these skills as "class skills", meaning you could add their level to them instead of a flat modifer. This would probably have to be paid for with an ongoing EP cost, such as Level*50 added to the base EPP. I'm thinking of Disguise for the Assassin, or Knowledge (Tactics) for a Knight or Fighter.

6. Lastly (and most importantly), I would not link skill points to level advancement. Level advacement is a mechanic for saying how quickly your "sword fightin'" skill increases, or your "spell castin'" skill increases. The skills we are discussing are not those class abilities. Also, if a character wants to spend two months learning all about herbology, and is willing to spend the in-game resources in time and money to do that, he should be able to do that. Rather than make an ad-hoc rule, make it central to concept of skills that they're something that takes time & practice to acquire. This is particularly appropriate for things like riding a bike (or horse), swimming, learning to read, and other basic skills that are class independent, and "once you know them, you just know them."

--------------------------------

This is off-the-cuff, but here goes:
Proposed Rule

Skills may be purchased as a class skill or an non-class skill. Class skills add your class level to the roll. Non-class skills have their own modifier which is not determined by your level.
Learning a Non-Class Skills

- Spend one month with a teacher with at least four Non-Class Ranks or Skill Levels. At the end of the month, you gain one Non-Class Rank in ths skill. You can now perform "basic operations" of this skill (such as swim while not wearing armor, or ride a horse at a trot) with no rolling, and may roll to achieve more difficult things with a +1 modifier.

- You may increase your modifier by spending more time learning the skill. Each additional rank has a cumulative cost in months to acquire it (Rank 2 requires two months beyond Rank 1, Rank 3 requires three months beyond Rank 2, etc.) Each rank increases your modifier by an additional +1.

- Up to Rank 5 you need a master with at least 2 more ranks thatn you to teach you. Starting at Rank 6 you can teach yourself.
Learning a Class Skills

- Spend one month with a teacher with at least four Non-Class Ranks or Skill Levels. At the end of the month, you gain this skill as a class skill. You can now perform "basic operations" of this skill (such as swim while not wearing armor, or ride a horse at a trot) with no rolling, and may roll to achieve higher difficulties.

- Your Skill Level in this skill is equal to your current class level+1 minus the class level you were when you learned the skill. So, if your're 10th level, and you acquired the skill at 7th level, you add +4 to your rolls, instead of +10. Put another way, your Skill Level is a negative modifier on a roll equal to the level you were when you learned the skill-1.

- Each class skill adds a cost to your EPP. The base cost, times the level you're trying to reach, is added to to the EP you need to reach next level. (EXAMPLE: if a skill has a base cost of 100 EP, and you're 10th level, add 1100 EP (100*11) to the EP you need to achieve 11th level.

- You can "catch up" the Skill Level to your current Class Level by paying one time EP costs equal to what you would have paid in EP if you had taken the skill at 1st level (e.g., = 50+50*2+50*3+50*4...). You cannot advance your Skill Level beyond your Class Level. You can catch up all at once, or in chunks, as you prefer.
Synergy

Many of the skills that are marked with "(Any, but many times)" rely in a similar range of skills. Armorsmithing is different from Weaponsmithing, but not that different. If you have a certain number of ranks in a certain skill, you have an effective skill level in all other skills in that category based on the modifier listed with that skill. So, if you have 5 Ranks in Armorsmith, you are treated as having 3 Ranks in all other kinds of Smithing. Some of these skills, however (like Speak Language) do not lend themselves to synergy.
Proposed Skill List (Skills which may be purchased as class skills are marked with a #)

* Bargain

* Bowyer/Fletcher

* Craft (Any; buy many times)(-5)

* Disguise #:Thief, Assassin

* Diplomacy

* Handle Animal (Any; buy many times)(-3) #: Ranger, Druid, Knight (mounts only)

* Heal

* Knowledge (Any; buy many times)(-8)

* Literacy

* Navigation (Land or Sea)

* Numeracy

* Profession (Any; buy many times)(-3)

* Smithing (Any; but many times)(-2)

* Speak Language (Any; buy many times)(N/A)

* Survival (Any environment; buy many times)(-5)

* Swim

* Use Climbing Equipment (different than Rogue / Ranger ability)

* Use Magic Device (Any item type; buy many times)(N/A)

* Use Psionic Device (Any item type; buy many times)(N/A)
_________________
Check out my Iron C&C House Rules: The Tombs of Akrasia

Posted: **Fri Feb 23, 2007 3:54 pm**

I agree with Irda Ranger. There is a lot here that seems to conflict with class abilities.

Also, it just seems so... d20. Basically, you're porting the 3E skill system to C&C. I don't think they mesh well.

I think a better selection of skills could be made using the 2nd Ed AD&D proficiencies. Most of those would not interfere with class abilities, but still provide a wide range of useful abilities.

-Fizz

Posted: **Fri Feb 23, 2007 5:04 pm**

Quote:
Also, it just seems so... d20. Basically, you're porting the 3E skill system to C&C. I don't think they mesh well.

Me neither.

Linking skill points to levels suggest that skills are somehow a class ability, and that if you don't take the skill, you're leaving money on the table somehow. I don't think that's a good model. A class should be "complete" as it is written in the PHB. Skills should be a purely optional extra which you can take above & beyond your class to give the character a more distinct and well-rounded feel.

Fizz wrote:
I think a better selection of skills could be made using the 2nd Ed AD&D proficiencies. Most of those would not interfere with class abilities, but still provide a wide range of useful abilities.

-Fizz

I haven't looked at a 2e PHB in years, but from what I recall this is a good idea.
_________________
Check out my Iron C&C House Rules: The Tombs of Akrasia

Posted: **Fri Feb 23, 2007 10:11 pm**

Fizz wrote:
I agree with Irda Ranger. There is a lot here that seems to conflict with class abilities.

Also, it just seems so... d20. Basically, you're porting the 3E skill system to C&C. I don't think they mesh well.

I think a better selection of skills could be made using the 2nd Ed AD&D proficiencies. Most of those would not interfere with class abilities, but still provide a wide range of useful abilities.

-Fizz

I disagree that it's a straight port from d20. It's why I've trimmed and clipped. I've posted it here for active development and it is indeed changing.

Also, one of my design goals is to offer a bit of overlap because I won't be able to get enough people together consistently enough to flesh out the traditional adventuring party. Also, that's why I've capped the skills at +3.

I've looked at the 2nd Ed. proficiencies and am putting together something to mesh with the Edge Skill system.

Posted: **Fri Feb 23, 2007 10:21 pm**

Quote:
Huh? Why? I think it's a waste of time for a PC to put 23 skill points into weapon-smith (just hire a damn smith, get your sword, and go kill some orcs), but that doesn't mean there should be a cap.

I have a cap for a design point. The system is to give characters a bit of an edge but not to allow them to overpower their current class.

Quote:
As for your other proposed rules, I have some problems with systems like this.

1. I would strike all skills that I think a particular class would become better at merely as a matter of class advancement (Balance, Intimidate, Listen, Spot, Concentration, and Spellcraft are ones that come to mind).

That is exactly what I'm doing. Please note that I've edited the original post including the skill list. Except some of the specifics that you'd clip and what I'd clip are different.

Quote:
2. I would also remove skills which (beyond basic proficiency) would have no purpose except to infringe on another classes' ability. I'm looking at you, Ride and Disable Device.

That is not my design goal. My goal is to give solitary characters a bit of an edge. Hence the name.

Quote:
3. I would get rid of Skills which are so variable and specific to the circumstances, that they are better handled through roleplaying. I'm thinking of Appraise and Knowledge (Local), but possibly others. You either know what a longsword costs in Mirabar, or you don't, and taking a day to familiarize yourself with prices at the local market does not warrant a skill system.

I disagree. I'm big on RP hence my love for rules light games such as C&C. In fact, I'm putting together a short "description" reward skill-let together for when players give better descriptions and get into role-play. It'll be meant to enhance roll play through role-play. Again, it's a conscious design decision.

Quote:
4. As a matter of preference, I don't like the idea of class/cross-class skills. Why don't mages get handle animal, for instance? Why is it harder for them to learn how to train dogs than for fighters? This never made much sense to me. Some skills will be more useful for some classes than others, but that doesn't mean they're harder to learn.

From that pure perspective one could argue against class systems all together. I hear what you're saying and your interpretation as well as mine on the subject pretty much comes down to applied setting. In a character class system I can see why fighters would have a better chance at training dogs... you're out there doing something and getting dirty and not getting dirty by flipping open ancient manuscripts doing research for the next spell.

Quote:
5. For an extra cost, I would allow some classes to take these skills as "class skills", meaning you could add their level to them instead of a flat modifer. This would probably have to be paid for with an ongoing EP cost, such as Level*50 added to the base EPP. I'm thinking of Disguise for the Assassin, or Knowledge (Tactics) for a Knight or Fighter.

I like that idea.

Quote:
6. Lastly (and most importantly), I would not link skill points to level advancement. Level advacement is a mechanic for saying how quickly your "sword fightin'" skill increases, or your "spell castin'" skill increases. The skills we are discussing are not those class abilities. Also, if a character wants to spend two months learning all about herbology, and is willing to spend the in-game resources in time and money to do that, he should be able to do that. Rather than make an ad-hoc rule, make it central to concept of skills that they're something that takes time & practice to acquire. This is particularly appropriate for things like riding a bike (or horse), swimming, learning to read, and other basic skills that are class independent, and "once you know them, you just know them."

Again, it was an active design decision on my part to tie Edge skill advancement to level advancement... simply for its sheer simplicity.

We've both got different design goals and that's cool. I'm watching the IRON skill system to see what you come up with. Hopefully we can cross pollinate.

Posted: **Fri Feb 23, 2007 10:27 pm**

Eisenmann wrote:
Also, one of my design goals is to offer a bit of overlap because I won't be able to get enough people together consistently enough to flesh out the traditional adventuring party. Also, that's why I've capped the skills at +3.

It'd also be easy to loosen up the rules on multi-classing. A fighter-cleric and wizard-rogue are a pretty feature-complete adventuring party. Just strike the Prime pre-reqs, or do what I do and allow folks to take "0th level" in classes (check the link in the sig for the house rules). It's also possible to tailor adventures so that there's always a non-class-specific way around an obstacle.

But ...

Eisenmann wrote:
I disagree that it's a straight port from d20. It's why I've trimmed and clipped.

He didn't say it was a straigt port. He said it "seems so d20", which it is. It is very d20. The SIEGE & Primes Engine already accomplishes half of what d20 Skills are supposed to do, and the other half really isn't appropriate for a level-dependent mechanic.
_________________
Check out my Iron C&C House Rules: The Tombs of Akrasia

Posted: **Fri Feb 23, 2007 10:41 pm**

Eisenmann wrote:
I'm watching the IRON skill system to see what you come up with. Hopefully we can cross pollinate.

I think we already have. If nothing else, your skill system (because I disagreed with it ) crystalized my own thinking on what I wanted from a skill system.

Please feel free to comment on my IRON Skill System. All feedback is welcome. I'll keep comments on this thread to the EDGE Skill System, and stop my comments what I think it should be.
_________________
Check out my Iron C&C House Rules: The Tombs of Akrasia

Posted: **Fri Feb 23, 2007 10:43 pm**

irda ranger wrote:
It'd also be easy to loosen up the rules on multi-classing. A fighter-cleric and wizard-rogue are a pretty feature-complete adventuring party. Just strike the Prime pre-reqs, or do what I do and allow folks to take "0th level" in classes (check the link in the sig for the house rules). It's also possible to tailor adventures so that there's always a non-class-specific way around an obstacle.

But ...

He didn't say it was a straigt port. He said it "seems so d20", which it is. It is very d20. The SIEGE & Primes Engine already accomplishes half of what d20 Skills are supposed to do, and the other half really isn't appropriate for a level-dependent mechanic.

I understand the impact of Primes on the system and their role.

Also, I've never hidden the fact or tried to obfuscate where the skills came from. I'm not trying to mesh d20 into C&C. I'm using the SRD as a base for a skill list to be molded into something for C&C.

What am I proposing that isn't "appropriate"? I mean, c'mon, please.

I agree that loosening up multi-classing would do the trick but that's not one of my design goals. I'm going after a light interface that can be optionally overlaid on top of standard C&C and run with. Nothin' more.

Posted: **Fri Feb 23, 2007 11:09 pm**

Eisenmann wrote:
I have a cap for a design point. The system is to give characters a bit of an edge but not to allow them to overpower their current class.

OK, I can see that. On the other hand though, if someone wants to put all their skill points into one skill, why not let them? It should be their choice if they want to be the hands-down best lock-pickin' wizard this side of Waterdeep. The +3 cap just feels a little arbitrary.

Eisenmann wrote:
Please note that I've edited the original post including the skill list. Except some of the specifics that you'd clip and what I'd clip are different.

Fair enough.

My main reason for clipping things like Spot and Listen, by the way, have already been discussed in other threads. Put shortly, (1) I think it's something that everyone should get better at just as a matter of surviving this long, and (2) it's so important to detect danger that I think lots of players would feel compelled to put as many ranks as possible into it (and capping it at 3 really hurts hear, when Move Silently and Hide is not capped). It just doesn't seem fun that way. YMMV.

Eisenmann wrote:
I'm big on RP hence my love for rules light games such as C&C. In fact, I'm putting together a short "description" reward skill-let together for when players give better descriptions and get into role-play. It'll be meant to enhance roll play through role-play. Again, it's a conscious design decision.

I'm not sure that you're arguing for your own point here, since I think we agree on the benefit and value of roleplaying out certain things. My point was that because roleplaying is so superior to resolve certain types of actions (like Appraise or Knowledge (Local)) that a skill system is more of a handicap than enabler, and thus should be avoided entirely. Please feel free to elaborate on this point, as it's the one I'm least clear on.

Eisenmann wrote:
From that pure perspective one could argue against class systems all together. I hear what you're saying and your interpretation as well as mine on the subject pretty much comes down to applied setting. In a character class system I can see why fighters would have a better chance at training dogs... you're out there doing something and getting dirty and not getting dirty by flipping open ancient manuscripts doing research for the next spell.

There is always a trade-off to be made between the strong-archetype class system and a more skill-based "built to order" character generator. I love C&C because of the strong archetypes and the classes. I wouldn't want to harm that. I think though, that if your skill list is sufficiently distinct from your class skills & abilities, that allowing for all skills to all classes would be fine.

To use two quick examples, I can easily see plenty of wizards keeping an owlrey or hawk eyrie in the top of their tower, or training some exotic beast to guard the entrance; likewise I can see plenty of Fighters or Knights picking up basic proficiency at being a battle-field medic. Heck, they might even be better at stitching up wounds than any cleric, who (after all) may primarily rely on magic rather than mundane skills.

And as a last, inane, point; if you think academics don't get dirty, you've clearly never spent much time with geologists, field biologists, or archaeologists.

Eisenmann wrote:
Again, it was an active design decision on my part to tie Edge skill advancement to level advancement... simply for its sheer simplicity.

Well, it sure is simple, I'll grant you that. I'm just still not sure it's a well thought out idea. I think you can attain your other design goals (allowing cross-class functionality; giving a slight edge, etc.), without linking to level advancement.

Linking it to level (1) suggests that you have to take skills, even if you think your character is complete as is, and (2) does not allow you to pick up a skill you need right now for at least two more levels. My feeling is that if your few players already feel feature-complete, they should be able to just concentrate on level advancement. Alternatively, if they are really hurting for lack of Open Locks, they should be able to say "Let's find a master thief and learn how to do this." Once they get a couple ranks in it, a whole new vista of adventure-types will open to them.
_________________
Check out my Iron C&C House Rules: The Tombs of Akrasia

Posted: **Fri Feb 23, 2007 11:11 pm**

Eisenmann wrote:
What am I proposing that isn't "appropriate"? I mean, c'mon, please.

Wrong word. My comment was supposed to convey that EDGE as proposed wasn't as good a fit to C&C as it could be, not that there was something morally or aesthetically "wrong" with it or that you're doing something bad by adopting it as a house rule.

Anyway, poor choice of words. Sorry.
_________________
Check out my Iron C&C House Rules: The Tombs of Akrasia

Posted: **Sat Feb 24, 2007 12:04 am**

irda ranger wrote:
Wrong word. My comment was supposed to convey that EDGE as proposed wasn't as good a fit to C&C as it could be, not that there was something morally or aesthetically "wrong" with it or that you're doing something bad by adopting it as a house rule.

Anyway, poor choice of words. Sorry.

No problem, Irda.

I set the +3 cap because the background proficiency system that I'm thinking about would give +1 max to a die roll if someone is able to narrate their background into the game action at any time. Also, I'm thinking about using something like this:

* Bland description: -1 ("I hit him.")

* Ordinary: 0

* Well-delivered: +1

* Exception: +2

* Completely Original: +3

As CK, I'd like to see +1s most of the time and wish for +3s. Now, I know that as CK, I'm able to do this at any time. I'll be running C&C for some inexperienced RPers and I think them knowing these things up front will help them get into the groove enough to really feel the flow that is allowed by the game itself.

In short, that's why I capped skills at +3. Players will get more than one way to better their rolls. I also want to make it piecemeal enough that I don't have to use every mechanic that I've mentioned here all at once.

I've got more ideas for the skill system. I really like what you mentioned is the ability to buy a skill and make it a class skill.

edit:

Quote:
I'm not sure that you're arguing for your own point here, since I think we agree on the benefit and value of roleplaying out certain things. My point was that because roleplaying is so superior to resolve certain types of actions (like Appraise or Knowledge (Local)) that a skill system is more of a handicap than enabler, and thus should be avoided entirely. Please feel free to elaborate on this point, as it's the one I'm least clear on.

As CK, I don't always make someone roll. I'll ask 'em what their total bonus is and use that as a measuring stick to let the story roll.

Posted: **Sat Feb 24, 2007 12:12 am**

Does anyone have the link for the class breakdown? I know that someone did one at some point. It would be helpful is estimating a per-level EP costs for skills.
_________________
Check out my Iron C&C House Rules: The Tombs of Akrasia

Posted: **Sat Feb 24, 2007 8:09 pm**

I'm reworking the list and hope to have something new very soon.

Posted: **Fri Mar 02, 2007 10:02 pm**

I've got a few sessions under my belt so I'll be reworking the EDGE skill system a bit. Hopefully I'll have something posted soon.

Posted: **Tue Mar 06, 2007 2:18 pm**

I like your ideas - but I just have one question

Could you clarify:

Quote:
Rule of Thumb

The Edge modifier is never added when a character is able to add their level/HD to a die roll

Thanks

Posted: **Tue Mar 06, 2007 9:43 pm**

tcabril wrote:
I like your ideas - but I just have one question

Could you clarify:

Thanks

Thanks!

The main idea for the skill system is to give characters a bit of a boost or edge when they're doing something outside that typically lies outside the domain of their class. So, if a character is doing something where his level is added to the die roll, any other skill modifier is not added.

For example, a Rogue wouldn't get an Edge skill modifier when picking a lock because that falls withing his class definition and hence they receive their level as a modifier to the roll.

Posted: **Tue Mar 06, 2007 11:48 pm**

irda ranger wrote:
It'd also be easy to loosen up the rules on multi-classing. A fighter-cleric and wizard-rogue are a pretty feature-complete adventuring party.

When I finally get to run "Beacon" these are the type of characters that will be used. We will make them using a modified version of the Gestalt CG in the 3E UA. They are very powerful characters, but having only 2 players makes it necessary.

Gestalts, unlike multi-class, do not gain any extra hit points. They only get "the best of two". This means that a Wiz/Rog only has d6 + con hitpoints, and a Ftg/Clr has d10 + con hps. They still have to be careful in the dungeon. Also two characters, no mater how powerful, can not cover the same ground as four separate characters.

On problem with this method is that everyone wants Rouge as a "part of" their character (to get the class abilities). The Edge System seems to avoid this without making characters too complex.
_________________
The Blood of Dragons flows through my veins!

Prepare to meet your DOOM!

Kobold battle cry

Troll Lord Games

EDGE Skill System

EDGE Skill System

Re: EDGE Skill System

Re: EDGE Skill System