Various Skills

Dagoth Durr wrote:Survival has a lot of potential applications. How specific and realistic do we want to make things? Should it affect the ability to hunt? Find food or water? Build improvised shelters? Start fires?

Another more gamey idea: survival could provide a bonus to stealth when in wild environments maybe?

I suppose we could have survival give a level/10 bonus to stealth when in the wilds. How does that sound? Too little? Perhaps it could add the ability to track enemies as well, perhaps as a perk.

My big thing is since we are trying to set up basic rules, we are going to have trouble quantify the other uses of the survival skill. Some things like finding food and water seem like things that need to be left up to the DM to decide based on the situation. As much as I hate leaving to many things up to the DM (seems lazy), I don't see much other way to do it.

Any ideas?

Level/10 sounds good to me.

Seeing as this is an iron age setting I think most people can probably be expected to understand the fundaments of finding food unless they're really rich nobles that have never left their palaces. Maybe only make that kind of survival use necessary in very extreme regions like the Ashlands or the Alik'r Desert in Hammerfell?

I like the tracking idea.

But how would scavenging food work? Would it be done in a similar fashion to finding ingrediants for Alchemy, you harvest it from the area and see what can be scrounged up? I suppose we can give each different area a base difficulty in finding food and such, but stills seems tricky.

I think if you're in the Ascadian Isles it should just be assumed you can find food. Just put in the skill checks for truly inhospitable areas.

Otherwise, yeah, it could be handled the same way as finding ingredients. Maybe just up the difficulty a bit.

And of course if you don't want to do the checks I suppose you could buy a pack guar and load it up with rations.

Alternatively we can just give up the whole thing as an unnecessary level of realism.

Well, I most certainly like the idea of needing food and water and supplies and such. But I don't think we are to that point yet. Perhaps we should leave off the ability of fatigue to calculate into that until after we have ironed other things out? We haven't even discussed how food and water will be handled, so why bother discussing how you get it?

That said, if you ever get any ideas for this sort of thing, don't hesitate to post them. Afterall, no one had started the different thievery arts before I decided the forum was slowing down and crapped out alotta formula for how things would work.

How about athletics and acrobatics? How are those going to be handled and applied?

Perhaps athletics could provide a bonus to all fatigue rolls, making you harder to tire out? Level/10 again for consistency's sake?

Acrobatics seems like a mostly DM fiat thing.

I'll leave the survival stuff for awhile and see if I can come up with any ideas.

One use for medical that I can't believe I didn't think of earlier. Diagnosing and treating disease. Whether you can tell what disease you have is based on your medical skill. This could go along with repairing wounds and long term damage you may sustain.

That makes sense, especially given how prevalent and dangerous disease is in Morrowind.

I'd say for tame areas, Survival lets you find food, water, and possibly shelter for free instead of spending valuable septims on a leaky room in an inn full of shifty, thieving khajit and dirty n'wah. Err... I'm not a racist!

I just had an idea.

Perhaps hand to hand should be tested vs. the opponents hand to hand instead of the conventional method? That way a big burly Nord fighter could still beat someone to death without being a martial arts master.

Of course if he fought someone who really specialized in hand to hand combat, it'd be like some random mobster fighting Batman.

Dagoth Durr wrote:I just had an idea.

Perhaps hand to hand should be tested vs. the opponents hand to hand instead of the conventional method? That way a big burly Nord fighter could still beat someone to death without being a martial arts master.

Of course if he fought someone who really specialized in hand to hand combat, it'd be like some random mobster fighting Batman.

I love this idea. I hope it's not just because of your fuckwin analogy at the end.

A thought on how to deal with leveling skills:

To increase a skill, you need to accrue a number of successful uses of that skill equal to the 10% of its current value. So if your Long Blades skill is 49, you'd need to use it 4 times to increase it to 50. You can never increase your skill by more than 1 per game session unless the Scrollkeeper says otherwise. That way you don't level it up every time you see combat, and your progress naturally slows a bit when you start getting really good.

I think increasing it to maybe 2 max is best. 3 for particularly epic sessions (say you're about to storm the Clockwork City, I think that benefits more character progression due to it being a MAJOR story point as opposed to HAVE YOU SEEN MY RING?!?1)

Saint Jiub wrote:

Dagoth Durr wrote:I just had an idea.

Perhaps hand to hand should be tested vs. the opponents hand to hand instead of the conventional method? That way a big burly Nord fighter could still beat someone to death without being a martial arts master.

Of course if he fought someone who really specialized in hand to hand combat, it'd be like some random mobster fighting Batman.

I love this idea. I hope it's not just because of your fuckwin analogy at the end.

If we go by my attack formula, equipped weapon and shield skill are already factored in. Against someone who has no shield or weapon or armor, you are effectively rolling against his unarmed and hand to hand skills.

I've been thinking about skills just now, because apparently I have nothing better to do. Anyway, I wast thinking about Acrobatics and what it includes. Jumping, fine. Contortion, rope walking, the circus acrobat shtick. But then, of all that, only jumping has anything to do with STR; everything else is straight down the AGI lane. Also, combat skills. Why is being strong more important for a swordsman than being precise? Magic schools are a bit easier to explain, their tied attribute score being arbitrary. Still, things like Illusion relying on CHA is borderline fishy. Then there's the character generation part, where people will cherry-pick skills to be able to raise all the important attributes.

Gentlemen, let us dissociate skills and attributes.

Oh, some ties will have to remain, for the sake of attribute increase. But, take for example, this skill check - jumping over a maze of floor fans in a dwemer trap. It's Acrobatics, that's certain, but the attributes involved will be AGI, SPD and INT, not STR. So skill use would be a skill+attributes necessary against skill DC plus attribute DCs necessary. If you want to pick a lock, Lockpick+INT. If you want to disable a lock before the horny naked dremora catches you: Lokcpick+INT+SPD (and anal circumference, just in case). Saying a good lie is Speechcraft, but INT is going to help as much as CHA. The number you're rolling under should reflect everything involved, and you should involve everything that matters.

As for leveling - mark attributes used as well as skills used. Raise attributes separately. You can be stronger without practicing warfare, or smarter without entering your home with a hairpin. And you can be a master swordsman without being able to punch time backward, and you can be a sly speaker without having charisma through the roof. Some situations will always call for certain attributes (melee combat will always count STR, AGI and SPD, and casting could rely on WP and either INT or CHA) but there will be exceptions, and I say we make them not be exceptions by removing the arbitrary rules that make them exceptions. All attributes are welcome. Yes, even you, END. Poor, ugly END, who had never known love. Come give Uncle Crassius a kiss...

That could work. I must take issue with one part of your post though:

Endurance never gets any love? Endurance was either the first or the second attribute to reach 100 no matter what type of character I played. The hp/level bonus was absolutely indispensable in the time between "I Am A New Character" and "I Have Broken the Game."

On a more serious note, if we don't tag an attribute to a skill, but we do want "skill + attribute" we will have to recalculate the skill total every single time. Really, most rolls aren't even "Attribute + skill." They're just "Skill" and then the attribute modifies what happens once you're successful. That's because if we do attribute + skill, then even an expert gymnast can be humbled by a swirly pattern on the floor, and even a mediocre liar can lie well if he's intelligent enough. It makes it very tough to set difficulties because a truly hard puzzle has to be hard enough to flummox a character with a good stat AND a good skill, which puts it well out of reach of "dumb luck," and even nigh-impossible to that poor sucker who just had his int drained by a nasty spell. I really want to avoid any mechanic in which one bad effect can turn a dungeon from difficult to impossible. It would also change our Percentile system to a 2-200 system. Seems to me it's easier to stick with rolls primarily being skill-only (and maybe the Attribute Bonus, but there's been some talk of getting rid of that mechanic, so we'll see).

I'm not saying that a smart person shouldn't be able to outfox a dumb one even though his Personality is garbage. In a select number of cases, that's acceptable (say, a Dwemer scholar talking out of his ass to a bunch of backwoods Argonians) but I'd say those should be ad-hoc bonuses rather than an inherent part of the system. No sense trying to spell out what justifies changing a skill from using one attribute to using another.

Is there really a problem with a person cherry-picking his skills to most effectively boost his attributes? Sure, that guy can take all five Strength skills as primaries and all five Endurance skills as secondaries, but then what happens to his Speed? What happens to his Willpower? Not to mention, he's probably just loaded himself up with six or seven combat skills, none of which will get a synergy bonus because they tend to be in similar skill groupings. He's gonna have a tough time raising non-Str/End attributes at all without an early-game boost. And the guy who balances his skills out so that each attribute gets some love, or so that he can maximize his synergy? That guy will be well-rounded, but it will take him a while to max out any of his attributes. The character growth will balance itself out.

Ah, I do like building text wall but I don't like climbing those of other people.

Saint Jiub wrote:
On a more serious note, if we don't tag an attribute to a skill, but we do want "skill + attribute" we will have to recalculate the skill total every single time.

Not exactly a nightmare. Also, as I said, the few regularly used (combat and casting) all use the same components for the formula, so you could just write them down already calculated. The others are basic addition, a normal person could do that before... well before the calculators were invented. Anyway, it's not going to be hard or slow unless your brain is having a really bad day.

Really, most rolls aren't even "Attribute + skill." They're just "Skill" and then the attribute modifies what happens once you're successful.

I don't know why. A skill makes you better at something than someone who just relies on an attribute. That dwemer scholar might be smart, but someone who is both smart and an experienced orator is going to lie him out of his mecha pants. Perhaps we should call checks "attribute checks", and the skill just helps you along. Using the skill in a vacuum, completely disregarding your attributes, makes no sense to me. Even in goddamn deendee you had some benefit of having good stats. And we're not using "ability bonuses" because the whole attribute is already in the equation.

If it isn't clear enough (I'm too much of a mess to see), I'm trying to make every single calculation in the game run off the formula I posted in the weapons thread. On your side, skills and attributes, on the other side, skill and attributes, or just a number you're trying to deal with. Fighting, magic, and skill challenges, everything is to follow the same format. For the sake of simplicity, and for the sake of those who don't give a clown's hide about system mastery - one single device with slots for "good", "bad" and a big red button.

That's because if we do attribute + skill, then even an expert gymnast can be humbled by a swirly pattern on the floor, and even a mediocre liar can lie well if he's intelligent enough. It makes it very tough to set difficulties because a truly hard puzzle has to be hard enough to flummox a character with a good stat AND a good skill, which puts it well out of reach of "dumb luck," and even nigh-impossible to that poor sucker who just had his int drained by a nasty spell. I really want to avoid any mechanic in which one bad effect can turn a dungeon from difficult to impossible. It would also change our Percentile system to a 2-200 system. Seems to me it's easier to stick with rolls primarily being skill-only (and maybe the Attribute Bonus, but there's been some talk of getting rid of that mechanic, so we'll see).

I'm not saying that a smart person shouldn't be able to outfox a dumb one even though his Personality is garbage. In a select number of cases, that's acceptable (say, a Dwemer scholar talking out of his ass to a bunch of backwoods Argonians) but I'd say those should be ad-hoc bonuses rather than an inherent part of the system. No sense trying to spell out what justifies changing a skill from using one attribute to using another.

I don't understand this. First, the game master sets challenge ratings. If the check is too difficult for you, you're likely to fail. If the check is a guaranteed success, then you're likely to pass. The check takes into account everything on your side of the equation. The issue of making it balanced is completely the same as with a simple skill roll under, because it looks and works completely the same, only with bigger numbers. If you can't win it by rolling a single d%, it's exactly the same issue as with what I'm proposing - you need to be stronger, or faster, or smarter, or more skillful, or all of the above. Or the GM flunked, or doesn't want you to pass. Why would we need 2d%? It's... I don't know. I can't argue because I can't see the issue. I'm not changing *anything* about how skill checks work in practice, I'm just removing arbitrary attribute linkage and adding numbers on both sides of the equation... let's try and come up with another example.

Say that our dwemer wakes up one day and decides he's going to lie to a bosmer. He goes out, find a bosmer, rolls the skill (let's say the difficulty of lying to a bosmer to be 7, his speechcraft, and the dwemer's speechcraft is 37, 37-7=30). That's a bare bones skill check, the kind you are proposing. In vanilla game, the dwemer and the bosmer would get to add their personality, so (37+70, classy dwemer)-(7+30, backwater forester bosmer who showers once a week). That's 107-37=70. Due to his better personality, the dwemer gets to dominate bosmer's ass. Now let's do what I'm proposing. The dwemer is charismatic, skilled AND intelligent, 37+70+63. The bosmer is as blunt as his club, 30+7+30. That's 170-67=103, and the dwemer can't possibly fail. However, let's say that the bosmer runs off to his friend crying about the mean Mesopotamian dwarf making fun of him. The friend just so happens to be a well-schooled bosmer noble who secretly plays with conjuration. His speechcraft is whopping 74, his scheming intelligence is 76 and he's so charismatic that half of his summons stay for tea and violent buttsecks, 100. That's 250. He goes out, probably riding piggy-back on a daedroth, and finds the dwemer, and tells him his refrigerator is running. 250-170=80, and the dwemer is badly outclassed and very likely to be blown out of the water. Let's say he is, and he runs home to check on his refrigerator. His door is guarded by a steam centurion that has to be lied to in order to move. This is a fixed check the GM made for the dwemer's mom, who is an accomplished orator, and she can easily beat it, 220. Our dwemer, however, isn't as good as her, and has to roll under 50 to pass. These are examples of a stupidly easy check, a moderately hard check, and a balanced coin toss check. They seem fine to me. It is perfectly acceptable for someone who is awesome at something to beat someone who is terrible at it, I'm just using more factors to determine awesome and terrible. Combat equation works seamlessly on the same principle, why wouldn't everything else?

Is there really a problem with a person cherry-picking his skills to most effectively boost his attributes? Sure, that guy can take all five Strength skills as primaries and all five Endurance skills as secondaries, but then what happens to his Speed? What happens to his Willpower? Not to mention, he's probably just loaded himself up with six or seven combat skills, none of which will get a synergy bonus because they tend to be in similar skill groupings. He's gonna have a tough time raising non-Str/End attributes at all without an early-game boost. And the guy who balances his skills out so that each attribute gets some love, or so that he can maximize his synergy? That guy will be well-rounded, but it will take him a while to max out any of his attributes. The character growth will balance itself out.

I was trying to say that it is stupid that a player has to select skills that he doesn't want to use in order to increase an attribute. Say that someone wants to play a fast, agile weapon master. Well, he can go flak himself because bow is the only weapon tied to agility. Even though agility is as important as strength, or speed, or endurance. In fact, in the game it was more important than any of them, because you literally added agility to everything.

Someone who fights will use agility and strength and speed (the combat equation), why would he be forced to only increase strength? Wearing heavy armor is tiresome, but also encumbering, why doesn't it help you get stronger? Why can't you become more precise by picking a hundred locks? Why wouldn't you get faster after running for years?

I was trying to... well, let's put it this way - I am tying attributes to checks, not to skills. When you try a check, you use a skill and one or more attributes. You don't use a skill and its tied attribute, you use a skill, AND appropriate attributes, as separate entities. Beating (or failing, whatever) that check lets you tag both the skill and the attributes used, because you used all of them, without implied or second-hand relations. Then, you choose on what your character primarily relied and raise that attribute. Nothing is forcing you to chose one over the other: as long as it was part of the check, you used it and can increase it. It changes nothing in how we do things, it only removes arbitrary limitations that might irk some people and increases freedom in creation and growth of your character.