Advancement Question

[eruditus]

I was curious about a few points on Learning skills:

When doing a test on a new skill could you get an advancement on the attribute instead?

If you are making a test on a skill you do not have that is based off Perception, is it open ended?

[Kublai]

To answer the first part, yes. This is certainly one way to get those Stat Advancement tests which are so hard to come by without the use of Practice. But the test goes towards the Stat or learning the skill, not both.

To answer the second part, it depends on the skill being learnt. A Sorcery Test would be open-ended, but an Herbalism test wouldn't. If the skill is open-ended, the learning test would be as well and vice versa.

[eruditus]

...Yes. This is certainly one way to get those Stat Advancement tests which are so hard to come by without the use of Practice. But the test goes towards the Stat or learning the skill, not both.


So what the system is saying is that the best way to advance quickly is to have VERY few skills. Someone who only has only four skills at high levels will do well on a focused number of things and their stats will advance very quickly from constant untrained rolls?

And almost all of these rolls will be Difficult or Challenging because they are done at double obstacle penalties (important since there are no Routine Stat tests).

[luke]

a character with few skills will advance at the same as a character with many skills. the number of skills one has does not determine rate of advancement.

the double obstacle penalty does not count when determining the difficulty of tests for advancement.

[eruditus]

To answer the second part, it depends on the skill being learnt. A Sorcery Test would be open-ended, but an Herbalism test wouldn't. If the skill is open-ended, the learning test would be as well and vice versa.

Okay, let me get this clear...

Conceptually speaking this answer sounds like when the GM calls for a skill test it should be treated as a skill, not a stat test. For if it is a stat test then perception based skills would all be open ended and, according to Kublai, they are not.

Yet, in your last answer, players can choose between giving advancement points to either the stat or the skill being learned.

These seem like contrary ideas. If you can chose to advance a stat, namely perception, then you are USING that stat, thus it is a stat roll, and if Perception, should be open ended.

Or, if such tests would be soley in the domain of the skill being learned then you WOULDN'T be able to advance the stat and thus this second answer stand - namely, only open ending appropriate skills.

I don't want to sound like a broken record but I think this sort of consitancy in the rules both removes ambiguity for the players and makes the GM's job easier. "Use common sense" is never a good way to explain away such logistic variances. IMHO :)

[eruditus]

a character with few skills will advance at the same as a character with many skills. the number of skills one has does not determine rate of advancement.

Ah, untrue mathematically. Stats are FAR more potent tools mechanically since they deal with raw damage, your ability to survive through NDs, determining Reflexes and MOST importantly a double duty learned skill generator as both roots to open skills AND as Aptitudes for learning skills more quickly. Thus, by having very few skills and by doing stat increases instead of skill increases, one can decrease the amount of time it takes to learn new skills and open those skills at superior levels AS WELL as have superior numbers in important core elements such as Reflexes, damage and wound levels. No skill does that (with the exception of some training skills that can't be learned through in-game use anyway). Stat advancement is FAR superior to skill advancement.

Don't get me wrong, this is not the character that will change the world as most of what he does he probably fails :) But by making things prograssively harder on himself he can soar and begin to far outstrip the other characters in power.

the double obstacle penalty does not count when determining the difficulty of tests for advancement.[/quote]

[Kublai]

So what the system is saying is that the best way to advance quickly is to have VERY few skills. Someone who only has only four skills at high levels will do well on a focused number of things and their stats will advance very quickly from constant untrained rolls?

I disagree with this. When I read the above, I think the system is saying that if you concentrate in one thing, you will suffer in another. The balance here is that your are forsaking skills for stats. The game will punish you when you need a skill you have ignored. The game will reward you when you have a skill you've concentrated in.

To correct your statement, I would make it more specific. The best way to advance your STATS is to have very few skills. And this is true.

[luke]

in theory, you're correct. in practice, it's not that simple. stats are hard to raise-- hard to get tests for, hard to practice, hard to advance. say what you will about math, i know this to be true.

GMs control tests for advancement. Period. Players do not. Why? Players often "misread" rules in their favor.

I have found it beneficial to use "common sense" for a number of things in my life. This instance happens to be one of them.

A character throws a ball. The player asks if he can take an Agility test. The GM agrees.
A character studies an ancient tome. The player asks if he can take a Perception test. The GM refuses and tells him it was clearly a Research test.

A character commands a group of soldiers in desperate fighting. The GM tells the player he can note a Will test or start a Command skill.

The first instinct, is of course, to note the Will test. But earning skills and getting rid of that pesky double-obstacle penalty is crucial to survival in game. A higher Will (or a couple of noted tests) are generally useless when you don't have what it takes to survive the situation.

[Kublai]

Conceptually speaking this answer sounds like when the GM calls for a skill test it should be treated as a skill, not a stat test. For if it is a stat test then perception based skills would all be open ended and, according to Kublai, they are not.

Yet, in your last answer, players can choose between giving advancement points to either the stat or the skill being learned.

These seem like contrary ideas. If you can chose to advance a stat, namely perception, then you are USING that stat, thus it is a stat roll, and if Perception, should be open ended.


To clarify my statement, I believe you should treat the two uses of a Stat seperately. If you didn't put a stop to it somewhere, then you would have players asking why aren't all Per-based skills open-ended.

When you test a Stat in order to learn a skill, the open-ended dice depend on the skill being tested: Sorcery would be open-ended, but Herbalism wouldn't be. When you test Perception in order to advance that Stat, then it is my opinion that the dice would be open-ended.

[eruditus]

When you test a Stat in order to learn a skill, the open-ended dice depend on the skill being tested: Sorcery would be open-ended, but Herbalism wouldn't be. When you test Perception in order to advance that Stat, then it is my opinion that the dice would be open-ended.

Let me give an example (this is meant to cover all such tests not JUST this skill):

The GM asks for an Ob2 Research test and the character does not have the research skill. Thus it reverts to a double obstacle (Ob4) Perception test. What advancement dot would be filled in?

[Kublai]

I always played it as Player's choice. Before he rolls the dice, he must decide if it would be towards his perception Stat or towards learning a new skill. If it is towards Perception, it would be an open-ended test at double Obstacle, counting as a Ob2 for Stat Advancement purposes. If it is towards Research, then it would be the same, except it wouldn't be open-ended.

So, it would be a choice between a higher chance of success with the Stat being rolled and earning a Test towards Stat advancement, and a lower chance of success and earning test towards learning the skill.

[eruditus]

I always played it as Player's choice. Before he rolls the dice, he must decide if it would be towards his perception Stat or towards learning a new skill. If it is towards Perception, it would be an open-ended test at double Obstacle, counting as a Ob2 for Stat Advancement purposes. If it is towards Research, then it would be the same, except it wouldn't be open-ended.

So, it would be a choice between a higher chance of success with the Stat being rolled and earning a Test towards Stat advancement, and a lower chance of success and earning test towards learning the skill.

Okay, got it.

Thus, depending on the type of campaign the GM is running, unskilled rolls can be an alternate source for stat advancement, right? On the other hand I suppose you would decide based on whether its a Difficult or Challenging test or not. If its a routine you would go for making it a learned skill but if its a D or C test, its probably in your best interest to make it a Perception advancement and you increase your chances of success by it being open-ended. Is my perspective here on the mark?

[Kublai]

Yeah, I'd say that was on the mark. It seems like a good balance to me; Stat or Skill. Stat Advancement is definitely a long term thing, but has a bigger pay-off. Skill advancement is the easier route with a faster return. By the time you up a Stat and learned the skill at its root, you probably could've learned the skill and jacked it up a few notches. Tough.