The Apprentice Wizard in my group has a high Int (5 and probably rising soon) and it seems to me that such a high Int allows him to do better even if untrained than the less bright characters with skills trained and I'd somehow like to make it more worthwhile for the characters who have trained a skill compared to just having a high int, but I'm not sure how best to do it - and preferably in a way as to not make skill checks impossible for untrained low int characters... O_ô

I realize it's a bit counter to the YES approach of the game, but the only obvious solution to me is to add say 2 misfortune or 1 challenge dice to the rolls if you aren't trained.

The probability generator ( http://www.jaj22.org.uk/wfrp/diceprob.html ) gives :
A character with 5 int an 81,25% chance of succes at a one <P> roll,whereas
a character with 3 int, trained and with a specialization has a 79% chance,
a character with 3 int but not trained - 59,4%
an untrained char with 2 Int 43,75%.

Adding an extra <P> for being untrained results in:
The int 5 character having 62,75% chance of success - which is a decent improvement
The int 3 character having 38,3% - which is a bit low and
The int 2 character having 25% - which unfortunately seems way to low to me to be fun for the players

Alternatively I could add the penalty only when it's something that you'd think could only be known if you have experience or training - but that still leaves a high int character being better than an average trained char at stuff like observation and intuition.

What are your experiences and possible solutions to this (if you even consider it a problem)?

I think adding a challenge for untrained use is perfectly fine. At least for some checks. I wouldn't do it for all checks (doing it for combat could be a bit harsh). In some situations being trained in a skill should count for more than raw talent. Specifically the lore skills and first aid I think.

I also think it's bad if, e.g., the wizard outshines the scout trained in Nature lore just due to higher Int in each and every situation that comes up.

gruntl said:

For this reason and just as an application of general sensibility, I tend to "color" certain skill checks based upon who is making them. The Scout vs. Wizard using Nature Lore is a great example.

A high-Int but otherwise untrained Wizard might succeed at a Nature Lore check and realize, "We should perhaps seek out a sample of Sanguinaria Canadensis. It's roots can be ground into paste that might help our ailing friend with his condition." The Wizard tends to be more "book-learned" and possess memory of lots of "facts" that he has encountered in his studies but probably hasn't had to put most of them into practical application.

But if the Scout (lower Int but trained in Nature Lore) succeeds at the check, he might not only confirm that the Wizard's hunch is correct but also know of nearby grottos in which the plant grows, what type of danger to expect when visiting those areas, how to distinguish it from a similar-looking but actually poisonous plant, and maybe even how to properly harvest and preserve the plant to keep its medicinal properties intact.

In short, just because characters are making the same skill check doesn't necessarily mean they will all possess the same information. Knowledge is shaped by the manner in which it is acquired and "book-learning" is different from "hands-on experience".

A Boatman knows more about waterways than a typical Hunter, who knows more about the forest than a typical Dwarf Coachman, who knows more about the mountains than a typical Roadwarden...even when they are all using the same skill. Note the heavy use of the word "typical". Atypical characters are always possible and should be worked out with the GM. To me, a career itself is a narrative cue as to how the character views and understands the world around them.

Just sharing my thoughts.

I agree with your ideas there - i would certainly colour the facts based on the character who acquired the knowledge.

One thing to bear in mind with this system is basic skills can be used by anyone so distinction between levels of training as well as how you would have acquired any facts on the subject becomes an important issue for maintaining suspension of disbelief. In your examples above the wizard may well know of the healing properties of a certain herb, and even where it is likely found - they are generally more educated and intelligent than your average joe but who is to say they would recognise the plant if they saw it or have the skills necessary to prepare it as a healing salve?

To the OP you need to bear in mind whether the skill is a basic or advanced skill before throwing in challenge die for untrained use - a challenge die is powerful and can dramatically alter your chances of success if thrown in against routine skill checks with starting players and when dealing with basic situations you don't want to be throwing random chaos stars at your party for the hell of it.

My personal view is that whilst on paper the wizard may be better than the scout in nature lore on paper due to its nature as an untrained skill with which the high intelligence of the wizard grants him a better chance of success, the chances of the wizard being more capable of identifying, harvesting and preparing herbs is much lower than the scout with the same level of training - don't forget not all scouts study medicinal herbs so if they are not trained in the skill as well you can't stereotype the character so you need to think quickly and apply both statistics and common sense to the roll being made.

Good suggestions all, thanks.

I think I'll go with an added challenge dice on untrained skill use in situation where experience and training rather than just luck and general knowledge is essential.

So for instance the Wizard may know a lot generally about nature lore and be helpful in theoretical and simple matters, but only the trained hunter has the proper experience in finding food and shelter.

42! said:

I have made some house rules to counter the high success rates. They work, are scalable and don't break other systems.

On a purple die, whenever you roll a chaos star it counts as two challenges and a reroll (roll a new purple and add the result). This cuts down the success rate toan acceptable (to me) level.

I slapped a 1 misfortune penalty onto the party when they tried tracking with nobody trained on observation or tracking. Helped offset the 'high stat but no training guy can pull it off without a hitch' bit.