Troll Lord Games

Here is a conversation I had with Gary about the supposed costs of Castle Zagyg skills. Well, it seems a huge bit of errata is in order. In particular, for those who wondered whether the costs were too low, indeed THEY ARE. In fact, the costs of skills depends not only on the type of skill, BUT EVEN ON THE NUMBER OF SKILLS! This is a fundamental difference. Otherwise an high level character might end up with having far too many skills.

A (not so subtle hint) for the Trolls: why not releasing a corrected Options & Skills document, with updates on correct multi/dual classing and the errata below?

Cheers,

Antonio

Hi Gary,

sorry to bother you here, but I see that you rarely frequent the C&C boards.

So, I was using your Secondary Skills system, and the cost to advance seems to be linear (e.g. 3000 at first level, 6000 at second etc.), but in play this does not seem to work out very well, since high level characters do not have many problems at expending those XPs, when they must typically expend 10 times to advance a level. Was your intention to make the advancement so, and if so, for what reason? Or is it another editing bug? (like the one on multi and dualclassing).

%%%%%%%%%%%5

Hi Antonio,

The system I designed is not linear, but cumulative in XP cost. Here is what I wrote in the original ms. submission:

Cost for Acquiring an Ability:

Classification of the Ability Cost in Experience Points

Ability specific to the PCs Class: 3,000 + 3,000 per after one

Ability is a general one: 5,000 + 5,000 per after one

Ability specific to another class that that of the PC: 8,000 + 8,000 per after one

Example: A PC acquires one class-specific ability at the cost of 3,000 XPs. The second such ability will then cost 3,000 plus an additional 3,000, 6,000 total, and if a third such ability can be acquired it will cost 9,000 XPs. The same PC then acquires a general ability for 5,000 XPs, so another will cost 5,000 plus 5,000 XPs. Finally, he acquires an ability specific to another class at the cost of 8,000 XPs, and if another is acquired it will cost 16,000 XPs, and a third would cost 24,000. The increases are meant to both reflect the difficulty of additional learning and to limit the PCs ability acquisitions to a reasonable level. Also note that abilities not specific to a class are performed at a penalty of 5 so as to prevent any character from being all-powerful.

Note the added cost is not only per ability but per level of the same ability. thus:

Ability A1, 1st level 3K, 2nd level 6K, 3rd level 9K

Ability A2, 1st level 6K, 2nd level 12K, 3rd level 18K

Ability B1, 1st level 5K, 2nd level 10K, 3rd level 15K

Ability B2, 1st level 10K, 2nd level 20K, 3rd level 30K

Ability C1, 1st level 8K, 2nd level 16K, 3rd level 24K

Ability C2, 1st level 16K, 2nd level 32K, 3rd level 48K

Already way ahead of ya. We just havent had a chance to get to putting the revised list up with the 5 billion other things going on at this time.
On a more houserule note, I, for one, will be certainly ignoring such a ridiculously inflated cost and sticking with the linear progression. ^_~`
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

gideon_thorne wrote:
On a more houserule note, I, for one, will be certainly ignoring such a ridiculously inflated cost and sticking with the linear progression. ^_~`

Don't agree with the "ridicously inflated costs". At 3000-8000 XPs for one skill level (which typically gives +2 to a roll), it would be quite convenient to buy lots of skills and gather a breadth of knowledge, rather than concentrate on one or two skills. A fact which would undermine the archetypes.

In fact, I was having exactly this problem in my campaign, but with Gary's explanation, a character is encouraged to develop one or two skills, rather than "expanding".

*smiles* Thats the thing, I have absolutely zero problem undermining the archtypes in my campaign. So I'll keep the lowered cost. ^_^

Archtypes are a matter of point of reference only in my game, players can happly make free with busting them up any which way they like. ^_^
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

gideon_thorne wrote:
*smiles* Thats the thing, I have absolutely zero problem undermining the archtypes in my campaign. So I'll keep the lowered cost. ^_^

Archtypes are a matter of point of reference only in my game, players can happly make free with busting them up any which way they like. ^_^

That sounds very 2ed skills and powers to me...

Yeah, but Peter likes those books. Quit complimenting him.. it only makes him worse.

Mythago wrote:
That sounds very 2ed skills and powers to me...

That too. As Serleran says, I really dont have a problem with those books either. ^_^
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

THE COSTS ARE TOO LOW!!!???

Sorry, not meaning to be rude, but...

ARE YOU INSANE!??

you're talking about THOUSANDS of XP, for a measly +1 or +2 bonus to a die roll! +1 or +2!!!!

UGH.

You know I love Gary's work and I have the utmost respect for him as the father of our great hobby...but the secondary skills in Zagyg are awful and quite simply, obnoxiously expensive for what you get.

Except that you get, usually, much more than a +1 or +2, since its expected that you rarely need to make a "skill check" and gamut of things you can perform is generally quite large, since the "skills" are more like "action bundles." But, its not a major thing to reduce the costs, if thats your preference, and keep the "spirit" of the idea.

Then again, it was Gary's way of incorporating LA-like concepts (ie, breaking archetypes) into C&C, since he has moved away from the class-centric game design to the open form of "pick and choose."

I find it rather funny that everyone seem sot forget just what those skills actually do... they effectively provide whole class levels, for basically nothing, in the long run.

Let's look at an example:

The woodsman ability gives basically everything a ranger gets, and more, in fact, for a lump of what, 3K. Ok, seems high. A 1st level ranger needs something close to that, so you're paying only the difference to get all the non-combat ranger abilities. The only classes that get hosed on the exchange are the ones that would want the combat abilities, too, like a wizard or rogue, but these are "secondary skills" and not supposed to be the primary focus, anyway. If you happen to be a ranger, you lose nothing, and actually gain the equivalent of +2 levels for everything not combat-related. So, instead of being treated like a 2nd level ranger, you psend that XP you'd have gotten, and get treated like a 3rd level ranger, but since you didn't actually advance... you're HD isn't up, your BtH isn't up, and the like, so the stuff you're gonna be fighting (assuming the CK doesn't just throw things at random) is gonna be around your difficulty, so you've really lost nothing.

Perhaps every skill isn't quite as potent, but so? They are secondary and not meant as replacements.

The Grey Elf wrote:
THE COSTS ARE TOO LOW!!!???

Sorry, not meaning to be rude, but...

ARE YOU INSANE!??

you're talking about THOUSANDS of XP, for a measly +1 or +2 bonus to a die roll! +1 or +2!!!!

UGH.

You know I love Gary's work and I have the utmost respect for him as the father of our great hobby...but the secondary skills in Zagyg are awful and quite simply, obnoxiously expensive for what you get.

*smiles* well, part of the eventual errata, apparently, is that some bundles also grant low levels of ability in a given class as well.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

serleran +1

That's why there should be some control on how many of them you can buy. A character who takes even 1 level of Ambush and Woodsman, for example, would get lots of useful abilities; it is only natural that the costs should be cumulative.

Oh well, YMMV, as always.

Cheers,

Antonio

hope this errata comes out soon.

serleran wrote:
Except that you get, usually, much more than a +1 or +2, since its expected that you rarely need to make a "skill check" and gamut of things you can perform is generally quite large, since the "skills" are more like "action bundles." But, its not a major thing to reduce the costs, if thats your preference, and keep the "spirit" of the idea.

Then again, it was Gary's way of incorporating LA-like concepts (ie, breaking archetypes) into C&C, since he has moved away from the class-centric game design to the open form of "pick and choose."

I find it rather funny that everyone seem sot forget just what those skills actually do... they effectively provide whole class levels, for basically nothing, in the long run.

Let's look at an example:

The woodsman ability gives basically everything a ranger gets, and more, in fact, for a lump of what, 3K. Ok, seems high. A 1st level ranger needs something close to that, so you're paying only the difference to get all the non-combat ranger abilities. The only classes that get hosed on the exchange are the ones that would want the combat abilities, too, like a wizard or rogue, but these are "secondary skills" and not supposed to be the primary focus, anyway. If you happen to be a ranger, you lose nothing, and actually gain the equivalent of +2 levels for everything not combat-related. So, instead of being treated like a 2nd level ranger, you psend that XP you'd have gotten, and get treated like a 3rd level ranger, but since you didn't actually advance... you're HD isn't up, your BtH isn't up, and the like, so the stuff you're gonna be fighting (assuming the CK doesn't just throw things at random) is gonna be around your difficulty, so you've really lost nothing.

Perhaps every skill isn't quite as potent, but so? They are secondary and not meant as replacements.

That's not the way it reads. It reads, "you get a small die bonus to attribute checks when using that skill."

If the errata makes skills that much more potent, I wouldn't increase the costs...I wouldn't allow that kind of thing in my game to begin with. You want other class abilities, you can multiclass.

I just don't see why it has to be so complicated and/or expensive to simply tack on a skill system. If it's uniform across the board, it won't change the balance of the game in any way.

Hell, you could either use a modified version of the old NWP system, or do what I do: Allow players to take "knowledges" in place of languages based on Int bonus, and those knowledges allow the use of an Attribute as Prime on an appropriate roll. If the Attribute in question is already Prime, they get an additional +3.

Simple, elegant, stays firmly within the bounds of the SIEGE engine, doesn't unbalance play (I know because I use it in game), and doesn't require spending XP as well as using it to level.

Ugh...this is a hot-button issue for me. I'm going to duck out, now.

You're forgetting who designed the Yggsburgh system and why it was designed as it was. First, and most importantly, there are no official C&C multiclassing rules, so the skill system fills in those blanks, and, for those using the setting, the system becomes the de facto method for such a thing. Secondly, as I stated before, the skills were Gary's way of incorporating LA-style ideas into C&C, where the archetypes are not as pronounced (they exist, but the PC has to want to be one), which allows a far greater range of diversity -- however, the game in question is not LA, but C&C, where archetypes are to be reinforced, and not separated. If the game were more "open form" the cost would either be greatly reduced (there should always be some cost, though not in terms of XP per se) or non-existent, as you say your rules are. This is simply undesirable, from the publisher's perspective, for a "core mechanic" as it is the direct opposite of C&Cs underlying design, and gives "mixed signals" as to the intent of the PHB.

As to the power of these skills, read page 247, "Using Secondary Skills."

Using Secondary Skills wrote:
First, to resolve an issue that involves any of the skills mentioned above does not require a skill check. Often times success is guaranteed or the Castle Keeper knows what the outcome [would] be. In other cases the Castle Keeper might want to propel the story along some interesting path and allow for it [to succeed.] Only in those cases in which a chance of failure looms large should a skill check be made. Or, that is those involving combat.

So, unless you rule that a character can fail at anything, at any time, secondary skill rolls are not required. Clearly, they were designed to simply provide the character with abilities that they can do, nearly all the time. The bonuses are small because the difficulties for such PCs are small -- if it were a huge bonus, you'd be right back at the "automatic success" which would beg the "why did they have a bonus at all" question.

serleran wrote:
This is simply undesirable, from the publisher's perspective, for a "core mechanic" as it is the direct opposite of C&Cs underlying design, and gives "mixed signals" as to the intent of the PHB.

...

huh?

It is diametrically opposed to provide both an archetypal character creation system and a means to break said system (not in terms of balance, but in terms of not using said archetypes) within the same source. The PHB clearly makes archetypes the standard, and the secondary skill system of Yggsburgh clearly allows those archetypes to overlap. The way to avoid such incongruities is to make overlapping the two "cost something" so that the basic idea (the archetype) is held, but players can choose to "pay for it." In basic terms, it boils down to: is this a class-based game, or a skills-based game? If the game is class-based, then skills are secondary, meaning they should take a minor role in the development of the PC (and, since they are so costly, they would certainly seem to do that.)

Of course, this is rather ironic from me, since I don't use a skill system of any kind.

And like everything else, you don't have to use them. You have your own rules, and they seem to work for you... so why not continue to use them?