At what point does a game have too few skills and too many skills?

I prefer the method used in games like Unknown armies, where players can design their own skills.

>>53201622
>If the aim of the game is to give you the most options, what's the least amount of skills required to cover everything but not so many that it becomes difficult to cover?
Depends on the game. Are you designing a granular and generic system? Include all of the skills, perhaps too many, like GURPS does, and then include the option for drastically reducing the number of skills with Wildcard skills.

Are you making a specific game with a theme in mind? A skill list tailored to that game's themes with the granularity you want. There are important differences between Scholar!, History, and History (20th-century America).

The way I look at it is, if the game doesn't have any mechanic for substituting one skill for another or ensuring that related groups of skills grow together to some degree, then it had better have a short and broad skill list. If your skills are too numerous and too specific you're going to end up with a lot of lopsided characters, like the greatest fencer in the world who somehow can't throw a punch to save his life, or a professional dancer with terrible balance.

In this situation I think you want about a dozen skills at most - Fate Core or D&D 4e are good examples. But if you go this route then you probably want a separate mechanism to indicate what proficiencies you have for those really specialised skills, e.g. you might have great Craft and Speech ratings but unless the game is extremely freeform you'll want to be able to reference aspects or backgrounds or something to say actually you're a trained aeronautical engineer who speaks Farsi.

You can also go the GURPS or Shadowrun route and have lots of highly specific skills but allow for buying groups at a discount, using one skill as default for another and so on... but I'm not really a fan of this approach for a number of reasons, the primary one being that not all skills are created equal, and the more you have that are bought with the same resource the greater the chances are that you're making players spend their limited resources on what is essentially fluff - the mechanic above might have spent as many build points on speaking Farsi fluently as other characters put into shooting their primary weapon, so he's essentially being punished for adding background detail.

>>53201622
3.5 had too few, if you picked 4 chars, all with 4+Int ranks and put ranks all in different skills you still have like half important skills untouched.

File: Insanity is a fulltime job.png (333KB, 517x684px) Image search: [Google]

333KB, 517x684px

>>53201622
once you reach Rolemaster Companion II levels, you should probably consider slowing down, OP
these are about 50 per page, so about 200 in total

>>53202737
Nigga, you saved a goddamned thumbnail.

File: actually.png (469KB, 507x374px) Image search: [Google]

469KB, 507x374px

>>53201622
>too few skills
Depending on the system, no such thing. Shadow of the Demon Lord has no real skill system, just a list of professions you have/had that kind of inform what you're good at. It lets the GM apply boon dice to rolls on the fly. Then again, SotDL is relatively rules-light.

You might be able to make the argument that NWoD has too few skills, but it's actually more that there's more depth in some aspects than others. For instance, there are like 6 different skills for interpersonal interactions, whereas anything having to do with technology is just "computers." But, given the type of game it's supposed to be, it more or less works out.

>too many skills
D&D 3.0, for sure. People like to bag on 3.5 and PF, but they are marked improvements over their respective predecessors. Go grab a D&D splat from before 2003 and check out all the references to scrying and innuendo as skills. There was "intuit direction" and "read lips" too. Oh, and "Knowledge (Nature)" and "Wilderness Lore" were different things. It was a mess.

>>53202382
That's too few skill points not too few skills. If anything, it's indicative of too many skills.

Funny side note: I was always amazed how many casters never put ranks in concentrate and then couldn't figure out why they couldn't just cast spells mid battle/on stormy seas/anything but a mild spring morning. I guess most DMs just handwaved that shit. Caster supremacy is definitely a thing, but it makes me wonder how often at least SOME of the brokenness could be prevented.

>>53202971
Honestly, how many times have you had a mage roll for concentration during an average dungeon crawl or political campaign or whatever you run, on average?

Barely ever, mostly thanks to shit like 5 ft. shift allowing a mage escape melee.

>>53202971

The problem is that in addition to the mechanics limiting mages not being enough even if enforced, the fact is that almost all of those mechanics are so bookkeepy and tacked on that no one wants to deal with them.

I played 3.5 for the better part of a decade back in the day. Guess how many times a GM stopped combat to flip through the rulebook on the wizards turn and ask "yeah, but do you HAVE a tiny jade figure of a lion?"

>>53201622
Depends on how the skills are set up, really. Anything between 50 and 5 is fine if the mechanics work and the skills don't feel cumbersome or redundant.

>>53203235
If you're talking about spell components most of those are covered by a cheap item or a single feat.
Does that jade lion have a cost of greater than 1 gp?
If the answer is no it's covered by eschew materials.

>>53203343

Exactly. Its so easily mitigated most of the time that unless we are talking wish or ressurrection, no one ever bothered to enforce it.

No one is going to sutistically check the value of the spell just to see if they can 'gotcha!' The wizard and fuck up his turn. Which likewise turns into wizards being able to cast spells even during stuff like a prison break where they are deprived of materials, because no one actually enforces the rule often enough to remember it the one time its relevant.

And thus caster supremacy casually dismisses one of its already few limiting factors.

>>53203094
Plenty of times, actually, that's why I brought it up.

>You must make a Concentration check whenever you might potentially be distracted while engaged in some action that requires your full attention.

That's not just combat. And most of the DCs I threw out weren't that high. But nobody put ranks in concentration, so a lot of the rolls were 50/50 or worse.

Also, yeah, the 5-foot step rule prevents you from taking an AOO, but you're still engaged in close quarters combat. I'd call for a check, there.

>>53203447
How many spells have a material component of more than 1 gp?
The only one i can think of off the top of my head is scrying and resurrection.

>>53201622
The whole purpose of having different skills is so that characters can be designed and built to be predictably better or worse at doing things that alternatively make sense for them to do so. A cat-burglar who can't pick a lock because the game doesn't have a mechanical way to model lock picking feels off to people so if your game is going to commonly feature people who want to pick locks it's good to have some mechanical way to represent being good at that. Contrast this with skills that everyone needs to be good at to some degree. "Fighting stuff" would make for a poor skill in D&D because everyone is always fighting stuff so it's just needless complexity to have a skill for that. There's a basic mechanic built around it to make sure no one can get too far ahead or too far behind in this most-important-of-all-skill.

Large skill lists have their problems though. When it becomes unclear what skill a particular activity is covered under (is lying a type of Deception or Persuasion?) or the skill list grows so large that people can't keep track of all the skills and just mentally erase some of them (find a game with a Surgery skill and see how often most GMs just ask for medicine checks for things that should really technically be surgery).

tl;dr: A skill list should only be as long as the number of clearly distinct activities that characters in the game will COMMONLY be doing. Anything that comes up less than once every few sessions is not worth making stats for and better handled through RP.

>>53203456
>You must make a Concentration check whenever you might potentially be distracted while engaged in some action that requires your full attention.
I hope you make the martials roll concentration to keep track of multiple enemies at once, otherwise I'd have to say that you're going the wrong way about this.
>I'd call for a check, there.
What you're doing is like saying "oh yeah, my players always rolled perception once I started forcing them to make a roll every time they blinked or or something out of the corner of their eyes moved."

>>53203509
Eschew object will cover most level 3 spells, which is ironically where you'll find the most utility.

File: 1483861288392.png (151KB, 269x273px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 269x273px

>>53203543
>I hope you make the martials roll concentration to keep track of multiple enemies at once, otherwise I'd have to say that you're going the wrong way about this.

>implying "Swing sword at guy" is the same thing as "Make arcane gestures and intone words of power from memory"

And that's ignoring that flanking bonuses and attacks of opportunity are things that exist

>What you're doing is like saying "oh yeah, my players always rolled perception once I started forcing them to make a roll every time they blinked or or something out of the corner of their eyes moved."

I can't even parse what you're trying to get across, here.

Honestly, you sound like one of the pissbabies who was used to playing a wizard wrong and got mad because I knew the rules. Sorry that bending the forces of creation to your will doesn't work out for you EVERY TIME. Maybe a Fighter would be more your speed.

>>53201622
You want between 10 and 20.

>>53203683
>implying "Swing sword at guy" is the same thing as "Wave hand to toss some magic energy at guy"

Fixed that for you. At least try to avoid false equivalencies when you're shitposting.

File: 1471626834260.gif (494KB, 500x259px) Image search: [Google]

494KB, 500x259px

>>53203814
This seems 100% arbitrary.

>>53203683
>Honestly, you sound like one of the pissbabies who was used to playing a wizard wrong and got mad because I knew the rules.
Read
>http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/concentration.htm
>In general, if an action wouldn’t normally provoke an attack of opportunity, you need not make a Concentration check to avoid being distracted.

Nothing in the rules states that you must make a concentration check for casting spells in the middle of combat (barring circumstances like grappling or taking damage or being distracted by a non-damaging spell like "web") nor would they need to roll concentration just for being engaged in close quarters combat (even though they've shifted outside of the enemies threatened range, assuming the enemy doesn't have a reach weapon).

I mean, you sound like one of those martialfags who adds houserules to make shit harder to cast because he thinks he's being clever, when in actuality he's just being a prick who doesn't know the rules nearly well enough.

File: 145634567.gif (1MB, 498x280px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 498x280px

>>53203842
>magic is just shooting energy out of your hands

>>>/a/

>>53203876
That's highlighting the sort of actions that might require a concentration check in the correct circumstances, not the circumstances themselves. The very first sentence highlights the circumstances.

>You must make a Concentration check whenever you might potentially be distracted (by taking damage, by harsh weather, and so on) while engaged in some action that requires your full attention.

It's really as simple as that.

>>53204003
>That's highlighting the sort of actions that might require a concentration check in the correct circumstances, not the circumstances themselves.
Show me in the DC list that states that being just outside a melee attacker's range would warrant a concentration check. Show me the concentration DC just for being involved in combat.

Seriously anon, if you're going to add houserules to shit, either make it a global change that affects everyone or be honest and say "I'm doing it just to spite casters" which seems right since you neglected to give them the heads up that "hey fellas, we're doing a pirate campaign so concentration might be important and all."

File: a bloo bloo bloo.jpg (32KB, 340x454px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 340x454px

>>53204068
>"Buh-buh-buh-but it's not on muh charts!"

You know, you're the exact kind of stupid that led to 4e being the bland, DM-optional, glorified miniatures game that it was.

Tell me, what's more distracting: being in a hail storm or being surrounded by dudes trying to kill you?

For the record, it'd only ever be a DC 10 or so check. Easily passable if you built your character well. Not my fault if you didn't.

>>53204143
So it's a rule that acts only to slow the game down with an additional die roll?
What's the point then?

>>53204143
>You know, you're the exact kind of stupid that led to 4e being the bland, DM-optional, glorified miniatures game that it was.
Oh boy, looks like I was right on the money.
>Tell me, what's more distracting: being in a hail storm or being surrounded by dudes trying to kill you?
Tell me, why am I making concentration rolls when I'm not threatened by anyone? It takes as much time to swing a sword as it does to cast most spells in 3.5.
>For the record, it'd only ever be a DC 10 or so check.
You're still an asshole if you neglect to inform people when a specific skill that's rarely used will suddenly become important throughout the entire campaign. I'd say the same thing if you made a frontier campaign but made the martials fall off their horse and become paralyzed because they didn't put any ranks in "ride" or something.

But whatever,

>>53204143
>>53204068
You're both missing the point, since we seem to be talking about Pathfinder. A threatened caster must risk eating an AoO attempt (extremely likely), which forces a concentration level check when he takes damage, or cast defensively, which also forces a concentration check.
>roll d20 and add your caster level and the ability score modifier used to determine bonus spells of the same type
This is a concentration check in PF, it has very little to do with how "well" your character is built, since casters are practically always assumed be be within a small range for their casting stat.

File: 1392677138282.png (175KB, 1041x287px) Image search: [Google]

175KB, 1041x287px

>>53204237
You're right, why roll anything? Let's just free form roleplay. I have some Sonic OCs I'd really like to tell you about.

Honestly, is saying "Gimme a DC 10 Concentration check" slowing the game down that much? It makes things riskier for the players and encourages more careful planning and tactical thinking. Sorry it's a LITTLE harder to blow things up with your mind.

>>53204328
>Honestly, is saying "Gimme a DC 10 Concentration check" slowing the game down that much?
Yes.
>It makes things riskier for the players and encourages more careful planning and tactical thinking.
Not really.

>>53204328
Past the first couple of levels dc 10 concentration is pretty much auto-pass so you're asking for a roll that does nothing.
Why?

File: 1471812137737.jpg (78KB, 338x305px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 338x305px

>>53204247
>Tell me, why am I making concentration rolls when I'm not threatened by anyone?
>when I'm not threatened by anyone?
>not threatened

"Hoo boy, good thing I took a step back from that guy why was trying to give me exciting new orifices with a length of rusty metal! Now that I'm all the way over here with an entire square between me an him, I can relax and kick back. Really get to know myself, you know?"

Or to put it more succinctly: He also gets a 5 foot step and a full action, you dipshit. Better make this one count.

>You're still an asshole if you neglect to inform people when a specific skill that's rarely used will suddenly become important throughout the entire campaign. I'd say the same thing if you made a frontier campaign but made the martials fall off their horse and become paralyzed because they didn't put any ranks in "ride" or something.

Everyone seemed pretty aware that there would be combat taking place in my campaign. Most of them brought weapons.

>>53204272
As for relying on 5 foot steps, that's a hideous example of whiterooming. That assumes your opponent only has a reach of 5 feet. Most enemies of size Huge or larger, or Large size enemies which are Tall will have a larger threatened range than that. 5 foot steps do not work through difficult terrain, obstacles, darkness, poor visibility areas, walls, or occupied squares. I don't know about you all, but ever since I got a peak level charger in my party I've been tracking difficult terrain very closely, and any ruins, wilderness area, old dungeon, or other typical adventuring hole should have lots of it.
You don't need to make up the concentration check for being near combat, it should show come out of the rules easily if the DM is awake.

>>53201622
skills aren't there to so much determine what you can do as what you can't. Lacking a skill in something means your character can't do certain things, so more skills generally means there are more things your character can't do. This serves to make your character more specialized.

Also, 4th ed Shadowrun uses skill groups, which are actually pretty great. Little known fact: every system has 'dud' skills that nobody ever uses like swimming or parachuting

>>53204449
>He also gets a 5 foot step and a full action
He would only get a 5 ft. step when it's his turn.
>Everyone seemed pretty aware that there would be combat taking place in my campaign.
Combat wouldn't normally call for a DC10 concentration roll just for trying to cast a spell during combat. Since you didn't let players know this beforehand, you're THAT DM.

>>53204383
[teleports behind you]
Wow, well argued, kid.

>>53204396
Still a chance to fail on a 1, plus who knows what other complications might arise. My entire original point was that it's generally a good idea for casters in 3.PF to take concentration.

God, it's really funny how ass blasted some (or at least one) of you are about this. I guess that's what happens when someone presents even the smallest threat to your masturbatory powergaming.

>>53204536
>Still a chance to fail on a 1
Don't know about pathfinder but 3.5 concentration is a skill and skills don't autofail on a natural 1.

I've never seen a good system with too many skills.

I've only ever seen shitty systems with too little skills. I've even seen good systems degenerate into bad systems alongside skill condensation.

If you feel like there's too many skills, something is wrong with the system's use of or aquisition of skills, not the number of skills, and reducing the numbers is almost guaranteed not to help.

>>53204536
>Wow, well argued, kid.
This isn't an argument, it's shitposting. You had no intentions of having a discussion, you're only here to derail the thread with more martial vs. caster bullshit.
>I guess that's what happens when someone presents even the smallest threat to your masturbatory powergaming.
No, this is what happens when inexperienced DM's come into threads that have nothing to do with their petty edition wars only for it to quickly become apparent that they have no idea how the game actually works.

For example,
>Still a chance to fail on a 1
You can't auto-fail on a 1, that's only for attack rolls and saving throws. You'd know this if you'd actually played the game.

File: 1481651413864.gif (2MB, 319x264px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 319x264px

>>53204520
>trying to cast a spell during combat.
Aren't Wizards generally supposed to be literate? I'm not talking about any time there's combat at all, ever. It's when there was a clear and present threat to the character specifically. The example that was given was that the caster had just taken a 5-foot step to avoid am aoo. The dude you stepped away from is probably still pretty intent on fucking you up.

If you're at the back of the party, other side of the room, or anywhere where your well-being isn't currently under specific threat, your probably fine, no check required.

>>53204623
>The dude you stepped away from is probably still pretty intent on fucking you up.
Yeah, on his turn, not mine.

Also, can you stop crying so much?

>>53204536
Skills don't autofail on a 1, stupid.

>>53204068
>Show me in the DC list that states that being just outside a melee attacker's range would warrant a concentration check. Show me the concentration DC just for being involved in combat.

Are you one of those rules-lawyering gameist autists? Because it sounds like it. The GM is there to arbitrate based on the suggestions of the book. Listed difficulties are not the end-all be-all of the system(s). Calling for Concentration checks is pretty fucking reasonable in most combat scenarios, as long as there's any risk of you getting stabbed or shot, or if you're in rough weather or terrains, or any number of factors.

File: Accept it.webm (561KB, 386x280px) Image search: [Google]

561KB, 386x280px

>>53204576
>>53204619
"I put all the numbers in the right place, there's no way that it could possibly fail! I'm telling mom!"

And this is one of the reasons I don't run 3.PF anymore. But, you know what? Fine, we'll play by rules as written. Why don't you go ahead and tell me what it says on page 6 of the 3.5 DMG. It's fine, I'll wait.

>>53204720
>Calling for Concentration checks is pretty fucking reasonable in most combat scenarios, as long as there's any risk of you getting stabbed or shot, or if you're in rough weather or terrains, or any number of factors.
If you followed the convo, the dude I'm replaying to is an idiot who doesn't even know the rules. If you had a good point, it's wasted here.

>>53204720
>Are you one of those rules-lawyering gameist autists?
Do you really have to ask?

>>53204735
Why would the players need to reference a page from the Dungeon Master's Guide?

>>53204770
Because bad GMs try and use rule 0 as a justification for their poorly thought out house rules.

>>53204759
If you're going to change the rules, or focus on one aspect of the rules that most people don't generally focus on, it's generally polite to let people know before they commit to a character.

>>53204792
Ah, right, I gotcha.

>>53204751
I have been, and the other anon has presented legitimate reasons for his interpretation of the rules as the GM. I don't necessarily agree with him, but he's running the game and it's a pretty minor thing. You're the one harping on RAW in a non-competitive and extremely mutable game.

>>53204735
>Good DMs know not to change or overturn a published rule without a good, logical reason

>>53204720
As a player in such a game I'd accept this just fine as the GM's style and interpretation of the game.
Divorced from that an taking a critical look at the houserule, it does seem petty and ignorant of how the existing rules work. Still, it's his choice to run it as such and his players might even like it. Since it's not RAW, it should be spelled out to the players beforehand.

File: LOLthlorien.gif (1MB, 460x258px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 460x258px

>>53204770
>>53204792
>>53204812
>Samefagging this hard

Honestly, that is what it comes down to, though. I'm running the game. You're not required to play. Go quibble about rules with the MTG and 40K players.

>>53204857
I feel I've presented those. People trying to kill you is distracting. Make a Concentration check.

>>53204751
I hadn't followed it, and after doing so, I regret it. Condensed "if it's not specifically listed, it does not exist"-type autism.

>>53204890
Do the Fighters have to make a Concentration check?

>>53202856
Nigga there aint enough pixels in the fucking world

>>53204867
In my defense, the one or two times it did actually happen before people became aware of the rule, I was more than happy to let them reorganize their skills. I'm not a monster.

All the consternation around this is really amusing to me. People weren't this upset at the actual games it happened in. It's simple:

Casting spells requires concentration.

Distracting scenarios hamper your concentration.

Either 1) Come to terms with the fact that you might occasionally flub a spell or 2) Take steps to mitigate that.

I shudder to think how some of you people would have handled older editions.

>>53204867
It's plainly stated when Concentration is called for, what the intent is, and he's explained why it makes sense based on that. It's not a houserule just because it's not in a specific fucking table, you autistic fucking retard. It's not petty, it's the GM doing his fucking job for once.

>>53204912
No, because swinging a weapon is not an action that could potentially provoke an attack of opportunity

>You must make a Concentration check whenever you might potentially be distracted (by taking damage, by harsh weather, and so on) while engaged in some action that requires your full attention. Such actions include casting a spell, concentrating on an active spell, directing a spell, using a spell-like ability, or using a skill that would provoke an attack of opportunity. In general, if an action wouldn’t normally provoke an attack of opportunity, you need not make a Concentration check to avoid being distracted.

I think it's a fair assumption that swinging a weapon and casting a spell don't take equivalent levels of mental clarity. If they did, being a barbarian would be really difficult.

>>53204735
DMG 3.5, Page 6
Lets see...
>If you don't know the rules look it up in the PHB
>Providing the World section
>Adjudicating Section
>Refer to similar situations when something is not covered officially.
>When making rules on the fly, stick with them (Called a House rule)
>When in doubt add +2 or -2 to circumstances when needed
>Generally rules in rule-books override rules ones found in adventures
>Choose the rule that you like best then stick with it.
>Propelling the game forward section

I have no idea what you are getting at Anon. Maybe some comment on reading the PHB? Or house-ruling? Rule-Zeroing?

>>53204985
Thanks for sticking up for me, but if these guys don't understand logic then swearing at them probably isn't going to make much headway, either.

But yeah, I agree, this attitude comes from spineless DMs who refuse to enforce the rules logically.

>>53204912
Generally speaking, why would they? They're not trying to recite chants, move their arms and fingers in specific patterns, or pull ingredie ts out from the right pouch at the right time; they have their eyes on the enemy, and aren't suffering any distractions from that.

But sure, there can surely be situations when fighters and others should do a concentration check.

>>53204971
>People weren't this upset at the actual games it happened in.
It would be very poor form to challenge your GM over something so minor.
>>53204985
The rules are pretty clear. Casters are not impeded by melee combat if they are not in a threatened square. The sole benefit of Casting Defensively is avoiding an AoO. If you're making a concentration check whether you're threatened or not then that option makes no sense.

>>53205022
>if an action wouldn’t normally provoke an attack of opportunity, you need not make a Concentration check to avoid being distracted
So casting a spell while not within enemy threat range shouldn't require a concentration check either?

>>53205022
How is combat not something that takes their full attention?

>>53205039
It's like the first few sentences under the Adjudicating section. Basically "The DM is the final arbiter of the game, a good player knows this, a good DM knows not to push his luck, because the players can always just not play."

>>53204827
The reason I brought up RAW in the first place was because the DM was adding shit that was outside of the purview of the skill just because he personally thought that it made sense, which would count as a houserule even if he doesn't want to admit it.

File: check again.jpg (29KB, 983x163px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 983x163px

>>53204872

>>53205096
It is. That's why they don't need to make a concentration check when they're doing it. They might need to make one if, say, they were trying to pick a lock or something similar while their lives were being threatened.

Casters, on the other hand, need to focus on making their spells actually work. With the proper amount of concentration this is certainly possible, but to treat it like a total non-issue while an enemy combatant is bearing down on them with murderous intent is kind of silly, in my opinion.

>>53205091
No, again, it's describing the KIND of action that would require a concentration check. The first sentence of the quote provides examples of the circumstance.

>>53205191
>With the proper amount of concentration this is certainly possible, but to treat it like a total non-issue while an enemy combatant is bearing down on them with murderous intent is kind of silly, in my opinion.
Cool, just makes sure that you're telling your players that you're adding a houserule based on "muh fee-fees."

>>53205180
He actually edited it, the absolute madman

>>53205215
Sure, keep telling yourself that.

File: 1490031093550.gif (2MB, 348x323px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 348x323px

>>53205211
But I'm not

>You must make a Concentration check whenever you might potentially be distracted (by taking damage, by harsh weather, and so on) while engaged in some action that requires your full attention.

You're wrong. It just happens to be my opinion that you and your way of thinking are silly, in addition to being provably wrong.

>>53205250
>you might potentially be distracted
With wording as vague as that, I'm more surprised that EVERYONE didn't take ranks in concentration, just in case. Kinda glad I missed that edition.

>>53205250
But you're selectively applying that rule, by your own admission.

File: 1st place.png (580KB, 1879x1879px) Image search: [Google]

580KB, 1879x1879px

>>53205250
Y'know what, since you're already so sure you're right, who am I to disagree with you?

Congrats man, you beat me, I hope you have a nice day. I guess the only thing left now is to stare lovingly at one another as we wait for the thread to archive itself.

File: 1479087688429.jpg (29KB, 500x372px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 500x372px

>>53205345
I'm... making judgement calls as the DM as to what constitutes being distracted and how to handle individual situations?

Yup. Ya caught me. I'm being a DM. Lock me up before I strike again!

>>53205426
see >>53205359

File: 1472188585053.jpg (16KB, 180x192px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 180x192px

>>53205359
I graciously accept your admission of incorrectness and I sincerely hope you have a nice day as well.

>>53204924
Do you have a link to it?

This has just devolved into 3.pf shitposting, but back to the original topic, my preference is to abstract shit more than have skill lists. I am digging on the new unknown armies system: all checks fall either into eight abilities, or into identities, which can replace a single ability and/or be rolled as a skill. It's a broad abstraction that involves trust between the players and the gm, which i know is beyond a lot of you guys, but I really like it.

>>53205426
>Screw over a certain class
>LAWL JUDGEMENT CALL

Yeah, alright, guess we're done here.

>>53205426
And once again a bad GM hides behind rule 0.

>>53205491
I keep hearing a lot about unknown armies.

It's supposed to be a cross between Hunter: the Vigil and CoC if investigators had a means to defending themselves against supernatural shit right?

Or am I mistaken?

>>53205519
>can't do all the things 100% of the time regardless of the situation
>THIS IS BULLSHIT YOU'RE SCREWING ME OVER I'M TAKING MY BALL AND GOING HOME

Please do.

This is why I don't complain about being a "forever GM." Because the thought of playing a game under some of you mongoloids is horrifying. I'd run absolutely roughshod over the campaign because apparently players should be able to do whatever they want with no consequences or regard to logical interpretation of the rules. Oh, there's nothing in the book that explains what happens when my character dies? Guess I'm just gonna keep playing.

You people are the neckbeard equivalent of the "let me talk to your manager" bitch.

>>53205570
Are you talking in terms of the game system or the fluff of the setting?

>>53205519
>>53205536
Listen fellas, he already thinks that he's right, so why argue with him?

He even got a trophy >>53205359, so why not leave him be, just so the thread doesn't get any more derailed than it already is?

>>53205536
And once again an armchair general posts smugly about shit he has no experience with.

And then you tell me about all the games you've run and how you've been playing since AD&D and your uncle works at WotC and he says that there's a secret spell that lets wizards be the DM.

>>53205665
I guess fluff, I don't know much about how it works mechanically.

>>53205645
Buddy your house rule for requiring concentration checks in any combat situation doesn't even work without another house rule.

>>53205694
Hey I admit I started GMing/playing with 3.5.
Requiring a concentration check when not being threatened in combat is bullshit.
Even better is with the low dc 10 you give as your standard all it does is and another pointless die roll.
Unless you add in the additional house rule of skills failing on a natural 1.
Which just seems pointless.

>>53205707
Fluff wise it's kind of like... Imagine if /x/ was right about everything. Crazy metaphysical conspiracies and shit. If I recall, it kinda plays fast and loose with hard facts about the world and it's all kind of up to the GM's interpretation. It could be Lovecraftian, or more like Welcome to Nightvale, or Gravity Falls, or X-Files. Whatever your flavor of "Modern Weirdness" is, it supports it. It just has its own words for stuff.

>>53205761
Oh, so it's kinda of like if the SCP foundation had a tabletop game?

>>53205709
>>53205759
Hell, I'll cop to the skills not failing on a natural one thing. I was honestly not aware that that was not a rule.

That being said, if I ever ran 3.PF again (assuming I didn't just kill myself first) I'd use it. If it's something that is difficult enough to require a dice roll, then there should be at least a small chance of failure. Otherwise, THAT'S a pointless dice roll.

Here's the thing though: I don't run 3.PF anymore, for exactly this reason. For whatever reason it seems to attract the type of autist who goes fuckin nanners if something isn't done exactly RAW. If that's the type of game you wanna run, fine, go for it.

>>53205838
If they only way to fail a check is a nat 1 you probably should require a roll in the first place.

>>53205877
Fucking phone meant shouldn't require.

>>53205838
The problem with rules alterations is most of them are poorly thought out.
3.5 is already hot garbage last thing it needs is some amateur game designer slapping his own crap on top of the shitpile.
That's how we got pathfinder.

File: Street.png (538KB, 892x627px) Image search: [Google]

538KB, 892x627px

>>53205772
You could absolutely run an SCP-style game with it, yeah, but that's not really its manifest purpose.

There's three... I think they call them "scales" of the game: Street, Global, and Cosmic. Maybe it's better if I show you. These are things that might or might not be true, starting with street level.

>>53205964
Has the new edition dropped yet?

>>53205838
Here's the thing, if you're going to use houserules, clear it with the players beforehand, this is true of any system.

If you change the rules of the game and then punish people for something that they had no way of knowing about before it affected them, of course people are going to get mad and call bullshit on it because, from their perspective, you're doing it to directly fuck with the party based off of personal bias, rather than to maintain a level of enjoyment throughout for everyone's benefit.

Now, nobody is saying that you can't create houserules, nobody said that that you couldn't add crits to a skill check, but to do either without giving the players a chance to account for those rules during character creation will make you look like a bad DM, even if you actually aren't.

I hope you understand where I am coming from.

>>53205963
>That's how we got pathfinder.
The system that was a marginally better 3.5 before the same thing that happened to 3.5 (splat book bloat) happened to it?

Thanks, I guess.

Here's a hot tip: The "PF is the worst thing since F.A.T.A.L." meme only really works when you apply it to a system that is actually superior to it. As bad as PF is, it is better than 3.5, if only because Monte Cook had nothing to do with it.

File: World.png (634KB, 708x924px) Image search: [Google]

634KB, 708x924px

>>53205964
Global

>>53205990
I hadn't even heard of one. That would be cool!

>>53206029
>As bad as PF is, it is better than 3.5,
If you honestly believe that you have no business making house rules.
For every step forward pathfinder took two backwards.
Core to core it's just as bad as 3.5

>>53206043
Yeah they completed a kickstarter a bit ago.
Backer previews are floating around you can probably find them in the share thread.

>>53205995
I agree with you 100%. In regards to the nat 1 skill checks, I wasn't aware that it even was a house rule and in regards to the concentration checks, as I read it, it doesn't come off as a house rule. Like I said earlier, when it came up, I was more than happy to let my players redistribute their skill points because I'm not a monster.

Never heard a complaint about it from most people and it forced them to play a bit more conservatively. Seemed like everyone was happy.

But, of course, this is /tg/, where no one is happy.

File: Cosmic.png (597KB, 727x922px) Image search: [Google]

597KB, 727x922px

>>53206043
Cosmic
>>53206079
Neat! I'll have to check that out. Had some good times with UA back in the day.

File: k.gif (2MB, 320x256px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 320x256px

>>53206062
>Significantly reduced trap options
>Significantly improved martials
>Rewards for staying with a single class 20 levels as opposed to penalties for multi-classing
>All races at least nominally playable

File: design-balance.jpg (165KB, 1300x1086px) Image search: [Google]

165KB, 1300x1086px

>>53201622
As long as the design elements (like "Skills") are balanced in a way you're happy with, it doesn't matter how many you have.

If your design emphasizes something (ie. combat, exploration, crafting, etc.) by giving it more design elements, players will tend to gravitate there because there's more interesting shit to do.

>>53206149
So you don't even understand the problems with 3.5/pathfinder at all do you?
Fuck I bet you think the monk is overpowered.

>>53206062
>For every step forward pathfinder took two backwards.
>Core to core it's just as bad as 3.5
I mean, that's just bad math. By that logic it should be worse

I'm surprised no one has pointed out yet how much of a retard you have to be to not max out concentration as a caster.

File: 1471813092132.gif (415KB, 480x238px) Image search: [Google]

415KB, 480x238px

>>53206192
No, I absolutely understand that both systems are steaming piles of shit, but that someone picked some of the bloodier nuts out of Pathfinder.

A handy way of figuring that out is by reading what I wrote already. Take your time, I'll wait. Use aspirin for headaches, Midol for cramps.

File: Whoa there.jpg (22KB, 450x253px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 450x253px

>>53206214
Hey now, we're apparently still in the process of establishing whether or not the skill actually DOES something.

>>53206086
It has nothing to do with people being happy or not though, I've encountered the same thing with my gaming circle whenever I decided to tweak a system that I'm currently working on.

People generally don't like being at a disadvantage because of elements that they had no way of knowing about beforehand, and have dealt with DM's who would add house rules to fix broken rules without taking in account how this affects the system as a whole.

For example, if you allow fumbles on a skill check, that means that skills as a whole become much more hazardous to use across the board, things like take 10/20 would have to be removed since you'd have to account for the 5% chance of a fumble, spells that either remove weather effects or control the battlefield gain more power and use, and that's just off the top of my head.

Having dealt with DM's who aren't...good, if you aren't careful, you'll just end up making house rules for house rules made to fix other house rules.

>>53206244
I can't help but feel that if you calmed down and didn't talk down to people, less people would've had an issue with what you were saying.

Seriously man, take a deep breath, drink some water, reread what you wrote and ask yourself "would I listen to this person if they talked like that to me."

We're all in relatively good company here, no need to turn things hostile.

>>53206320
Just realized, this point
>spells that either remove weather effects or control the battlefield gain more power and use
was more a point made against concentration being rolled based off of positioning or the weather, not against rolling 1's on a skill check.

>>53206358
yeah, but if somebody DID say it, could you imagine the shitstorm? That'd probably start a fight.