I know that there are options for custom skills, but I have never made a serious attempt at thinking of any, until now! (cue Daeglan)

My idea was related to Mass Combat, I am a strategy game junkie, so it seemed right up my alley. It is really only useful in specific campaigns or character builds, but there is a way to make it more generally useful.

My propose custom skill is this: Strategy (int.): Right before the first roll of Mass Combat (and re-rolled later at GM discretion), make an opposed Strategy check with the opposing commander, success grants one upgrade to your pool, failure grants one upgrade to you opponent's Mass Combat pool (+1 per 2 additional Success/Failure). 2 Advantage/Threat may be spent to remove a Boost/Setback, 3 Advantage/Threat may be spent to downgrade your opponent's Mass Combat pool once, Triumph/Despair may be spent to decrease and downgrade your opponent's Mass Combat pool once.

Dejarik: Opposed Strategy check, must win 3 checks to win the game: 2 Advantage/Threat add a Boost/Setback, 3 Advantage/Threat downgrade opponent's pool once, Triumph/Despair ?

What other examples of custom skills do you have? What critiques do you have of my Strategy skill?

Isn't this already covered by Knowledge: Warfare?

1 minute ago, micheldebruyn said:

Isn't this already covered by Knowledge: Warfare?

The thing is, all potential parallels cover something different. You see, someone can know the strategies, and yet not know how to best make use of them. Aside from that, which is easily handwaved as it is just a matter of opinion, you end up with "one skill to rule them all" because you can use Knowledge (Warfare) to form your dice pool for Mass Combat.

As micheldebruyn said, this is all covered under Knowledge: Warfare, which was specifically added to AoR during the open beta to cover not only what a character knows about military organizations but also of strategy and combat tactics/techniques.

Playing Dejarik would probably instead be handled by an opposed Cool check, much like other games of chance, with the only possible alteration needed being to allow the player to use their Intellect instead of Presence. Or allow the character playing the game to use either Knowledge: Warfare or Cool (their choice). I've played chess at a competitive level (typically local as I know I'm not that good) a great many years ago, and while a grasp of tactics is certainly helpful, equally helpful is being able to keep your wits about you and not get flustered under pressure, especially if the game is timed and you only have so much time to make your move.

The other main problem in adding such specialized custom skills is that you run into an ever increasing risk of skill bloat, where players feel that they have to spread their XP (already a limited resource) even more than they already must, as well as running a much greater risk of making existing skills obsolete.

Plus, this system was designed at it's core to try and keep skills more on the generalized side of things; the combat skills are a prime example of this as in reality the training needed to expertly use a sword or an axe or a baton or a quarterstaff are all quite different, and thus would fall into separate skills. However, in this game they all fall under the single Melee skill. Same holds true with a number of other skills; Skulduggery covers a variety of nefariously-themed actions just as an example.

And yet, in the films and other media, we constantly see the heroes and major villains are able to broadly proficient in a wide array of fields. Something that adding more and more overly specific skills to your game continues to undercut, and again cuts away at the opportunities for the players to be able to mimic the stuff they see the heroes of the films/toons/books doing.

7 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

The thing is, all potential parallels cover something different.

No, they really don't. Frankly, it reads like you're just adding a new skill to force a PC that wants to be a field commander of large forces to spend their valuable XP into a specific skill that's even less generally useful than most Knowledge skills wind up being.

Just now, Donovan Morningfire said:

Playing Dejarik would probably instead be handled by an opposed Cool check, much like other games of chance, with the only possible alteration needed being to allow the player to use their Intellect instead of Presence. Or allow the character playing the game to use either Knowledge: Warfare or Cool (their choice). I've played chess at a competitive level (typically local as I know I'm not that good) a great many years ago, and while a grasp of tactics is certainly helpful, equally helpful is being able to keep your wits about you and not get flustered under pressure, especially if the game is timed and you only have so much time to make your move.

Cool-Intellect is actually a pretty good substitute if you don't want to use Strategy (Intellect).

3 minutes ago, Donovan Morningfire said:

As micheldebruyn said, this is all covered under Knowledge: Warfare, which was specifically added to AoR during the open beta to cover not only what a character knows about military organizations but also of strategy and combat tactics/techniques.

Yeah, I guess, but then you end up with the aforementioned issue of using Knowledge (Warfare) for both parts of Mass Combat. Maybe other people don't care, but I like the idea of putting the commanders' strategies head-to-head for both the narrative benefits and because it can allow you to adjust the encounter to counter the PCs without just being sneaky.

1 minute ago, Donovan Morningfire said:

The other main problem in adding such specialized custom skills is that you run into an ever increasing risk of skill bloat, where players feel that they have to spread their XP (already a limited resource) even more than they already must, as well as running a much greater risk of making existing skills obsolete.

I would agree with that, but, in this case, it's just one skill, so the spread isn't so bad. It doesn't make any skills obsolete, they do different things.

2 minutes ago, Donovan Morningfire said:

Plus, this system was designed at it's core to try and keep skills more on the generalized side of things; the combat skills are a prime example of this as in reality the training needed to expertly use a sword or an axe or a baton or a quarterstaff are all quite different, and thus would fall into separate skills. However, in this game they all fall under the single Melee skill. Same holds true with a number of other skills; Skulduggery covers a variety of nefariously-themed actions just as an example.

And yet, in the films and other media, we constantly see the heroes and major villains are able to broadly proficient in a wide array of fields. Something that adding more and more overly specific skills to your game continues to undercut, and again cuts away at the opportunities for the players to be able to mimic the stuff they see the heroes of the films/toons/books doing.

I agree with that.

2 minutes ago, Donovan Morningfire said:

No, they really don't. Frankly, it reads like you're just adding a new skill to force a PC that wants to be a field commander of large forces to spend their valuable XP into a specific skill that's even less generally useful than most Knowledge skills wind up being.

If they are going to be doing Mass Combat checks on a regular basis, I don't think it's that bad. And, as always, if the player(s) in question don't like it, we wouldn't use it.
Plus, ad hominem.

Why intellect and not cunning? Knowledge (Warfare) seems good for history of tactice, but implementing them definitely seems more cunning-based.

10 minutes ago, kaosoe said:

Why intellect and not cunning? Knowledge (Warfare) seems good for history of tactice, but implementing them definitely seems more cunning-based.

Intellect is described as long term strategies and Cunning is described as short term tactics, so I would add to that that Intellect is for the battle as a whole, coordinating all the moving parts, and Cunning is for NCOs handling situations as they crop up.

8 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

Intellect is described as long term strategies and Cunning is described as short term tactics, so I would add to that that Intellect is for the battle as a whole, coordinating all the moving parts, and Cunning is for NCOs handling situations as they crop up.

Yes, but Warfare already is the skill the specifically made to cover this sort of thing. This is like adding a Ranged: Blasters skill.

@Donovan Morningfire and @micheldebruyn are correct here. What you want is fully covered with Knowledge (Warfare). If you're trying to pit two commanders' strategies head to head, simply use an opposed roll. Problem solved.

3 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

@Donovan Morningfire and @micheldebruyn are correct here. What you want is fully covered with Knowledge (Warfare). If you're trying to pit two commanders' strategies head to head, simply use an opposed roll. Problem solved.

The issue is that you can use Warfare for the Mass Combat roll itself, and then you'd end up with one skill that is used for both.

3 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

The issue is that you can use Warfare for the Mass Combat roll itself, and then you'd end up with one skill that is used for both.

So? You can use Mechanics to fix old stuff and to craft new stuff. You can use Ranged to shoot guns and to throw knives. There's practically no end to what I've seen Discipline used for.

Just now, micheldebruyn said:

So? You can use Mechanics to fix old stuff and to craft new stuff. You can use Ranged to shoot guns and to throw knives. There's practically no end to what I've seen Discipline used for.

The issue in this case is using Warfare for the opposed check, and then using it for the mass combat roll, it seems like double dipping to me, because the PC can then just get the talent and then invest in the one skill to cover both. I also don't think that it makes the most sense to use Warfare in this case, because it is a more readily available skill and if you have a Heavy, for example, with 3 ranks in Warfare because he knows a lot about vehicles, that doesn't necessarily translate to strategic acumen. Having a separate skill helps that. I'd really just as soon have the opposed check, and then just use Leadership to represent your ability to successfully command your troops.

Based on how they built the system, however, I agree that, without the opposed check, it makes sense for them to use Cool, Warfare, or Leadership as those represent different styles.
For a Mass Combat central campaign however, I think that I would use Strategy for an opposed check, and then use Leadership or the substitutes for the Mass Combat check itself.

For the occasional Mass Combat, I would just use the RAW.

An opposed check is especially useful if you have a nemesis that you are constantly testing your wits against, trying to outwit, etc. as it allows the player to feel like they personally bested their opponent rather than just having stronger forces.

9 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

The issue in this case is using Warfare for the opposed check, and then using it for the mass combat roll, it seems like double dipping to me, because the PC can then just get the talent and then invest in the one skill to cover both. I also don't think that it makes the most sense to use Warfare in this case, because it is a more readily available skill and if you have a Heavy, for example, with 3 ranks in Warfare because he knows a lot about vehicles, that doesn't necessarily translate to strategic acumen. Having a separate skill helps that. I'd really just as soon have the opposed check, and then just use Leadership to represent your ability to successfully command your troops.

Based on how they built the system, however, I agree that, without the opposed check, it makes sense for them to use Cool, Warfare, or Leadership as those represent different styles.
For a Mass Combat central campaign however, I think that I would use Strategy for an opposed check, and then use Leadership or the substitutes for the Mass Combat check itself.

For the occasional Mass Combat, I would just use the RAW.

An opposed check is especially useful if you have a nemesis that you are constantly testing your wits against, trying to outwit, etc. as it allows the player to feel like they personally bested their opponent rather than just having stronger forces.

You would have a point if it was a Cunning skill, but you have it using the same stat as Warfare, so assuming the character has decent Intelect, which it should if it has invested in Mass Combat checks, it costs like 10 or 25 XP max to be good enough at this.

7 minutes ago, micheldebruyn said:

You would have a point if it was a Cunning skill, but you have it using the same stat as Warfare, so assuming the character has decent Intelect, which it should if it has invested in Mass Combat checks, it costs like 10 or 25 XP max to be good enough at this.

Okay, then maybe it should be Cunning. I guess that it isn't really a long game sort of thing anyway.

Maybe it would depend on the circumstances of the Mass Combat.

4 hours ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

...and then you'd end up with one skill that is used for both.

Which is something the entire system is built around, trying to condense the skill lists as much as possible while still letting the skills have some degree of individual specialism.

Under the logic you're pushing to validate your custom skill, Ranged (Light) and Ranged (Heavy), both of which cover a very broad array of weapons, shouldn't exist and that there should be Ranged (Thrown), Ranged (Pistols), Ranged (Rifles), Ranged (Grenades), and Ranged (Bows). Same with the Melee skill should be broken down into a whole slew of separate skills as each weapon type uses vastly different techniques. Even Brawl could be broken down as you've got "hard" combat styles (Boxing, Tae Kwon Do), grappling-based combat styles (Olympic Wrestling), and "soft" combat styles (Tai Chi, Aikido) at the very least.

The social skills could again be broken down even further under the logic you're pushing to differentiate, such as various methods of intimidation (physical threats, implied threats, torture) each having its own skill.

Even the Knowledge skills have aspects of this. Knowledge (Outer Rim) and Knowledge (Core Worlds) both cover a whole lot of detail for wide swaths of the galaxy, things that realistically should be by planet. Same with Knowledge (Education) covering a wide and diverse array of topics.

Frankly, you're trying to hard to push a custom skill as a good idea when at the end of the day, it's not needed. Besides, there's specs in the AoR splat for Commanders which feature talents that let the character use something other than Knowledge (Warfare) for Mass Combat, which renders a lot of your concerns about Knowledge (Warfare) being "too good" for a very specific thing moot.

56 minutes ago, Donovan Morningfire said:

Frankly, you're trying to hard to push a custom skill as a good idea when at the end of the day, it's not needed. Besides, there's specs in the AoR splat for Commanders which feature talents that let the character use something other than Knowledge (Warfare) for Mass Combat, which renders a lot of your concerns about Knowledge (Warfare) being "too good" for a very specific thing moot.

Leadership is the default, Knowledge (Warfare), Coercion, and Cool are the ones you can use via talents.

This game is meant to be flexible fast and fly by the seat of your pants. You keep wanting to bog the game down with all sorts of complicated mini rules that arent needed and make the game slower. Im telling you play the game raw more it will flow better and handle more situations smoothly than adding a special rule for every contingency. Star wars is based on pulp serials where the heroes are broadly capable. Not narrowly focused

2 hours ago, Daeglan said:

This game is meant to be flexible fast and fly by the seat of your pants. You keep wanting to bog the game down with all sortsnof complicated mini riles that arent needed and make the game slower. Im telling y ok u play the game raw more itnwill flow bettwe and handle mpre situations smoothly than adding a special rule for every cpntingency. Star wars is based on pulp serials where the heroes are broadly capable. Not narrowly focused

Daeglan....don't type when you're tired...... 😋

Not going to beat the already dead horse of Warfare...but.

What about a skill like Artist? Charm? Leadership? Intimidation? I just can't see the General going, "My troops listen to what I say, so for the times I'm not here I'm going to paint this inspirational painting or better yet, I'll compose an inspirational song!"

A can handle Artist being broad in it's own right, but just can't wrap my head around what do use RAW, nothing sounds remotely appropriate. I can see some of the socials for performance (and coordination for dance) but even then I need a heavy sideways lance with some thick goggles.

8 hours ago, Jareth Valar said:

Not going to beat the already dead horse of Warfare...but.

What about a skill like Artist? Charm? Leadership? Intimidation? I just can't see the General going, "My troops listen to what I say, so for the times I'm not here I'm going to paint this inspirational painting or better yet, I'll compose an inspirational song!"

A can handle Artist being broad in it's own right, but just can't wrap my head around what do use RAW, nothing sounds remotely appropriate. I can see some of the socials for performance (and coordination for dance) but even then I need a heavy sideways lance with some thick goggles.

Intimidation is coercion. Art is an area i could see a custom skill for. Though i am not sure how it would apply in game

3 hours ago, Daeglan said:

Art is an area i could see a custom skill for. Though i am not sure how it would apply in game

It would pretty much just be a hobby skill. Captain Shack of the XPGamers used Art as a skill for making propaganda posters, but I could also see it used to impress someone or make some money.

14 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

It would pretty much just be a hobby skill. Captain Shack of the XPGamers used Art as a skill for making propaganda posters, but I could also see it used to impress someone or make some money.

Which in the current game use skulduggery for making counterfit money and charm for propaganda.

Using it to impress someone would be charm.

That is the beauty of this system. You can cover most things with the existing skills. Also you dont have to use the base stat with the skill. Ie an int+ranged light could be used to know about blaster bistols. Cunning+warfare could be used to come up with tricky deceptive tactics.

I had an idea that I think you guys might go for, but I need some help on the details. I'd call it a compromise, but, if anything, I like it more than the original suggestion:

Discard Strategy. Instead, use Knowledge (Warfare) for the opposed check. In order to avoid one skill for both parts of Mass Combat, replace the Clever Commander talent that allows the character to use Knowledge (Warfare) for Mass Combat with "Flexible Commander" (or "Adaptable Commander"): Once per Mass Combat after a phase, may (spend 1 Destiny Point, make a Hard Leadership(?) check, take X strain) and re-roll the opposed check.

What do you think? Also, I need some help with the details (as you can see). It would go into the Strategist tree at square 2B and because of how the tree is built, it would cost a minimum of 25 XP to get to it.