Percentage Thief Skills

[jasmith]

Granted, I don't mind thieves simply being really good at ability checks, but, yeah, do something special with them.

They shouldn't be just really good they should be significantly better. Anyone can "hide". Anything can be hidden for that matter. I'm hiding behind a keyboard right now! I didn't spend months or days studying camouflage, the nuances of shadow, movement and sound like a ninja would have. Significant difference that can be quantified as Skill vs my natural or circumstantial Ability. A Thief would spend days upon days practicing lock picking, the same amount of hours that a Wizard would spend studying ancient text, collecting and organizing material components and memorizing the profane language of ire-some gods to cast a spell, and the time that a Warrior would spend honing his sword, practicing his footwork and taking steroids and "working out". The only way I like quantifying these differences in game terms (without getting into playable vs realistic, fun vs simulation, etc.) is totally and arbitrarily letting only those experts do certain things, not just do them better. Certain things being the keyword. Using hiding as an example again, a wizard on his tip-toes is one thing, but a Thief having special shoes, laced a certain way, knowing which fabrics to wear, and rolling the edge of his feet slowly, brushing any objects out the way before committing his body weight to the balls of his feet, and breathing matching the breeze as he's practiced over and over is something only a Thief can do.

Unless you want to go *really* Old School and argue that the thief class doesn't even need to exist...

Need is a subjective term!

Ok, here's my argument for keeping %. In AD&D an uber high level Thief has a 99% chance of success for most of his special abilities. More or less. And without taking any other modifiers into consideration.

Now, should uber high level Thieves be so awesome at what they do, that they only fail 1 time in 100? Works for me! I don't care if percentile dice are used or not, but it's that level of efficacy, which I think should be retained. Which is why I don't like a lot of the old school versions of the Thief, which have been created over the past couple of years. If a Thief is gonna fail one time out of every six, or even one time out of every twenty, he's just really not all that impressive, is he?

[Dreamslinger]

I'm a huge fan of the 4 page Skills chapter. I think it explains what needs to be explained and its brevity makes a point. Please don't scrap it.


I don't really care what I roll to resolve the Thief abilities but I think the rigidity of the ability list stands in contrast to the the way that skills are presented and to how the Warrior's MDoA work. Both skills and MDoA are very open ended and foster player creativity. The Thief abilities stand out as "Here are the 11 things you can do".

[buzz]

Now, should uber high level Thieves be so awesome at what they do, that they only fail 1 time in 100? Works for me!

You can get the same percentages using the d20/dZocchi system seen in the rest of the DCCRPG. Plus, it will scale with level, instead of being some flat percentage.

[Orpheus]

I've been reading through the beta rules since right after the release; not a ton, but some. I have to admit that I kind of laughed and felt a little bit joyed at the prosepct of the % dice for the thief skills. I always liked that one aspect of AD&D.

I also play C&C and the much-maligned 4e, and don't really have a problem with the rules going towards a more d20 fashion with task resolution for thief skills. Although, I kind of want to keep the % dice around for the thief skills.

So chalk me up as one who LOVES the % dice for thief skills, but for whom this isn't really a deal-breaker. I'm much more into the feel of this game and the chance to get some creative games going in a gonzo S&S settting.

So far, I like it!

[Sizzaxe]

I think there's a good reason most RPGs don't make this distinction.

You can get the same percentages using the d20/dZocchi system seen in the rest of the DCCRPG. Plus, it will scale with level, instead of being some flat percentage.

Well, this aint "most" RPGs Buzz

No, just kidding. I think you and I are closer than it seems. I mentioned some time back that I like the idea of d20 + scaled dZ system used for other classes incorporated with a Thieves success/failure table and maybe even the Misdeeds of Great Cunning would fit the DCC mechanic better than a % system, and keep the thieves' class very unique.

However, I'm not willing to give on the hide in shadows, move silently bit. That stays

[Rick]

So far the reaction to % skills in games has been love it / hate it...appears that everyone here hates it! Does ANYBODY like it? Just curious...

I like it. It seems wrong for % dice not to get more face-time in a game that features practically EVERY other type of die.

AND this:

thieves can make their % check in addition to the d20 check. So the above noted sneaking example, if the thief fails his % check he can ALSO make the normal Agi check.

..appeals to me, too; thieves get a "second chance".

[Sunsword]

For those who want to try the "d20 version" of the thief, here is the set of abilities that I was using for most of 2010, before I changed them to percentile skills.

Gaah, I can't get this to display right..."best attempt" here...hopefully someone can make sense of this. If I need to I'll figure out how to post an MS Word document so everyone can download the formatted version.

Since my goal here is to get playtest feedback, I would say give it a shot with your preferred option (% or d20)...and then try it "the other way"...and let me know how it goes and which you do prefer in actual game play.

Joe, thanks for providing the previous version. I'll try the Percentage first & then the Flat Bonus to D20. We'll see what my players think. Thanks again for this project, the playtest, and putting up with all of this

[rabindranath72]

The salient mechanical elements of DCC rpg are two:
1) use of a unified difficulty-based mechanics,
2) use of funky dice within the context of the above.

All classes make use of the above, except the Thief. As it stands, it's just confusing, and it really doesn't add anything. It only makes the class more cluttered.

[Orpheus]

The salient mechanical elements of DCC rpg are two:
1) use of a unified difficulty-based mechanics,
2) use of funky dice within the context of the above.

All classes make use of the above, except the Thief. As it stands, it's just confusing, and it really doesn't add anything. It only makes the class more cluttered.

The man is Italian and a mathematician. It's like getting game advice from Davinci.

I have to agree with you on this, as much as I like the homage to pre-3.0 D&D/AD&D. I don't have an issue if it stays, but I think that picking a method and using it across the board is probably the best path to take.

[Sunsword]

The salient mechanical elements of DCC rpg are two:
1) use of a unified difficulty-based mechanics,
2) use of funky dice within the context of the above.

All classes make use of the above, except the Thief. As it stands, it's just confusing, and it really doesn't add anything. It only makes the class more cluttered.

I think my biggest beef with the percentile mechanic is that in this one & only subsystem, you roll low. I understand why. I think a good solution could be to publish the Thief in Joseph's preferred format in the Class section & to have an Appendix with an optional version.

My main concern about adding Tables to Thieves is just adding MORE tables to the game.

[geordie racer]

I think a good solution could be to publish the Thief in Joseph's preferred format in the Class section & to have an Appendix with an optional version.

I'm against appendices of optional rules, I've seen how it muddies the game. Let's aim for a core game so when a person sits down at a tournament they know what they're playing.

[jmucchiello]

Part of the point of my No Skills thread is involved here. I'd prefer the class die solution and get rid of the table if possible. Thieves should just be good at ability checks involving actions conducive to crime. PERIOD. The Judge then can determine if sneaking past a guard or making a disguise or hiding a box of jewels in a sewer drain is an ability check involving thievery and give him the bonus or not. In other words, enumerating all actions that are skullduggery is impossible. So list a few examples perhaps but don't imply the list is exclusive.

Backstab is just a class level bonus to an attack roll, it could also use the class die (or not) but doesn't need to be in a "chart". Casting a spell from a scroll is the only weird ability left after that. And having ONE weird ability is similar to the cleric. The only other real drawback is the lose of "paths" which frankly I'd prefer as the give me the willies like kits in 2e.

[geordie racer]

Part of the point of my No Skills thread is involved here. I'd prefer the class die solution and get rid of the table if possible. Thieves should just be good at ability checks involving actions conducive to crime. PERIOD. The Judge then can determine if sneaking past a guard or making a disguise or hiding a box of jewels in a sewer drain is an ability check involving thievery and give him the bonus or not. In other words, enumerating all actions that are skullduggery is impossible. So list a few examples perhaps but don't imply the list is exclusive.

Backstab is just a class level bonus to an attack roll, it could also use the class die (or not) but doesn't need to be in a "chart". Casting a spell from a scroll is the only weird ability left after that. And having ONE weird ability is similar to the cleric. The only other real drawback is the lose of "paths" which frankly I'd prefer as the give me the willies like kits in 2e.

I think it's worth getting rid of the 'paths' for what you gain from the class die solution. I agree that using ability checks rather than named skills is better, along with Luck it opens up the class in the same way MDoAs open up the fighter.

[Orpheus]

Part of the point of my No Skills thread is involved here. I'd prefer the class die solution and get rid of the table if possible. Thieves should just be good at ability checks involving actions conducive to crime. PERIOD. The Judge then can determine if sneaking past a guard or making a disguise or hiding a box of jewels in a sewer drain is an ability check involving thievery and give him the bonus or not. In other words, enumerating all actions that are skullduggery is impossible. So list a few examples perhaps but don't imply the list is exclusive.

Backstab is just a class level bonus to an attack roll, it could also use the class die (or not) but doesn't need to be in a "chart". Casting a spell from a scroll is the only weird ability left after that. And having ONE weird ability is similar to the cleric. The only other real drawback is the lose of "paths" which frankly I'd prefer as the give me the willies like kits in 2e.

I think it's worth getting rid of the 'paths' for what you gain from the class die solution. I agree that using ability checks rather than named skills is better, along with Luck it opens up the class in the same way MDoAs open up the fighter.

I think that the paths based upon alignment give the class some character.

[rabindranath72]

The salient mechanical elements of DCC rpg are two:
1) use of a unified difficulty-based mechanics,
2) use of funky dice within the context of the above.

All classes make use of the above, except the Thief. As it stands, it's just confusing, and it really doesn't add anything. It only makes the class more cluttered.

The man is Italian and a mathematician. It's like getting game advice from Davinci.

I have to agree with you on this, as much as I like the homage to pre-3.0 D&D/AD&D. I don't have an issue if it stays, but I think that picking a method and using it across the board is probably the best path to take.

I deduce you know me...do I know you?

Truth be told, I am a FAN of Classic D&D; it's my fantasy game of choice. But the "homage" thing in DCC rpg is self-defeating; the game manifesto was to build a game based on the literary sources of Appendix N, assuming an "existing" core of rules (the d20 SRD). In this alternate universe, there never was an (A)D&D, and in the SRD there are not any character abilities which work off percentile rolls; the core idea of the game is to beat a DC.

[smathis]

So far the reaction to % skills in games has been love it / hate it...appears that everyone here hates it! Does ANYBODY like it? Just curious...

I like having Thief skills distinct from "normal" skills. I generally like how skills are handled in the beta rules.

I'm ambivalent about the d%. I'm not significantly invested in one approach or the other. I'll have to get some playtesting under my belt to figure out how other people feel about it. And I'll report back when I do. I think it will align with your love/hate experience though.

Remember, it's hard to get love for anything on the internet.

I did like the "Misdeeds of Cunning" idea. That's a great name for them too.

[finarvyn]

So far the reaction to % skills in games has been love it / hate it...appears that everyone here hates it! Does ANYBODY like it? Just curious...

I won't say that I hate it, but as I said in my playtest feedback I think that a d20 system is a lot better than a percentile system.

But I'm biased because I dislike percentile game systems for all RPGs.

In this case it just seems odd because no other part of the DCC rules use percentile dice. I don't think that it adds anything to the game.

[Orpheus]

The salient mechanical elements of DCC rpg are two:
1) use of a unified difficulty-based mechanics,
2) use of funky dice within the context of the above.

All classes make use of the above, except the Thief. As it stands, it's just confusing, and it really doesn't add anything. It only makes the class more cluttered.

The man is Italian and a mathematician. It's like getting game advice from Davinci.

I have to agree with you on this, as much as I like the homage to pre-3.0 D&D/AD&D. I don't have an issue if it stays, but I think that picking a method and using it across the board is probably the best path to take.

I deduce you know me...do I know you?

Perhaps....

*rolls d% for "Disguise Self"*

I recall you from both the C&C, Dragonsfoot and, I believe, Yog-Sothoth forums. I'm not too active at any of them and tend to just read, but I've always found your posts well-thought-out, fair and devoid of some of the outlandish edition loyalty that you see which makes some folks unreasonable (I'm looking at you Dragonsfoot!).

I don't think that we've every spoken directly in a post more than once or twice, but I just have a good memory.

[Aplus]

I only read the first page of this thread, but I just wanted to weigh in and say that I like the % system, and I also wouldn't mind if it was a X in 20 system. However, I am against the idea of rolling high, unless there is one static target number used for everything, such as "15" or "20". One of the things I hate most about 3.X/Pathfinder is always having to look up the DCs for so many different tasks.

I'm also not thrilled about the way saving throws are in DCC for the same reason. I have the extra step of having to figure out a DC. I'll probably just end up using a DC of 15 for all saving throws.

[jmucchiello]

I only read the first page of this thread, but I just wanted to weigh in and say that I like the % system, and I also wouldn't mind if it was a X in 20 system. However, I am against the idea of rolling high, unless there is one static target number used for everything, such as "15" or "20". One of the things I hate most about 3.X/Pathfinder is always having to look up the DCs for so many different tasks.

You don't have to look up DCs ever as Judge. You just decide. Be as arbitrary or consistent and you want (and your players can stand). And all is good. The book will not have tables full of DCs for stuff. (One of the few places there won't be tables.)

[rabindranath72]

I'm also not thrilled about the way saving throws are in DCC for the same reason. I have the extra step of having to figure out a DC. I'll probably just end up using a DC of 15 for all saving throws.

In d20 games the saving throws are never arbitrary; the level and ability modifiers of the source of the danger provide the DC. I suppose DCC rpg works the same way.

[rabindranath72]

Perhaps....

*rolls d% for "Disguise Self"*

I recall you from both the C&C, Dragonsfoot and, I believe, Yog-Sothoth forums. I'm not too active at any of them and tend to just read, but I've always found your posts well-thought-out, fair and devoid of some of the outlandish edition loyalty that you see which makes some folks unreasonable (I'm looking at you Dragonsfoot!).

I don't think that we've every spoken directly in a post more than once or twice, but I just have a good memory.

I seem to recall the nick, but I am not too good with names!
Anyway, thanks for the kind words. In truth I am not "loyal" to any edition. I play all sorts of games if I like them; that's all. I hope I will like DCC rpg enough to play it!

[jmucchiello]

I'm also not thrilled about the way saving throws are in DCC for the same reason. I have the extra step of having to figure out a DC. I'll probably just end up using a DC of 15 for all saving throws.

In d20 games the saving throws are never arbitrary; the level and ability modifiers of the source of the danger provide the DC. I suppose DCC rpg works the same way.

There's nothing arbitrary about saving throws in DCCRPG. I suppose a Reflex save to avoid a trap is technically arbitrary. But saving throws for spells are against the die roll made to cast the spell. Get a 16 on your attempt to cast the spell and that becomes the DC for anyone attempting to resist it.

[Sunsword]

I'm against appendices of optional rules, I've seen how it muddies the game. Let's aim for a core game so when a person sits down at a tournament they know what they're playing.

Didn't tournament play contribute to the schism that became AD&D & BD&D?

Back in the day, I would've been against it, but with publisher's having forums & websites, it doesn't seem like its a terrible solution.
Is there a difference between a pdf on the publisher's website or an appendix?

As for my preferences, I hate percentile systems. But if that's the direction Joseph wants to go, its his game. I like unified mechanics. I prefer a flat bonus for Thieves with divisions by path to a Luck Die or a Table. So my vote is clear.

[claytonian]

I suggest just rounding down all numbers on that chart and having it be a d20 roll. At least, that's how I would probably house-rule it, unless the player really wanted to roll percentiles.

Can't we find a zocchi-solution to this?