Skill Ranks and Vocations

[Trentin Bergeron]

Opinion:

1. I don't think you should allow characters to buy skills outside categories / skills granted by culture and vocation.
2. The trading 2 for 1 penalizes player customization and makes balancing characters vs. enemies more difficult.

The 2 for 1 trade overcomplicates character creation and is detrimental to balance.

In D&D you rarely get the opportunity to "pick skills" unless you have an overlap. In the case of this game, the DPs for Skill Ranks has a strong variance. Overlap doesn't really penalize a character, it literally makes them better with each choice. It's not as "on and off" as D&D.

Too many choices confuse people. Especially in games where you are customizing skill choices with points. I suggest dropping the 2 for 1 thing in character creation and instead note that taking skills outside the normal choices is not allowed in character creation.

You also have a nice selection of Hybrid vocations. At first glance, I can't see any reason someone would NEED to trade out Skill Ranks to customize. :-)

[Rasyr]

I will definitely take that under advisement. 

The 2:1 DP spending for skills outside of where the DPs originated does come from the parent game (Against the Darkmaster) and was carried over.

The way things are set up, this should rarely happen anyways, at least not until higher levels, the only places you are likely to see it happen with a first level character is somebody who wants extra ranks in languages, or who wants an extra point of Mana to start with -- as those are the two skill categories that never receive skill points.

[Dimirag]

Balance is an illusion 

In D&D you rarely get the opportunity to "pick skills" unless you have an overlap. In the case of this game, the DPs for Skill Ranks has a strong variance. Overlap doesn't really penalize a character, it literally makes them better with each choice. It's not as "on and off" as D&D.

D&D 3.x uses skill points and a 2:1 when purchasing ranks in non-class skills.

I suggest dropping the 2 for 1 thing in character creation and instead note that taking skills outside the normal choices is not allowed in character creation.

The "Change Vocation" Milestone may work for those not wanting to use the 2:1 on DP

I can't see any reason someone would NEED to trade out Skill Ranks to customize. :-)

It's an option for others that would like to do it, I can see people wanting to buy skills outside of their vocation without doing a full vocational change.

Maybe the game could present different Development Styles as options:
A: Includes the 2:1 and the Milestone.
B: Only Milestone
C: Only 2:1
D: Close: None.

[Rasyr]

First thing to realize is that the concept of moving 2 DPs from one or two skill categories into another (to get 1 DP in that new skill category) is not a concept that I came up with. It is part of the core rules in Against the Darkmaster (vsD).

I happen to agree with it, and actually like it.

Having said that, unlike vsD, I don't actually see it coming into play until later levels (i.e. after a character gets above 10 ranks in skills, and their costs per rank goes up (which simulates the diminishing returns found in the d100 based vsD).

Part of why I do not seeing it being used a lot at lower levels is because of the customization that happens when you choose multiple Vocations to make your character. Yes, there can be some min-maxing, but not too much overall.

[Trentin Bergeron]

Thoughtful replies all!

I personally would discourage players from doing it. There's plenty of skills AND ranks to throw around, I feel like each offering is going to make a VERY competent role.

[Tywyll]

Sorry to Necro, but I have to strongly disagree with this. One of the things I love about RM/AtDM is the ability for any character to potentially do most things. I cannot see how a character choosing to sacrifice skill ranks to be less good in something else is any less difficult to balance than a D&D character taking a 1 or 2 level dip in another class to get some benefit.

[Rasyr]

Sorry to Necro, but I have to strongly disagree with this. One of the things I love about RM/AtDM is the ability for any character to potentially do most things. I cannot see how a character choosing to sacrifice skill ranks to be less good in something else is any less difficult to balance than a D&D character taking a 1 or 2 level dip in another class to get some benefit.

The shifting of Development Points from one Skill Category to another is actually part of Against the Darkmaster, and they got it from their inspiration (MERP) as it was in there as well. The idea behind it is to allow characters to acquire skills that they might not normally get due to their skill focus. This allows them to do, but since it is outside their focus, it takes more effort (more DPs).

Rolemaster did not need such a rule because they took and combined all of the DPs into a single pool, and then assigned differing costs to each skill for each proofession.

Do I think it will come up often? No, I do not, not with how flexible the vocational system is. But it being there allows for that extra bit if the player needs it.

[jadeeidolon]

1st - very impressed with your system, very well done. As long time Rolemaster fan, can see the Rolemaster/AtDM influence.

The shifting on DP's seems crucial to me. As 6 or the 8 pure caster vocations in the Beta doc do not get points in the Body category. So without being able to do that, anyone who is a Archtype (Wizard/Wizard vocations for example), has no way of getting more Hits as they level (besides using Background/Revelations).

[Rasyr]

1st - very impressed with your system, very well done. As long time Rolemaster fan, can see the Rolemaster/AtDM influence.

The shifting on DP's seems crucial to me. As 6 or the 8 pure caster vocations in the Beta doc do not get points in the Body category. So without being able to do that, anyone who is a Archtype (Wizard/Wizard vocations for example), has no way of getting more Hits as they level (besides using Background/Revelations).

Exactly, it allows for gaining the skills, just at a higher cost.