|
Post by ripx187 on Aug 9, 2018 19:07:27 GMT -5
One of the exciting ideas that I have found on this site is the idea of d6 Thief Skills. tetramorph and waysoftheearth created an excellent example of an old-school thief that wasn't dependent on the clunky and ineffective %d system. The only issue that I have with it is that it is static and doesn't improve. I'd like to offer some changes. It all boils down to quality. The DM identifies the quality of the lock or trap and decides if it is Easy/Medium/Difficult. This goes back to my AD&D days and adjusting things so that low level thieves can do more than miss their targets. As written above, the chance to succeed are really good! Much better than AD&D! I'm fine with this, I don't want to change it because it is easy to remember, and it works! I think that were we can add progression adjustments is with how long it takes to accomplish this goal. My old way was to identify the time needed to open said locks (I'm going to refer to locks but it applies to disarming traps too). This = 1 attempt. Easy: 1 round Medium: 11-20 rounds Difficult: 1-6 turns To add a level of progression we could have the Thief reaching mastery at 10th level? At 1st level, we add 10 rounds to medium and 10 turns to difficult, subtracting 1 time unit for each level, and after 10th (if they live that long) we begin subtracting time. Does this make sense? What are your thoughts? I tried another system that used the clerics turning ability as a basis, but I just didn't like it. Using the funny dice can be a thing, but I prefer the added time because you don't need any more tables. At 5th level it will take at least 16 minutes to open a Medium lock, and at least an hour to crack a difficult one.
|
|
|
Post by Hexenritter Verlag on Aug 9, 2018 21:35:17 GMT -5
I like it, it adds a bit of depth without unneeded complication. Exalt earned!
|
|
|
Post by mao on Aug 10, 2018 8:06:27 GMT -5
Not bad, not bad at all, I see the advantages to this idea.I agree that there is no prob keeping the ability itself static, will def consider stealing.
|
|
|
Post by Colinouchou on Aug 10, 2018 10:38:34 GMT -5
Not bad, not bad at all, I see the advantages to this idea.I agree that there is no prob keeping the ability itself static, will def consider stealing. No pun intended?
|
|
|
Post by mao on Aug 10, 2018 10:44:36 GMT -5
Not bad, not bad at all, I see the advantages to this idea.I agree that there is no prob keeping the ability itself static, will def consider stealing. No pun intended? I am in the "Pun-itentury"
|
|
|
Post by Q Man on Aug 12, 2018 17:09:43 GMT -5
Any play test of these ideas going on in the near future or have they already been tested?
|
|