Topic: off-the-cuff skill bonuses

[kreider204]

I’m imagining a scenario in which I have to come up with an NPC’s skill rank completely on the fly - for example, a situation in which a thief PC decides completely off the cuff to pickpocket a random passer-by.  The problem, of course, is that I need to come up with the NPC’s perception skill bonus on the fly.  I’d like to come up with a simple chart so that I can use in such situations – it can even be overly simplistic, as long as it’s not entirely unreasonable.  I’m imagining the following VERY broad categories, and the approximate skill modifiers, rounded to convenient numbers:

Absurd: -60 (e.g., someone with zero ranks in the skill and obnoxiously bad scores in the relevant stats).

Feeble: -40 (e.g., someone with zero ranks in the skill and below average scores in the relevant stats).

Poor: -25 (e.g., someone with zero ranks in the skill and completely average stats).

Typical: +5 (e.g., someone with a single rank in the skill but no stat (or other) bonuses or penalties.

Good: +20 (e.g., someone with a decent bit of training or higher than usual stats)

Excellent: +40 (professional level training)

Remarkable: +60 (top of one’s profession)

Incredible: +80 (abilities past the bounds of most normal people)

Amazing: +100 (almost godlike abilities)

Thoughts?  Reactions?  Do those seem about right for my VERY approximate, on the fly purposes?

[Arioch]

IMHO the rule saying that you must roll to see if you notice that someone successfully pickpocked you doesn't make sense (I really can't understand why it isn't treated as a normal skill vs skill roll...).
However: I'd treat common NPC as simple monsters, give them a level on the fly and 1 rank per level in Perception (2 if they're above average and 3 if they're very perceptive individuals).

[jasonbrisbane]

Arioch,

I dont have my books, but I think that pick pockets is a contested Skill, so you must roll Pick Pockets versus the other persons perception.....


 

[Karizma]

I usually make Skill vs. Skills as The "Defender's" Skill is used to gauge the Difficulty of the Maneuver, (including Modifiers), and then the player makes a standard Maneuver roll.

It's quicker for me  .

[Sazen]

If you make pick pockets a contested skill then it becomes an unbalanced as there is no chance of failer.

You either pick somenones pocket and the notice or they dont. Either way you successfully pick their pocket.

The skill check for pick-pockets is to determine if you can successfully pick someons pocket, they then get a perception check against that.

But in answer to the question those seem like reasonable modifiers to me.

[Marc R]

Kreider. . .you skipped Monstrous and Unearthly. . . .

[kreider204]

Kreider. . .you skipped Monstrous and Unearthly. . . .

I was wondering if anyone would catch that!!!   I suppose you have FASERIP memorized too ...   

[Marc R]

I do recall creating the color table on a sheet of looseleaf from time to time, though it has been at least a decade.

[kreider204]

The universal table, good stuff!

[Winterknight]

If you make pick pockets a contested skill then it becomes an unbalanced as there is no chance of failer.

You either pick somenones pocket and the notice or they dont. Either way you successfully pick their pocket.

I would respectfully disagree with that.  A good thief will be alert to the attentiveness of the target.  A failure result would not necessarily indicate that the thief was spotted in the attempt, but could indicate that the burglar aborted his attempt, because he thought he might be spotted, due to the watchfulness of his intended victim. 

[jurasketu]

Excellent point, Winterknight. I agree completely with that treatment.

[kreider204]

To what authority do I report a thread hijacking? ...
 

[jasonbrisbane]

If you make pick pockets a contested skill then it becomes an unbalanced as there is no chance of failer.

You either pick somenones pocket and the notice or they dont. Either way you successfully pick their pocket.

The skill check for pick-pockets is to determine if you can successfully pick someons pocket, they then get a perception check against that.

But in answer to the question those seem like reasonable modifiers to me.

I believe that the skill says that if you fail by 20 then they notice the attempt and you fail; if you suceed by less than 20 then you suceed but they still notice the attempt.

I see nothing wrong with that since your giving up the 100+ skill resolution method in place of the chance to suceed in a L1 character picking the pocket of another L1 character...


But, knowing you guys Im sure either yourself or Pat will disagree! 

[Sazen]

I would respectfully disagree with that.  A good thief will be alert to the attentiveness of the target.  A failure result would not necessarily indicate that the thief was spotted in the attempt, but could indicate that the burglar aborted his attempt, because he thought he might be spotted, due to the watchfulness of his intended victim. 

This is a brilliant way to treat the skill use and i agree. It however is not an oppossed cheack though... An oppossed cheack results in two parties trying to beat each other, a winner and  loser.

What your suggesting i think is a check to see if you can succeed with their perception as a target number.

I believe that the skill says that if you fail by 20 then they notice the attempt and you fail; if you suceed by less than 20 then you suceed but they still notice the attempt.

This seems a reasonable way to do it though the mothod in the book (different from what you posted) seems reasonable to me.

[RandalThor]

To what authority do I report a thread hijacking? ...
 

ICE doesn't have enough man-power to deal with the amount of thread-jacking that occurs. 

[RandalThor]

This is a brilliant way to treat the skill use and i agree. It however is not an oppossed cheack though... An oppossed cheack results in two parties trying to beat each other, a winner and  loser.

What your suggesting i think is a check to see if you can succeed with their perception as a target number.

I think I like this way. It is two static skill checks that just so happen to be acting *like* an opposed roll, only you get multiple possible outcomes (4, not including critical success or failures):

Both fails,
One succeeds other fails,
Both succeed. 

I don't think it adds anymore complexity, but it does add detail. Nice. Great idea guys.

[Pat]

If you make pick pockets a contested skill then it becomes an unbalanced as there is no chance of failer.

You either pick somenones pocket and the notice or they dont. Either way you successfully pick their pocket.

The skill check for pick-pockets is to determine if you can successfully pick someons pocket, they then get a perception check against that.

But in answer to the question those seem like reasonable modifiers to me.

I believe that the skill says that if you fail by 20 then they notice the attempt and you fail; if you suceed by less than 20 then you suceed but they still notice the attempt.

I see nothing wrong with that since your giving up the 100+ skill resolution method in place of the chance to suceed in a L1 character picking the pocket of another L1 character...


But, knowing you guys Im sure either yourself or Pat will disagree! 

Jas, I hate to disagree with you but I agree with you entirely. 

[jasonbrisbane]

I would respectfully disagree with that.  A good thief will be alert to the attentiveness of the target.  A failure result would not necessarily indicate that the thief was spotted in the attempt, but could indicate that the burglar aborted his attempt, because he thought he might be spotted, due to the watchfulness of his intended victim. 

This is a brilliant way to treat the skill use and i agree. It however is not an oppossed cheack though... An oppossed cheack results in two parties trying to beat each other, a winner and  loser.

What your suggesting i think is a check to see if you can succeed with their perception as a target number.

I believe that the skill says that if you fail by 20 then they notice the attempt and you fail; if you suceed by less than 20 then you suceed but they still notice the attempt.

This seems a reasonable way to do it though the mothod in the book (different from what you posted) seems reasonable to me.

Yes, sorry, thats what I meant!

[Marc R]

A nice page of generic stats would be handy to have. . .I know when I was converting HARP adventures to RM stats I just slapped up a crib sheet of levels down the left, and low/mid/high across the top.

Low = 1 rank every other level
mid = 1 rank every level
high = 2 ranks per level

Then all I had to worry about was if they had  Level or stat bonuses or not, and I could mostly do those on the fly.

Took me a bit under an hour to mock up that table, which saved me a lot of time after that.

The really generic table ala FASERIP above does give quick answers, but to a degree, the level vs interest +/- stat bonus is more complicated in most situations.

Like, the 10th level mage, likely not a combat monster, but likely did either 1/2 level in ranks with their weapon, or level ranks in their weapon. . .a 10th level mage may have an OB with staff akin to 3-4th level fighter OB with sword.

So rather than the above, I'd likely go with a level vs ranks/level table, then assume a certain amount of blurring of those numbers due to talents/stats.

so you could look at it, say "10th level fighter, how good with a sword?"

go to the 10th level line, slide over to the 3 ranks/level column, then add 10-30 for stat/talent/professional mods.

Not quite as quick and easy, but your example above might just be a bit too quick and easy.