Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 30 of 30
  1. #21
    Gary V. Foss
    Guest

    Proficiencies - the hidden (?)

    Simon Graindorge wrote:

    > Each proficiency would have a 'basic chance of success'. There would be two
    > ways of doing this. Firstly, you could (for the sake of simplicity) say
    > that everything has a base difiiculty of, say, 13 (on d20). Or choose
    > another number. Alternatively, you could choose a different base number,
    > depending on how difficult (or easy) the skill is. This could be based on
    > the 'modifier' which is listed with each ability. You could also combine
    > the two ideas, use the base chance, and then apply the modifier to find the
    > 'final base chance' for that skill. You could also use a kind of category
    > type system, as follows for example:
    >
    > Category Base Chance (on d20)
    > Routine 17
    > Easy 14
    > Normal 12
    > Hard 9
    > V. Hard 5
    > Impossible 3
    >
    > This table would then determine the base chance of success for a particular
    > skill. Each skill is then modified by the particular ability associated
    > with it (as described with the proficiency). Again, you could use a tabular
    > form to make things easy, like the following:
    >
    > Ability Score Modifier
    > 5-8 -1
    > 9-12 0
    > 13-15 +1
    > 16-17 +2
    > 18+ +3
    >
    > This way each skill would have a single base success chance which is unique
    > to each character. With this system (again, the numbers were kinda made up
    > on the spot, so they may need to be modified), a character with an ability
    > score of 18+ would still have a very difficult time doing something which
    > is impossible (success chance course, various situation-based modifiers may still be applied on top of
    > this by the DM :-). As per usual, extra proficiency slots could be spent to
    > improve the base success roll.

    I use a kind of obverted version of this method. To me, the problem with
    non-weapon proficiencies is that they never improve the way THAC0 does as levels
    increase. The only way players can improve on their skills is to pump more
    proficiency slots (or character points if you use S&P) into them. This methods
    is pretty incompatable with the whole experience level concept, which is the
    basis of AD&D characters.

    To fix this problem I use the following method to determine skill ratings.
    Ability score+character level/2. So a 4th level fighter with a 16 strength and
    the Swimming proficiency would have a 16+4/2 or 10 base chance of success.
    Players can choose which ability score to use for NWPs that have more than one
    ability listed in the S&P book.

    I like your chart that differentiates between the difficulty of various tasks.
    I'm going to use this, but changed to reflect the above method of determining
    skill rating:

    Routine +6
    Easy +3
    Normal +0
    Hard -3
    V. Hard -6
    Impossible -9

    This works out pretty well for me. It keeps the players happy, because their
    skill increase along with their experience.

    - -Gary

  2. #22
    Jan Arnoldus
    Guest

    Proficiencies - the hidden (?)

    Simon Graindorge wrote:

    > Each proficiency would have a 'basic chance of success'. There would be two
    > ways of doing this. Firstly, you could (for the sake of simplicity) say
    > that everything has a base difiiculty of, say, 13 (on d20). Or choose
    > another number. Alternatively, you could choose a different base number,
    > depending on how difficult (or easy) the skill is. This could be based on
    > the 'modifier' which is listed with each ability. You could also combine
    > the two ideas, use the base chance, and then apply the modifier to find the
    > 'final base chance' for that skill. You could also use a kind of category
    > type system, as follows for example:
    >
    > Category Base Chance (on d20)
    > Routine 17
    > Easy 14
    > Normal 12
    > Hard 9
    > V. Hard 5
    > Impossible 3
    >
    > This table would then determine the base chance of success for a particular
    > skill. Each skill is then modified by the particular ability associated
    > with it (as described with the proficiency). Again, you could use a tabular
    > form to make things easy, like the following:
    >
    > Ability Score Modifier
    > 5-8 -1
    > 9-12 0
    > 13-15 +1
    > 16-17 +2
    > 18+ +3
    >>
    > This way each skill would have a single base success chance which is unique
    > to each character. With this system (again, the numbers were kinda made up
    > on the spot, so they may need to be modified), a character with an ability
    > score of 18+ would still have a very difficult time doing something which
    > is impossible (success chance course, various situation-based modifiers may still be applied on top of
    > this by the DM :-). As per usual, extra proficiency slots could be spent to
    > improve the base success roll.


    Isn't all this "old news", if I remember the idea of modifiers based on the
    difficulty of the task is stated in the DMG, and the modifier based on the
    ability score is introduced in Skill & Powers. S & P also groups
    proficiencies together in the kit section, giving a reduction in cost for
    proficiencies wich belong in the kit.
    Furthermore it allows players to enhance their succesroll as they advance in
    level by putting extra cp's in a proficiency.

    It is nice to see people all excited about this but it looks to me like
    reinventing the wheel. I hope I'm not offending to many people by saying this.
    (Please flame me privately and not on the list)

    Just my 2CP (stingy guilder)

    Jan Arnoldus

  3. #23
    prtr02@scorpion.nspco.co
    Guest

    Proficiencies - the hidden (?)

    It was written:

    - ----- Begin Included Message -----

    > Isn't all this "old news", if I remember the idea of modifiers based on the
    > difficulty of the task is stated in the DMG, and the modifier based on the
    > ability score is introduced in Skill & Powers. S & P also groups
    > proficiencies together in the kit section, giving a reduction in cost for
    > proficiencies wich belong in the kit.
    > Furthermore it allows players to enhance their succesroll as they advance in
    > level by putting extra cp's in a proficiency.
    >
    > It is nice to see people all excited about this but it looks to me like
    > reinventing the wheel. I hope I'm not offending to many people by saying this.
    > (Please flame me privately and not on the list)

    Well, I hope I'm not offending you by responding on the list but...

    I don't think either the DMG or the S&P handling of NWPs are adequate. First,
    having to use more CP or spend additonal proficiency slots in order to increase a
    character's ability in a NWP is a strange reversal of the experience level basis
    of AD&D characters.

    Second, the base chances of success that are given in S&P don't seem to make much
    sense to me. I can't see the rhyme or reason in them. Oh, that doesn't mean
    there isn't some sort of rhyme and reason there, of course. It just means I can't
    find it. So coming up with a more logical system seems like a pretty good idea to
    me.
    - ----- End Included Message -----

    I use S&P (with Randaxian modification of course :)) almost exclusively and find the
    proficiencies therein adequate to the task. The PHB system based on stats stinks:
    "I've got an 18 dex, so I'm a master painter and juggler and rider when I'm not
    picking pockets." As pointed out in previous posts, the prof. score starts low, and if
    the PC desires, the CPs acquired for level advancement can be spent to improve the NWP.

    Oft overlooked is the fact that you can TRAIN in NWP in BR. If you want become good
    at a NWP, use the Character actions and TRAIN to get better.

    One of my major gripes about AD&D is it's dependence on stats/luck during initial
    character creation. Any mechanism that reduces the emphasis on stats usually finds
    favor with me.

    Randax

  4. #24
    James Ruhland
    Guest

    Proficiencies - the hidden (?)

    >
    > Oft overlooked is the fact that you can TRAIN in NWP in BR. If you want
    become good
    > at a NWP, use the Character actions and TRAIN to get better.
    >
    True; but how often does any Regent have a month (Action) to spend just to
    get +1 to a Proficiency? Usually, even if they might want to live such a
    life of contemplative leasure, the DM (if he's doing his job) will make
    sure that something more serious usually comes up.
    The below, however, I am more and more finding myself in some agreement
    with. I donno, though; proposals have been forwarded that 3rd Edition AD&D
    move to a more "skill" based system, a la the old Runequest family of games
    (and Traveller et al), where you get a certain ammount of points or
    whatever at the start, and can improve everything with experience. However,
    I'm still reluctant; such a game just wouldn't be AD&D any longer (ok, ok;
    I admit it, I'm a reactionary conservative, not given to supporting "Great
    Leaps Forward". . .but then, considering the ammount of suffering & death
    that occured the last time someone tried that, I think I'll stay a
    reactionary.)

    > One of my major gripes about AD&D is it's dependence on stats/luck during
    initial
    > character creation. Any mechanism that reduces the emphasis on stats
    usually finds
    > favor with me.
    >
    > Randax
    >> To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the
    line
    > 'unsubscribe birthright' as the body of the message.

  5. #25
    Gabriel Eggers
    Guest

    Proficiencies - the hidden (?)

    I think perhaps you could have an expirience progression system for
    proficiences that is seperate from the normal level experience points.
    Awarding different amounts of points for different accomplishments
    related to the proficiency or just for using it alot. A sliding scale
    which makes early progression somewhat faster and later progression
    progressively shorter. What do you think?
    - -Sandsinger, "If that's food for thought, I'm not eating it!"

    __________________________________________________ ____
    Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

  6. #26
    Gary V. Foss
    Guest

    Proficiencies - the hidden (?)

    Gabriel Eggers wrote:

    > I think perhaps you could have an expirience progression system for
    > proficiences that is seperate from the normal level experience points.
    > Awarding different amounts of points for different accomplishments
    > related to the proficiency or just for using it alot. A sliding scale
    > which makes early progression somewhat faster and later progression
    > progressively shorter. What do you think?
    > -Sandsinger, "If that's food for thought, I'm not eating it!"

    This is one way to go. Doens't Call of Cthulu do something like that? From a
    DM standpoint, though, I think it would pretty quickly turn into an accounting
    nightmare.

    - -Gary

  7. #27
    Kyle Foster
    Guest

    Proficiencies - the hidden (?)

    I don't remember of Call of Cuthlu handled profs. that way and every
    thing in that game becomes a nightmare. R. Talsorian's Mekton and
    Fusion games as well as CyberPunk handle skills as seperate from general
    expreince. You use a skill and you get awarded points based on
    frequency of use, how well you use it, how crativly you role played it
    (meaning did you have a plan or did you just say let me roll my fast
    talk). It isn't as hard to keep up with as you might think, you do have
    to do experince for skills at the end of every game session or it would
    be a nightmare. I had never thought of applying a simlar method to AD&D
    profs and skills before. Some sort of experince to +1 would have to be
    figured out and it would need to get progressivly harder after a certain
    point, but other then those to things I don't see why it couldn't work.

    Kyle
    - --
    "I drank WHAT?"- Socrates

  8. #28
    Neil Barnes
    Guest

    Proficiencies - the hidden (?)

    On Wed, 1 Apr 1998, Gary V. Foss wrote:
    > Gabriel Eggers wrote:
    > > I think perhaps you could have an expirience progression system for
    > > proficiences that is seperate from the normal level experience points.
    > > Awarding different amounts of points for different accomplishments
    > > related to the proficiency or just for using it alot. A sliding scale
    > > which makes early progression somewhat faster and later progression
    > > progressively shorter. What do you think?
    >
    > This is one way to go. Doens't Call of Cthulu do something like that? From a
    > DM standpoint, though, I think it would pretty quickly turn into an accounting
    > nightmare.

    It sounds more like the Ars Magica system - each skill is awarded an
    experience point for each session in which it's used. It takes a number
    of exp equal to the current level +1 to increase the skill by a level.
    It's not actually a huge amount of notekeeping - each skill has two
    numbers - the current level and the number of exp in that skill.

    I've been thinking of a proficiency system in which skills are broken
    down into ranks. If you've got a skill at a particular Rank, all tasks
    with a difficulty of that rank or less are automatically succeeded at -
    eg. a skilled circus guy can tightrope walk with pretty much no chance
    of failure. To accomplish a task more difficult than your skill level
    you roll - every successful ability roll increases your effective skill
    level by one, and you can keep on rolling until you hit the desired
    level, or fail, although your chance of success goes down by two per
    roll.

    There are some flaws with the system, but it's worked out quite well
    when we'veused it in play. The biggest disadvantage is that DMs have a
    habit of setting difficulty levels at 'slightly higher than player skill
    score' levels.

    neil

  9. #29
    nick yates
    Guest

    Proficiencies - the hidden (?)

    At 15:22 01/04/98 -0800, you wrote:
    >Gabriel Eggers wrote:
    >
    >> I think perhaps you could have an expirience progression system for
    >> proficiences that is seperate from the normal level experience points.
    >> Awarding different amounts of points for different accomplishments
    >> related to the proficiency or just for using it alot. A sliding scale
    >> which makes early progression somewhat faster and later progression
    >> progressively shorter. What do you think?
    >> -Sandsinger, "If that's food for thought, I'm not eating it!"
    >
    >This is one way to go. Doens't Call of Cthulu do something like that?
    From a
    >DM standpoint, though, I think it would pretty quickly turn into an
    accounting
    >nightmare.
    >
    >-Gary

    The Call of Cthulhu system uses percentages and initially you get a
    certain amount of points to spend on abilities. They come from two areas,
    firstly occupational skills and secondly personal interest skills. Lots of
    skills have base percentages for all characters, like first aid. When you
    roll 20% or less of the score you need, call it a critical if you want, you
    check the skill and then at the end of the session the DM rolls a D100. If
    he rolls less than the skill's current percentage it ges up by D10 points.

    In my opinion this is far better than the AD&D system, as you increase the
    skills you use, practice makes perfect. In AD&D you can increase or start
    any proficiency, any time, assuming you don't use the training rules and
    like encumbrance who the hell does?

    You could convert this to AD&D, I'll have a go at it with my friend who
    runs our CoC campaign. Every character has a small chance of succeeding at
    a particular skill by rolling 0-5 on a D100, plus it adds a bit to the
    game. Well IMO anyway, I also liked Simon Graindorge's system, kind of
    like Star Wars but in reverse. thats all folks

    Nick

  10. #30
    Gabriel Eggers
    Guest

    Proficiencies - the hidden (?)

    This is one way to go. Doens't Call of Cthulu do something like that?
    From a
    DM standpoint, though, I think it would pretty quickly turn into an
    accounting
    nightmare.

    - -Gary

    With a system like this you could have your players keep track of their
    expirence in each ability, that is if they can be trusted with the
    responsibilty. I don't see Munchkins wanting to use a system like this
    so it shouldn't be much of a problem and being exactly acurate wouldn't
    be necessary, estimations are good enough.

    - -Sandsinger, "If that's food for thought, I'm not eating it!"

    __________________________________________________ ____
    Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. The Hidden Grove
    By Sorontar in forum Main
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-20-2009, 04:26 AM
  2. Hidden archive top
    By Arjan in forum Template
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-23-2008, 09:27 PM
  3. Old Nonweapon Proficiencies
    By ConjurerDragon in forum The Royal Library
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 10-03-2002, 12:07 AM
  4. Weapon Proficiencies
    By Arch-Sorcerer Gargamel in forum The Royal Library
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 09-05-2002, 05:17 PM
  5. Proficiencies - the hidden (?) extr
    By KirbyRanma in forum MPGN Mailinglist archive 1996-1999
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-26-1998, 09:34 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
BIRTHRIGHT, DUNGEONS & DRAGONS, D&D, the BIRTHRIGHT logo, and the D&D logo are trademarks owned by Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and are used by permission. ©2002-2010 Wizards of the Coast, Inc.