Secondary skills

[jdizzy001]

A +1 bonus to a single skill. I always viewed it as a characters background. Meaning, they started training as x, hence the +1 bonus, but decided to go adventuring instead. Has anyone used these? What has been your experience?

[Arduin]

A +1 bonus to a single skill. I always viewed it as a characters background. Meaning, they started training as x, hence the +1 bonus, but decided to go adventuring instead. Has anyone used these? What has been your experience?

Nothing formal. Players give me their back story (pre adult story) and I take it from there. For demi-humans they already get their secondary "skills" in the race descriptions. I give the humans something appropriate to their background.

[jdizzy001]

Does the +1 really make a difference? And this is instead of level correct? Because adding level means it is a "skill" granted by your class

[Rigon]

Does the +1 really make a difference? And this is instead of level correct? Because adding level means it is a "skill" granted by your class

Mathematically, +1 is 5%. So it is a 5% difference. Seriously, you could give as much as a +3 for a secondary skill and it shouldn't effect how the game works.

R-

[Arduin]

Does the +1 really make a difference?

A difference in what? How well the PC attached the shoe to the horse?

[jdizzy001]

I suppose I'm fine with the +1. It makes me think that the pc once had a plan to do something else with their life but after beginning training they changed their mind. I guess i was expecting a larger number of skills. Then again there is nothing stopping me from awarding 2 or more secondary skills.

[Rigon]

I've considered using an abbreviated proficiency system with a +1 per proficiency slot taken, but just scrapped it for a completely abstract system.

R-

[Treebore]

I suppose I'm fine with the +1. It makes me think that the pc once had a plan to do something else with their life but after beginning training they changed their mind. I guess i was expecting a larger number of skills. Then again there is nothing stopping me from awarding 2 or more secondary skills.

In C&C characters have all skills. How good they are at it is determined by the attribute being Prime, or not, and if its a Class skill. Regardless, they can attempt to do anything. Just in the case of Class Skills, they don't add level unless its their class to begin with.

Even so, I do find lists do help my players to see what they can do, until it really sinks in they can try to do anything.

Now one thing that I do, is I do recommend that my players do write up a back story indicating what their character has formal education/training in doing. This is because if they don't have such skills written down I will give them the general "untrained" penalty of 6 to their checks. Which at low levels means they will fail a lot at things like Appraisal, Carpentry, Armorer, Weaponsmithing, Blacksmithing, etc... but once the Campaign gets to 6th level and above their over all competency off sets this. Plus I also giver some guidelines on what I will assume their class knows how to do, and what I won't assume.

Still, the VAST majority of the time, the players don't even try to do things outside the purview of their Class, so in comparison, I rarely even have such rolls come up.

[Arduin]

Regardless, they can attempt to do anything. Just in the case of Class Skills, they don't add level unless its their class to begin with.

Actually, the rule is the GM gets to decide what PC can try (if a class skill NOT on it list). The rules guidence is that the CK should NOT allow ANY chance of success. "In general, it is recommended that a Castle Keeper should disallow a character a chance of success in attempting a non-class ability."

[Treebore]

Regardless, they can attempt to do anything. Just in the case of Class Skills, they don't add level unless its their class to begin with.

Actually, the rule is the GM gets to decide what PC can try (if a class skill NOT on it list). The rules guidence is that the CK should NOT allow ANY chance of success. "In general, it is recommended that a Castle Keeper should disallow a character a chance of success in attempting a non-class ability."

You can obviously interpret it that way if you wish. Personally, I prefer to take the full context of that paragraph, as well as the following paragraph, along with the boxed text, to be poorly worded and apply ONLY to when a PC tries to use a non class ability that is another classes ability. Since those are the only examples brought up in any of those paragraphs, and is the precise situation that whole section opens up with.

The 6th printing does make it a little clearer, since it starts off the second paragraph with, "If a CK, for whatever reason, does allow a character to use the class ability of another class, then..."

So again, I fully stand behind my previous post.

[concobar]

If a player explained to me that he had apprenticed as a smith I do not think I would assign a numerical bonus in most situations, I would just allow the player to succeed and daily tasks a smith should be able to do.

[lobocastle]

I use secondary skills in a different manner than suggested in the CKG. Mostly I allow fighters and Bards to have them. I look at the secondary skill as just that; a skill the character has developed but not to their full potential. So the way I work it; is that the character gets to add only half their level to any skill associated with the secondary skill description. I figure that in most cases the character keeps improving the skill over time, just not as rapidly as a complete class skill. I let the player pick the secondary skill because my belief concerning that the skill improves over time assumes that the skill is useful to the character and that the character does not just forget about it, but devotes some non adventuring time to training and using the skill. Sometimes I also give benefits like a fighter takes the secondary skill of blacksmithing and their weapon of specialization is the hammer; I give them a plus 1 bonus to damage with the hammer.

[Arduin]

Regardless, they can attempt to do anything. Just in the case of Class Skills, they don't add level unless its their class to begin with.

Actually, the rule is the GM gets to decide what PC can try (if a class skill NOT on it list). The rules guidence is that the CK should NOT allow ANY chance of success. "In general, it is recommended that a Castle Keeper should disallow a character a chance of success in attempting a non-class ability."

You can obviously interpret it that way if you wish.

I just take it how it was written. I don't interpret it as it is in my native tongue. That in general the CK should disallow. There is nothing else in the paragraph that reverses that. It doesn't advise to do both. Not in the printing I have. Your printing may have different wording.

[alcyone]

"In general" of course, can be read as "usually". Along with the passive "it is recommended", these words both serve to soften and weaken the force of the recommendation itself. Taken along with what we know of Steve, that he does not like to command players to use the rules in any particular way, I'd say Treebore is doing just fine.

But we're not really seriously discussing superficial points of phrasing here, I hope.

Not only that, this is a living game. There's the printed book, there's what we do at our tables and online games, and then there are things that have come out of years of discussion on the board. I don't have a problem with either of your readings of the rules, but don't see any need to declare one or the other unambiguously correct.

[Arduin]

"In general" of course, can be read as "usually".

Correct. Usually not, as opposed to Usually allow". Which is how I too take it.

[Treebore]

Its not "superficial", I am doing it correctly. While I agree previous printings worded it horribly, that sentence I quoted above is in the 6th printing, and pretty much conclusively proves I am right, along with how the two examples only deal with Class abilities being used, not "general skills". Plus the issue was clarified here on the boards, years ago, but I sure as heck am not going to try and find those posts.

Plus, I agree with Concobar, I only require checks when it has significance, such as making an Expert Item. Routine tasks stay in the background.

[Fizz]

"In general" of course, can be read as "usually".

Correct. Usually not, as opposed to Usually allow". Which is how I too take it.

The 6th printing does make it a little clearer, since it starts off the second paragraph with, "If a CK, for whatever reason, does allow a character to use the class ability of another class, then..."

Combining these, i think "in general" refers to the situation. If a fighter tries to pick a lock, he's not allowed- he has no clue how to do it. Now, if that fighter was being told how to do it by his partner rogue who is tied up, then i'd allow the fighter a chance (no level addition of course).

At least that's how i take it.


-Fizz

[Arduin]

Combining these, i think "in general" refers to the situation. If a fighter tries to pick a lock, he's not allowed- he has no clue how to do it. Now, if that fighter was being told how to do it by his partner rogue who is tied up, then i'd allow the fighter a chance (no level addition of course).

At least that's how i take it.


-Fizz

Yup, that's what the guidance is to CK's. (2nd sentence)

[Treebore]

"In general" of course, can be read as "usually".

Correct. Usually not, as opposed to Usually allow". Which is how I too take it.

The 6th printing does make it a little clearer, since it starts off the second paragraph with, "If a CK, for whatever reason, does allow a character to use the class ability of another class, then..."

Combining these, i think "in general" refers to the situation. If a fighter tries to pick a lock, he's not allowed- he has no clue how to do it. Now, if that fighter was being told how to do it by his partner rogue who is tied up, then i'd allow the fighter a chance (no level addition of course).

At least that's how i take it.


-Fizz

When it is a Class Skill, yes, that is how you are welcome to "take it". My point is, this does not apply to every skill possible, only those that belong to a Class. Personally, I see no reason why anyone cannot try to pick a lock, so allow anyone to do so. I just do not allow them to add their level. So when the locks are a low CL, anyone has a decent chance to pick them, and as the locks get more difficult, any chance to pick them disappears for anyone without Picking Locks as a Class skill.

As for all other skills, that do not belong to a "Class", I allow anyone to have them, and add level as well. Just for those who do not add character background explaining why they have those skills, I add 6 to their CL checks to reflect a lack of formal training.

Which is how it is "meant to be" IAW the rules, except the added CL 6 thing, thats my rule. C&C is not meant to have lists of skills for every character. C&C is meant to be a "You can try to do anything" kind of RPG, while remaining simple. So by the book, realism is thrown out the window
a bit more than RPG's that require training for any skill you have. Not that much, though, because back in the day, everyone had to be a bit of a "Jack of all Trades", because you didn't have an Expert just a few blocks down the road. People made their own furniture, built their own homes, made their own clothes, made their own butter, cheese, wines, etc... So I think the way C&C does it, despite poor wording, is actually more reflective of how it really used to be not too long ago. Its not like C&C characters are trying to learn how to design computers, or understand Rocket Technology, or fully understand human Genetics. Except, arguably, Wizard types. So I roll with it.

[Fizz]

My point is, this does not apply to every skill possible, only those that belong to a Class. Personally, I see no reason why anyone cannot try to pick a lock, so allow anyone to do so. I just do not allow them to add their level.

I agree entirely. When i said "that's how i take it", i was referring to how i read the official rule. For me personally, i err on the side of letting the user attempt anything. Very rarely will i say "no" outright- usually for skills that would require specific training.

But at what point does someone attempt the impossible? Is a 20 always automatic success no matter the difficulty? What separates the very difficult from the impossible?

For example, should a clumsy 1st level fighter have a 5% chance of picking the most elaborate, complex, technologically-advanced lock ever devised? I'm not sure...

Note, i'm not judging here- just playing devil's advocate.


-Fizz

[Treebore]

My point is, this does not apply to every skill possible, only those that belong to a Class. Personally, I see no reason why anyone cannot try to pick a lock, so allow anyone to do so. I just do not allow them to add their level.

I agree entirely. When i said "that's how i take it", i was referring to how i read the official rule. For me personally, i err on the side of letting the user attempt anything. Very rarely will i say "no" outright- usually for skills that would require specific training.

But at what point does someone attempt the impossible? Is a 20 always automatic success no matter the difficulty? What separates the very difficult from the impossible?

For example, should a clumsy 1st level fighter have a 5% chance of picking the most elaborate, complex, technologically-advanced lock ever devised? I'm not sure...

Note, i'm not judging here- just playing devil's advocate.


-Fizz

Even the rule book says when the CK thinks something is impossible a roll isn't to be made.

[Captain_K]

To the original question, I think, my PCs like to have a written back story complete with "skills" and things they think they should know how to do based on "growing up". Read and write, swim, ride horses, milk and care for cows, etc.

Siege checks of you can do anything is great, but certain things that is not logical. If I'm a 20th lvl fighter, reading Latin without formal training is pretty darn unlikely, but easy with a bit of training, back story and write up.

Thus we write onto the PC listing "skills" (3d2 + highest modifier) that are definable and outside of classes to simply help with the you should know what your doing in this area at some beginners level or you have never experienced X, Y or Z and can try but don't expect a ballet to be performed on the dance floor at the king's ball by the barbarian.

The short list helps the PCs focus and the CK to come up with a reasonable challenge to the siege check.

I give them no bonus other than basic competency and no big negative and the above noted -6 is a good "you don't know what's you're doing" much like prime vs non-prime.

[Treebore]

To the original question, I think, my PCs like to have a written back story complete with "skills" and things they think they should know how to do based on "growing up". Read and write, swim, ride horses, milk and care for cows, etc.

Siege checks of you can do anything is great, but certain things that is not logical. If I'm a 20th lvl fighter, reading Latin without formal training is pretty darn unlikely, but easy with a bit of training, back story and write up.

Thus we write onto the PC listing "skills" (3d2 + highest modifier) that are definable and outside of classes to simply help with the you should know what your doing in this area at some beginners level or you have never experienced X, Y or Z and can try but don't expect a ballet to be performed on the dance floor at the king's ball by the barbarian.

The short list helps the PCs focus and the CK to come up with a reasonable challenge to the siege check.

I give them no bonus other than basic competency and no big negative and the above noted -6 is a good "you don't know what's you're doing" much like prime vs non-prime.

Yep. Common sense does need to be used, thats for sure. But if its something that is "reasonable" for them to at least have an idea as to how to do, I give them a roll, even if its not written into their characters background. Impossible is impossible, but when its possible, it gets a roll.

[Fizz]

Yep. Common sense does need to be used, thats for sure. But if its something that is "reasonable" for them to at least have an idea as to how to do, I give them a roll, even if its not written into their characters background. Impossible is impossible, but when its possible, it gets a roll.

I agree. No one should be able to lift a mountain, for example. But there is that fuzzy area between the impossible and the highly unlikely.

For example, using our lock picking example, would you let an untrained fighter attempt to pick the most masterfully designed lock ever conceived? And if so does a required roll of 20 (5% chance) make sense?

On one hand, what is physically preventing the character from using some picks and poking around the lock? There is nothing physically preventing him from trying. But comparitively, nothing physically prevents him from walking up to a mountain and pushing it either. Just because you can physically try doesn't mean there should be a chance of success.

On the other hand, one could argue that lock picking is a specialized skill. That unless you know for what you're feeling and understand the inner workings of a lock, it's purely a guessing game. In which case, the odds of manipulating the correct mechanical pieces in the right way would be far less than the 5% chance of rolling a 20. So does this qualify as "impossible" for the untrained, or "possible" because the odds aren't strictly 0?

It's these non-obvious situations where people differ in their approach, i think.


-Fizz

[Arduin]

On the other hand, one could argue that lock picking is a specialized skill. That unless you know for what you're feeling and understand the inner workings of a lock, it's purely a guessing game. In which case, the odds of manipulating the correct mechanical pieces in the right way would be far less than the 5% chance of rolling a 20.

Hence the game designers advice to CK's to NOT allow a change of success, as a general rule.

It is a fine line. For instance, does it take the trained skill of Tracking to follow footsteps in new fallen snow? Probably not. Probably no roll at all in fact. So, in that case, everyone can "track" but, it isn't REALLY Tracking in the sense of the class skill.

[Rigon]

Yep. Common sense does need to be used, thats for sure. But if its something that is "reasonable" for them to at least have an idea as to how to do, I give them a roll, even if its not written into their characters background. Impossible is impossible, but when its possible, it gets a roll.

I agree. No one should be able to lift a mountain, for example. But there is that fuzzy area between the impossible and the highly unlikely.

For example, using our lock picking example, would you let an untrained fighter attempt to pick the most masterfully designed lock ever conceived? And if so does a required roll of 20 (5% chance) make sense?

On one hand, what is physically preventing the character from using some picks and poking around the lock? There is nothing physically preventing him from trying. But comparitively, nothing physically prevents him from walking up to a mountain and pushing it either. Just because you can physically try doesn't mean there should be a chance of success.

On the other hand, one could argue that lock picking is a specialized skill. That unless you know for what you're feeling and understand the inner workings of a lock, it's purely a guessing game. In which case, the odds of manipulating the correct mechanical pieces in the right way would be far less than the 5% chance of rolling a 20. So does this qualify as "impossible" for the untrained, or "possible" because the odds aren't strictly 0?

It's these non-obvious situations where people differ in their approach, i think.


-Fizz

We have to remember that the Challenge Class of a thing is equal to its Challenge Base (12/18) plus its Challenge Level. I would allow a fighter to try to pick the lock. However, even a simple lock's Challenge Level is larger if an untrained character tries to pick it. For example:
Simple lock picked by rogue, CL of 2
Simple lock picked by fighter, CL of 4

R-

[Treebore]

Yep. Common sense does need to be used, thats for sure. But if its something that is "reasonable" for them to at least have an idea as to how to do, I give them a roll, even if its not written into their characters background. Impossible is impossible, but when its possible, it gets a roll.

I agree. No one should be able to lift a mountain, for example. But there is that fuzzy area between the impossible and the highly unlikely.

For example, using our lock picking example, would you let an untrained fighter attempt to pick the most masterfully designed lock ever conceived? And if so does a required roll of 20 (5% chance) make sense?

On one hand, what is physically preventing the character from using some picks and poking around the lock? There is nothing physically preventing him from trying. But comparitively, nothing physically prevents him from walking up to a mountain and pushing it either. Just because you can physically try doesn't mean there should be a chance of success.

On the other hand, one could argue that lock picking is a specialized skill. That unless you know for what you're feeling and understand the inner workings of a lock, it's purely a guessing game. In which case, the odds of manipulating the correct mechanical pieces in the right way would be far less than the 5% chance of rolling a 20. So does this qualify as "impossible" for the untrained, or "possible" because the odds aren't strictly 0?

It's these non-obvious situations where people differ in their approach, i think.


-Fizz

Yes, impossible is impossible. Like in your example of a "Masterful Lock", thats likely to be a CL 10 or higher. A Fighter would be very unlikely to succeed on such a try. Basically, they would HAVE to get lucky and roll a Nat 20, and that would only work if they were a Dex Prime Fighter and had a natural DEX modifier of +2, to get that needed check of 22. A non Dex Prime Fighter would have no chance at all, its simply "impossible" for them to pick such a lock. A Thief, on the other hand, would have a substantially better chance, since they add level, because they KNOW what they are doing, so know the lock picking techniques that would give them the best chance to pick such a lock. Even so, even a 10th level Thief, with DEX Prime, would still have a substantial chance of failing to pick such a lock. Anywhere from a 45 to 60% chance of failure, dependent upon their DEX modifier being +1 to +3. Other things can modify that, of course, such as Expert Lock Pick set, or the party Bard Exalting them.

[serleran]

A +1 bonus to a single skill. I always viewed it as a characters background. Meaning, they started training as x, hence the +1 bonus, but decided to go adventuring instead. Has anyone used these? What has been your experience?

I prefer this:

Backgrounds – All characters in The Arcanum come from somewhere, being a person within the world before taking to the adventuring life, or perhaps, had it thrust upon them. This background will provide an idea about what and who the character knows for a deeper sense of verisimilitude. Contacts are simply NPCs that character has a minor friendship with, but not someone that can be abused; as there are usually several options listed, the Castle Keeper should determine a number based on a 1d4+1 roll, further modified by the character’s Charisma modifier. Lastly, a background also grants a few skills (this will be covered later) or a choice of skills befitting that lifestyle. These backgrounds are not intended to be complete, only act as a springboard of possibilities. If the Castle Keeper wants to add more skill selections, that is more than acceptable.

Outcast: A character of this type was, or still is, associated with the lowliest of society such as beggars and criminals, perhaps even enemies of the state, slaves, slavers, or the like.
Contacts – black market merchant, thief, assassin, fence, corrupt petty official, city guard, cultist, etc
Skills – Choice of two from streetwise, street fighting, thieves’ cant, gambling, or drinking

Barbarian: The character lived or was a member of a barbaric tribe or clan, being somewhat primitive and uncultured. If desired, the Castle Keeper can modify available skills to reflect the specific terrain type of the character’s homeland.
Contacts – tribal member, barbarian, shaman, druid, scout, merchant trader, trapper, hunter, etc
Skills – Choice of two from woodcraft, hunting/fishing/trapping, barter, swimming, sign language, or riding

Villager: This background implies the character developed in a small village, one not so isolated as to be self-contained necessarily, but one that was likely self-sufficient; the type of village, as far as the major imports and exports, may modify the skills available through the background, but such would need to be approved by the Castle Keeper.
Contacts – local lord (if applicable), knight, local villager, peddler, merchant, tradesman, craftsman, etc
Skills – Choice of two from haggle, language, basic seamanship, barter, swimming, riding, and trade skill

City Dweller: The character hails from a large urban environment, and has been exposed to many things but may therefore also be biased toward, or against, it. The type of city, such as capitol or sea port will need to be decided by the Castle Keeper, and this choice may modify the other aspects of the background, notably contacts.
Contacts – any character class, guild member, merchant, minor noble, pirate, streetwalker, etc
Skills – Choice of two from haggle, streetwise, drinking, gambling, reading/writing, trade skill and additional language

Aristocrat: A character with this background is a form of noble and likely expects to be treated as superior to “lower men.” They always begin with an additional +40% wealth and can read/write any known spoken language. However, such a character cannot start play having the streetwise, street fighting, or any wood lore (except, perhaps, hunting) skill.
Contacts – aristocrat, clergy, artisan, political figure, well-known bard, etc; they should have few, if any, contacts with those of low standing
Skills – Choose two from diplomacy, additional language, weapon training, art or music

For the full conversion, see: This Link

[Mark Hall]

I use secondary skills as more "mundane class abilities", and ignore the +1, instead giving people their level.