Add +Black die dodging?

chikago666 said:

Nope it doesn't, but I am inclined to say that it would be a good house rule, since you get a white die from weapon specialization. Would be a good balance.

Yeah Gallows is correct.

However I AM considering that house rule myself...

I have a player who has the Parry specialization...I have him add a black die when he uses this active defense.

I don't believe we have any guidance in the rules about how to handle these types of specializations.

I think "dodge" is to cheap... the players should specialize in dodging misile weapons, natural weapons (claws and such), or melee weapons. Like for parry I'd make it a specific weapon.

Spivo,

Link it to the Action Card. We use the above rule. When parrying (using Parry active defense) we add a black die. Period. The reason this isn't 'unbalanced' is because on any given round you can parry once, and barring expenditure of talents/fortune points on recharge/invigorated you're pretty much jammed up with using said card every other round.

If you DO expend resources to try and give yourself more parries, well that's a ton of XP you're sinking into buying the ability to do that, in which case it's a character focus, and that black die is as useful as it should be.

It also adds a bit of variety to spec's.

The rules say that specializations add a fortune die [W] to associated checks. Since a Dodge does not require a check, nor does it provide [W], a specialization in Dodging does not provide an additional when using the Dodge Reaction card per the rules.

What a Dodging specialization does is provide a [W] die when dodging outside of combat/narratively and actively making a check to dodge something. For example, a trap is sprung that shoots out poison darts. The GM states that the PC can attempt to dodge the darts, requiring a Coordination test. Since the PC has a specialization in Dodging, he would gain a [W] to this check to dodge the darts.

Actually, adding misfortune based on someone elses skills and specializations when rolls are opposed is mentioned multiple times (p 40/41 core). It doesn't specify this example, but its certainly not outside RAW. Otherwise that specialization is pretty darn useless all things told.

Also, while an opinion or a separate argument - I don't see why a spec in Weapon Skill gets you a white die on every attack with a weapon, but a coordination specialization in dodging wouldn't help you once in a while when using a specific card and instead would only come into play under obscure non-combat conditions.

shinma said:

I think it greatly depends on how much combat fills your campaign.

You can argue why anyone would take coordination above 1 training, because there's no use for it apart from getting Imp. Dodge.

I DO let players get spec for dodge though, but they have to spec for specific situations (traps, missile, blasts, etc...).

I do this, because I also let players add a misfortune dice per training in coordination (when dodging), and specs are not meant to be as strong as training.

Spec in weapon only lets you add white dice to a specific weapon, so enforcing same on coordination spec makes sense.

I'm not saying it isn't a reasonable house rule. It just isn't what RAW says, though. <shrug> The GM always has control and can assign various modifiers to any action based on environmental effects and enemy skills.

Keep in mind that being Trained > Specialization, and as far as Dodge/Parry/Block being trained in the appropriate skill adds a . So, should a specialization provide the same defensive bonus as training?

I'd probably agree with Spivo's idea. If you want to allow specializations to add to defensive actions, I'd suggest being more specific and saying "dodging missiles" or "dodging blasts", etc.

shinma said:

If you read the rules, they actually state very precisely that dodge/parry/block specializations do not add misfortune dice when defending. But it's a good house rule.

The specializations are used when you have to make a coordination check to avoid a falling tree for instance.

I just ran into this question with a player in my game, save it's the parry specialization. So I tried to put some thought into a good house rule. Here is my first thought for defensive specializations (block, dodge, parry):

The specializations in block, dodge, and parry fall under the skills resilience, coordination, and weapon skill. With those skills the defensive actions force opponents to roll two dice on their attack roll. Several people mentioned people mentioned adding an additional die for a total of 3. Another forum member mentioned trying not to roll as many dice, which I agree with. (A quick aside. I split the dice pool up between attacker and defender. Attacker (eg GM) rolls the positive attack dice while defender (eg player) rolls the negative defense dice.)

So, my first proposition is a defender playing a basic defense card with which they have a specialization rolls one [Y] skill die, with success/boon treated as challenge/bane to the attacker. Additionally a righteous success allows an additional roll, potentially making a trained defender harder to hit.

I like this rule, but it has two problems: first, it goes against the RAW which flatly states no additional dice; second, it breaks if a player picks up Improved Block/Dodge/Parry as an action. So I came to the forums and found many others with the same problems. Back to the drawing board. How to make the specialty matter without fooling with the dice? The designers thought about this enough to specifically address it. We could remove the defensive specialties all together, but if attack rolls get them why not defense? So what else could be modified? Then I thought about the recharge and how a character trained in a task should be able to perform it more smoothly or quickly.

Therefore, I propose a character playing a defensive action with which they have specialization places one less recharge token on the card when activated.

Thoughts?

I would be wary of allowing the lessening of recharge and allowing the Active Defenses from being used more often.

Honestly, I don't see the problem. Specialization in dodge/parry/block can still be useful. Granted, they are not combat specializations. Neither are a lot of specializations, but people aren't complaining about those. Just don't think of them as combat specializations.

I proposed another place to split it up in "Dodge Misiles", "Dodge Melee weapons", "Dodge Natural weapons", and finally something like "Dodge traps".

That would make it more alligned to weapon specs, and would also be a reason for people to continue to train Coordination above 1 rank.

dvang said:

Could you provide some examples of how it could be useful (and not the 'its a trap!' one, as traps are not all that common). Just quick one-liners would be awesome.

To explain what the problem is, and why people are upset think about the following:

So, there are some skills, that are useful in a number of situations. Charm can be used to negotiate a contract, lower the price on items, even maybe pause someone mid-combat with the right action card.

Weapon Skill is useful in combat. You take it to fight, and you use it juuuuuust about every round as a melee combatant. It has two functions, one is to make you hit better/harder by providing yellow/white dice, and the other is to help you not get hit better/harder by adding dice to the parry action card. Weapon skill is NOT useful outside of combat (I'm sure I can come up with some obscure example where you use a flourish in a social scenario, but let's stick to the 99.99% of the examples).

So if you are taking a Weapon Skill you want to be good at combat, and you want the benefit of it to apply to that. If you specialize you can specialize in a weapon, which gives you a benefit to one of the functions of weapon skill, pretty much all the time (as most characters will use a single signature weapon or style). So if you have a choice of taking something that works with the skill, or 'Parry' you ask, 'what does parry do for me'.

The answer 'Well sometimes outside of combat, you can get a white die' causes alot of anger and resentment, puzzlement, and confusion because you don't use Weapon Skill outside of combat. This is why people are 'complaining about those'. If there is a non-combat-useful charm specialization it's ok, because there are plenty of scenarios people can think up that it could apply to. Or maybe very few but specific ones they'd actually want the bonus die! But looking at weapon skill specs though - someone that takes 'my standard weapon X' as a specialization is smart, and someone that takes 'parry' is not benefiting themselves, and trying to figure out why it is so bad.

Thus, the house rules above attempt to resolve this issue, and people immediately leap to them as the 'obvious' choice because for 1 xp you could 'always' be better at what the skill is designed for (like channeling your wind for example), or you could take a 'wasted' specialization. As weapon skill already does benefit defense through the parry action, it's not illogical to assume that learning to fight defensively and specializing/training in that it would benefit such a thing.

Apparently as per RAW this isn't the case, but hope that explains why people struggle so much with the concept, and why in every game I know of (which I think is up to a half-dozen) everyone house rules it as such.

A) Logic (desire for balance, weighing against same cost purchases/benefits)

B) Set Precedent (parry action card)

Hope that helps.

- Dodge to avoid a pie in a food fight

- Dodge to slip through a crowd

- Dodge to navigate a rickety bridge without falling through/step on a weak plank

- Dodge to avoid someone from picking your pocket

- Parry to prevent someone from touching/grabbing you

- Parry to knock something out of the air (baseball? hehe)

- Parry to deflect that pie in the food fight

- Parry to add to Riposte return attack (as a GM, I'd allow it)

- Parry to use your chopstick to prevent someone from taking the last eggroll

- Block to shove someone or something using your shield (or other item)

- Block to use your tray to avoid getting splattered with pie filling in the food fight

- Block to shield bash (actually, there is an offensive action card this could apply to, by the way)

- Block to protect yourself from hail in a hailstorm

ETC.

Be creative and you can find all sorts of things that Dodge, Parry, and Block specializations can apply to. Perform a Stunt stuff. Meta-game, no, they aren't as ubiquitous as a lot of offensive weaponskill stuff that applies to every attack. Few specializations are, however. A specialization in climbing or swimming won't necessarily get used all that often either, but has its uses.

dvang said:

First off, wanted to thank you for taking the time for doing this.

I see where you're trying to go with this, and also why my group doesn't necessarily do the same. A number of your suggestions we handle very differently (with completely different skills) or even required cards (like Untouchable, which allows you to parry thrown or shot items).

Ex: You counter pick pocketing by spotting it (either passively through a contested Skullduggery check on their part beign failed) or actively looking (observation vs skullduggery). No dodge required or applicable (as if they are pickpocketing they are trying to be stealthy, a contest is handled with grappling/grabbing etc which is athletics).

Also block/parry in particular implies passive resistance in this case. The pie thrower makes the roll, the throwee just adds black/purple dice to it. Also most of the time, such frivolous situations we don't bother rolling, we just state 'I do X' and laugh.

Might require some more brainstorming on my part to find things that we WOULD roll it for in my game that I might be able to bring in.

Also, if you're specializing in Athletics, you are planning (or wanting/needing) to use it. You know how relevant it is to the game and your character and you want to be special-good at say climbing up rooftops. If I am specialized in athletics, and the scholar over there isn't, I will be better than him 50% of the time we're climbing (white die, or more if he's not even trained). If you're parry specialized ... ... you can say you're supposed to be better at parrying than the sigmarite with the 2-hander over there, but it doesn't really work that way. The system does not back your claim. You will be just as good as any other weapon-skill trained individual 99.99% of the time you parry. If you're going to spend advances or a specialization on something it isn't about 'having its uses' its about being used when it is applicable (such as when parrying in combat). And that being what you focus on and want to be good at.

shinma said:

I totally agree with shinma here, I mean if you specialize in parry you expect you'd be better at actually parrying attacks. That's what my players expected and while it's possible to find fun/creative/good uses for these specializations but I find that most of the given examples we handle in a different way, much like shinma actually. But I enjoyed you'r examples dvang.

But I'd have the pie thrower for example would use a standard range attack roll to hit (but with no damage dealt) and to avoid beeing hit would require the normal dodge/block actions.

And the Shield Bash action does not use resilience to hit if I recall correctly, thus the block specialization would not be applicable. And it goes on, I really can't see myself ruling like in any of the examples, but as I said it's a fun read and if it works in you'r group that's super.

I just can't see the meaning of these specializations (for my games), and I promise I have tried and came up with uses for them. Dodging falling trees or collapsing rocks, avoiding traps or such things, but these things do not happend that often (again, in my games) and in general these specializations require the GM to do something against the players for these specializations to kick in because they feel defensive or reactive while most other specializations are activated by the players when they are using skills, a player could decide to go climb buildings or swim in the river after all.

In our game there's generally no episodes when the players say things like "hey, can I dodge some stuff" (I could not even come up with a good/fun example). While "can I do an observation check to find x?" for example is far more common. What I guess I'm trying to say is that the players in my group feel that the specializations are useless and the GM would almost have to force these specializations into beeing useful through situation where you roll resilience to block something else than attacks or come up with situations where a weapon skill roll for a parry would be useful. As I see it, it's not even worth the effort, sure rocks will probably fall on the players once or twice. A house or cave might start crumbling around them, but that's far from normal in my games. So if I started to include a lot of situations where these would apply, all my players would feel that it's forced and pointless (or maybe a comic relief in some cases).

But I adding an additional black die to all attack rolls when using the "right" active defence card is making these specializations overpowered instead. So the easy solution for me and my group is not using them at all, because there's much better ways to spend your hard earned advances.

Ex: You counter pick pocketing by spotting it (either passively through a contested Skullduggery check on their part beign failed) or actively looking (observation vs skullduggery). No dodge required or applicable (as if they are pickpocketing they are trying to be stealthy, a contest is handled with grappling/grabbing etc which is athletics).

I would counter that a PC could also try to actively dissuade pickpockets by 'dodging' through the crowd, ie trying to avoid getting to close to anyone as they pass.

...Also block/parry in particular implies passive resistance in this case. The pie thrower makes the roll, the throwee just adds black/purple dice to it.

I would disagree. It *could* be active as opposed to passive. If there isn't a specific "to-hit roll" then when you ask the PC to make a check to avoid getting covered in pie filling in the food-fight then the PC is well within his rights to actively "block" (or dodge, or perhaps even parry) and make a roll. Oftentimes, especially in story mode, I just have PCs make checks and depending on how well (or badly) they roll determines the effect.

As to the rest, you and your players need to keep in mind they are specializations that aren't combat oriented, nor matter what their names are. I want to stress, do not think of them as combat specializations. Think of them as knowing a "trick" or knack. For example, trick riding, or knowing how to twirl a knife(etc) with a flourish quickly through your fingers, or stacking a card deck, etc. They are knacks/skills not particularly applicable to combat, but associated with a combat skill.

...I mean if you specialize in parry you expect you'd be better at actually parrying attacks

Then make sure you tell them when they ask about taking it. It's a Dodge/Block/Parry that does not apply to combat. It is used to Dodge/Block/Parry things *other* than attacks.

...But I'd have the pie thrower for example would use a standard range attack roll to hit (but with no damage dealt) and to avoid beeing hit would require the normal dodge/block actions.

That's one way to do it. Then again, in a general melee/food fight, it might be more appropriate to ask the PC for a skill test rather than work it out like a combat. Especially in Story mode, where a situation doesn't call for actually entering Encounter mode (although it can apply in encounter mode too).

...And the Shield Bash action does not use resilience to hit if I recall correctly

Actually, I'm nearly positive it does use resilience to attack, and gets a bonus [W] if you are trained in weaponskill

...a player could decide to go climb buildings or swim in the river after all...

Suggest that the players try to keep in mind their specializations and think up creative uses for them. For example, one of my players is trained in intuition and not observation. I told her that I would be willing to consider alowing her to use Intution to replace observation in some instances (such as avoiding ambushes). It was up to HER, however, to suggest to me each time I asked for an observation check if she could use intution and why. If she could roleplay or come up with a reason ... even such a thing as "her gut tells her this is a good/bad place for an ambush", and I'd probably allow it. Similarly, a large portion/onus is on the player to try to come up with creative uses for their specialization. They should actively try to use it (or contemplate using it) in as many situations as possible. They should think to themselves, is there a way I can actively Dodge/Parry/Block something in this situation. Like my example of crossing the rickety bridge. Normally perhaps just a coordination check, or an athletics check. If my player was thinking, they could (and should) say "Dvang, I'm specialized in Dodge ... I think that my Dodge specialization would apply to this check as I would be dodging to avoid the rotten boards of the bridge." As a good GM I would seriously consider the request, and would go ahead and let them add the [W] for the specialization. Heck, often such discussion and explanation/description then flows into them getting an addiitonal [W] to describing/roleplaying their action (or perhaps a forunte point for the party pool). So, the player has just as much of an active role in Dodge/Parry/Block as they would when climbing. Actually, in this light, Dodge/Parry/Block are actually broader categories than climbing/swimming, for example, as they can potentially be used in many versatile situations with a little creativity.

In our game there's generally no episodes when the players say things like "hey, can I dodge some stuff" (I could not even come up with a good/fun example)

I don't want this to sound bad (and it will probably come out wrong), but I have to say I'm sorry for this. I can think of many examples of things that *could* happen when players could say these things, but it is up to the players to think of taking advantage of it. A swarm of bats/flies arises and a PC wants to dodge out of its way. A bad guy suddenly shows up, and the PC wants to react quickly and "dodge" out of sight behind a corner, hopefully before the bad guy sees him, etc. It takes some creativity, certainly, but it seems to me its much more fun and engaging for the players. Of course, I'm also a nice GM that often allows an extra [W] for describing your action, or doing it in character (if not adding a point to the party's fortune pool), so coming up with, and describing, actions creatively is heartily encouraged in my groups as well as netting bonuses for the group. They need to be creative and think about it, and suddenly they should be able to see all sorts of interesting ways to use many specializations, including these three.

I think it comes down to a matter of mindset .. and I hope I have given some of you food for thought on how to think about specializations differently. These *can* be fun and interesting and usable specializations. They do require some work on the player's part (since it's not generally my job as a GM to remind players to use their skills), but they aren't as restrictive as you think. I just requires an open mind, a little bit of effort, and some creativity.

Thanks for you'r exhaustive post dvang.

I can only surmize that our groups and us as GM's think differently in these situations. For example when one of my players wanted to dodge out of sight he wanted to use stealth rather than coordination and in my mind it fits better. But we have not had a serious discussion about these three specializations and how to use them at all in my group, and that's because we never really felt the need to bother about these specific specializations.

My players in general really try (and succeed) with coming up with good uses of their specializations so we have no problem with the creativity there, it's rather that when you hear "parry" as a specialization, just as shinma said, you expect to become better att parrying (in combat that is), and when my players found out that it's not the case they opted for specializations that were more "fun".

So yes, me and my group have that creativity and I'm all for the "say yes" stuff they introduced in the GM-guide, my group just never picked these specializations up, because many (I'd say most) of the others add more to the player characters feel or backstory and have more uses (as we see it).

First, I just want to point out (in case anyone took it this way) that I wasn't suggesting your groups weren't creative, by the way. It just was trying to convey the idea that you need a kind of "out of the box" thinking for some specializations.

For example when one of my players wanted to dodge out of sight he wanted to use stealth rather than coordination and in my mind it fits better.

I agree, and in this situation that skill/specialization would typically apply. It would probably be the default check asked for by the GM, "Make a stealth check". My point is, however, that a PC who has taken "Dodge" specialization needs to be thinking creatively and suggest using his specialization as an alternative to the default. "Dvang, instead of a stealth check, since I'm specialized in Dodge, my PC reacts quickly and dodges out of sight! Can I use Dodge instead?". Kudos to that player, I say, and I let him use his specialization since it seems reasonable to me. Notice that I never told the group to make a "Dodge" roll to hide. All the other PCs are making a Stealth roll in the above situation, for example.

Similarly, I ask the group to make an observation check (to avoid an ambush). One of my players is trained in Intuition, and asks me "Dvang, my character has a bad feeling about this place, and I think there might be an ambush or something. Can I use my Intuition instead of Observation?" Again, it seems reasonable to me the way the player explained it, so I let them use Intuition instead of Observation.

My players in general really try (and succeed) with coming up with good uses of their specializations so we have no problem with the creativity there, it's rather that when you hear "parry" as a specialization, just as shinma said, you expect to become better att parrying (in combat that is), and when my players found out that it's not the case they opted for specializations that were more "fun".

Please don't take this the wrong way ... IMO the players aren't going for what is more "fun". IMO they are going for what is "easier". I'm not saying this is wrong or bad. What I am suggesting/proposing is less "tangible" than the simple + to Parry/Block/Dodge. It requires thought and roleplaying to apply things like this. In a way, I dislike most of the weaponskill specializations since they are "auto" and don't require any thought or action on the part of the player. "Oh, I'm attacking with my sword so I add [W] b/c I'm specialized with it". I far prefer specializations that are more interesting and creative. A specialization in Bluffing, slight of hand, ghost stories, etc give a lot more "character" to a PC than specializing in "sword, axe, greatsword" etc, and require some input from the player when it occurs.

Some of this could be just because it isn't necessarily as easy to see how a Dodge/Parry/Block specialization could work outside of combat. Hence, the reason I've been trying to give some examples. I hope people can use this and stop and say, "Hmm, that's more useful than what I thought. It's kind of cool", regardless of whether they end up taking it. Hopefully as well, in the future when someone mentions they want to take a Dodge/Parry/Block specialization, you can say "that specialization doesn't give you a for those actions, but it does allows you to do things like this ... [examples]" and then the player won't just immediately blow these specializations off as useless, but can make an informed decision about them.

Wow this was longer than I intended. Sorry, I've been getting a bit long winded on this topic!

I agree, and in this situation that skill/specialization would typically apply. It would probably be the default check asked for by the GM, "Make a stealth check". My point is, however, that a PC who has taken "Dodge" specialization needs to be thinking creatively and suggest using his specialization as an alternative to the default. "Dvang, instead of a stealth check, since I'm specialized in Dodge, my PC reacts quickly and dodges out of sight! Can I use Dodge instead?". Kudos to that player, I say, and I let him use his specialization since it seems reasonable to me. Notice that I never told the group to make a "Dodge" roll to hide. All the other PCs are making a Stealth roll in the above situation, for example.

Similarly, I ask the group to make an observation check (to avoid an ambush). One of my players is trained in Intuition, and asks me "Dvang, my character has a bad feeling about this place, and I think there might be an ambush or something. Can I use my Intuition instead of Observation?" Again, it seems reasonable to me the way the player explained it, so I let them use Intuition instead of Observation.

I don't (conceptually) have a problem with this, however, I wanted to bring up some concerns that I hope you can understand and share.

I'm going to go back to the example DnD 4e. In it there are 'skill challenges' IE a method of earning XP that can be done by using skills to solve problems. The issue with them is that they are mechanically similar to combat. Party must init-up and succeed at X skill checks before Y failures. Conceptually this is good, in practice it has two significant issues. One is that the moment such an encounter comes up, the PCs will check their sheets, find the highest +X and try to fit their skill into the scenario.

If your group has a person with high Intuition who uses Intuition in such a fashion every time (I think he might be hiding something, can I make an intuition check to see if I can make a gut call on where he would hide the dagger on him?) the second skill becomes unused, unfocused, and poor. What this means is that a character who focuses all their skills and specializations in Intuition, instead of striving for balance will be better because the person not focusing on a single skill can't bring the same pools of dice to bear. This is a twofold problem because it mechanically punishes someone, and secondly it makes the game take a much smaller subset of skills to importance. The reason I have a problem with this isn't that odd situation where a player is clever, but the broader problem of forgoing necessary skills and checks by allowing someone to supersede them with a bigger pool. If its an observation check, it's an observation check. If someone is **** good at Intuition, and sh*tty at observation, then they either need to roleplay that accurately (by NOT being good at observation checks) or maybe making a call for a white-die assist from their better skill, not a full on replacement.

An example of this is our minor-noble Gambler. Last game he went to a card game with the socially inept, and gambling unskilled roadwarden. He used Guile to bluff, Skullduggery to palm cards, his class reroll etc. The Roadwarden was **** good at intuition. So while the gambler came up with great ideas (which I rewarded with white dice, fortune point pool tokens etc) the RW just rolled intuition for the whole game to 'read the other players'. He did roughly as well. This bugs me.

Second - Spotlighting. Everyone who comes to a game comes to have a good time, and alot of that comes from their character being 'Awesome'. If a person with a single specialization can take away the spotlight from someone who is genuinely good at the required stat/skill by simply asking to bend the rules in order to use their 'good roll' then the person who has the correct skill is being slighted, and I do not condone this.

My group is NOT rule nazis. But this game is somewhat new, and we don't have years upon years of errata, clarifications and experience. Yes, we try to stick to the rules, and we try to interpret the world in accordance to the ruleset. We are not above making a good house rule (such as the parry spec, which we are sticking with as it is a good house rule), or sometimes bending the pools, but we try to make the checks fit with previous examples and the way the game is meant to be played. If you want to be good at dodging behind a door, get stealth. Get talents that boost that stealth. Don't pick up dodge and try to 'slot it in' every time.

Please don't take this the wrong way ... IMO the players aren't going for what is more "fun". IMO they are going for what is "easier". I'm not saying this is wrong or bad. What I am suggesting/proposing is less "tangible" than the simple + to Parry/Block/Dodge. It requires thought and roleplaying to apply things like this. In a way, I dislike most of the weaponskill specializations since they are "auto" and don't require any thought or action on the part of the player. "Oh, I'm attacking with my sword so I add [W] b/c I'm specialized with it". I far prefer specializations that are more interesting and creative. A specialization in Bluffing, slight of hand, ghost stories, etc give a lot more "character" to a PC than specializing in "sword, axe, greatsword" etc, and require some input from the player when it occurs.

I disagree with the first part. Movies, Novels, Anime, heck even other RPGs are full of titles and standards. If you see that Bright Order Battle-Wizard who is known as 'the Dragon of the Reik' who has a crazy fire-breathing method for his pyroblast - that's pretty cool. People want to BE THAT GUY. If the duelist in my game wants to be known as Untouchable (he has the reputation), and focus on defensive fighting, then I want to help him achieve that. To you that's 'easier' to me that's 'proper usage of game mechanics'. Mechanics, and tangibility are directly related to the world. You cannot say you are a great duelist and have a strength of 2 and no weapon skill. One reflects the other. The first supports the second.

Yes, no doubt, sometimes PCs want to kick ass and know they'll survive a combat. I completely agree that the 'side' specializations on guile, charm etc are probably both more interesting and fun both to bring into play and to tack onto a character. But this discussion is about specific rules about skills that are used in a specific way in combat, and virtually nowhere else. I appreciate you trying to help us come up with some thoughts as to how that can be extended, and it's why I'm continuing to participate in the debate and discussion, but my previous point stands.

However you feel about the specializations, they do not mechanically reflect what the system does or should do.

Some of this could be just because it isn't necessarily as easy to see how a Dodge/Parry/Block specialization could work outside of combat. Hence, the reason I've been trying to give some examples. I hope people can use this and stop and say, "Hmm, that's more useful than what I thought. It's kind of cool", regardless of whether they end up taking it. Hopefully as well, in the future when someone mentions they want to take a Dodge/Parry/Block specialization, you can say "that specialization doesn't give you a for those actions, but it does allows you to do things like this ... [examples]" and then the player won't just immediately blow these specializations off as useless, but can make an informed decision about them.

Wow this was longer than I intended. Sorry, I've been getting a bit long winded on this topic!

Your suggestions are good, but the rolls are outside the scope of the precedents set in the game according to our call (as I discuss this with my players) meaning tha the specialization would not come into play and there are better ways to go about it.

But getting long-winded is both good and fine. It indicates you're passionate and interested in the subject, and regardless of whether me and my group choose to adopt your interpretation, I think it's been a great discussion.

You had to force me to have something to respond to, didn't you Shinma?!

...If your group has a person with high Intuition who uses Intuition in such a fashion every time...

I agree. You don't want them to min-max and try to use it every time for every instance. Then again, I , as the GM, don't want to stifle them either. Keep in mind, they will get different results for their check depending on the skill they use. A successful observation check will allow a PC to spot/hear their enemies. A successful Intuition check might avoid surprise because the PC is "paranoid" or on-edge feeling like something was wrong, but wouldn't give them the same level of detail. Observation could spot the blood drops leading into the adjacent hallway. Intuition might tell them something bad happened in the room, or that the room "felt dangerous". So, while sometimes the two tests might be able to be swapped to an extent (and I require a reasonable reason each time they ask), often they are still very different and it isn't necessarily "better" to use the bigger pool.

...So while the gambler came up with great ideas (which I rewarded with white dice, fortune point pool tokens etc) the RW just rolled intuition for the whole game to 'read the other players'. He did roughly as well. This bugs me.

This is the same for the generic specialization dice for "Sword", "Axe", etc. They are ubitquitous automatic additions that don't require any input from the player. Keep in mind in your example that the roadwarden might be able to read others with his intuition rolls, but he cannot prevent them from reading him, nor is he influencing those others. He is "passive". The gambler, however, is bluffing, palming, etc and actively misleading and influencing. He is taking an active role in the card game, which actually has a greater impact on the outcome.
For example: an opponent has a pair of tens. It's a middle-scoring hand, but it is scoring and somewhat decent. The opponent doesn't think anyone can beat his hand, so he's optimistic. An intuition read of this opponent sees him happy and secure that he has a winning hand. Now, the gambler bluffs the opponent into thinking he (the gambler) has got an excellent hand (high pair, straight, or what have you). The opponent's confidence in his own hand, and his self-assurance of winning, have now plummeted. An intuition check of the opponent at this point reveals that the opponent thinks he's probably going to lose and has a losing hand. The hand itself has not changed, but the information coming from the opponent has. Thus, actually, the gambler *has* done much better. The gambler, through bluffing, could get his opponent to fold when actually the opponent had a stronger hand. The roadwarden, merely using intuition to read his opponents, would merely be able to cut his losses by folding himself if he detected his opponent's strength.

Second - Spotlighting. Everyone who comes to a game comes to have a good time, and alot of that comes from their character being 'Awesome'. If a person with a single specialization can take away the spotlight from someone who is genuinely good at the required stat/skill by simply asking to bend the rules in order to use their 'good roll' then the person who has the correct skill is being slighted, and I do not condone this.

A few points:
1) It is not bending the rules. I am the GM. There is nothing in the rules that says I may not allow an intuition check instead of an observation check in a situation, or vice versa. If it was a magical effect, I could ask a wizard PC to instead make a Magical Sense check instead of Observation. Nothing prevents me from doing that. Each skill would provide different information.
2) Of course some of the fun comes from a character being "awesome". You would penalize someone who wanted to use something they are good at, when they have an excellent explained reason why they should be able to do so? That certainly isn't letting them feel "awesome".
3) I don't see this as in any way taking the spotlight away from anyone. Remember, different checks will come up with different results and information. While sometimes Intuition might be able to be used instead of Observation, does not mean that the two rolls will result in the same knowledge. They might both allow the PC to avoid surprise, but the Observation will allow one PC to spot the enemy and see their number and types as well, while intuition just avoids missing the first round of combat. Etc. In my opinion I am rewarding creativity and using their skills creatively. I don't jsut say "you can always swap intution for observation". The player needs to tell me why, in that instance, they think that intuition might be effective. So the Hunter with his Observation is keen-eyed and gets information about the tracks the enemy has recently left and the direction of travel. The mystic with her Intuition roll notices that the area feels oppressive or malignant, likely indicating that the enemy has passed through the area recently. Both get the information that the enemy was here, the Hunter gets more/better information, but the Mystic makes a good "back-up". If the Hunter had failed his check, the Mystic could still have indicated to the group that she thought the enemy had indeed passed through this spot. Rather than the Mystic's player feeling inadequate because she has a horrible observation, and doesn't even feel it's worth rolling. The mystic is not taking anything away from the Hunter, but the Mystic can fee like she's contributing to the effort.
4) Allowing players the chance to use an alternate skill, one they are more proficient at, allows them more time to be "awesome", and to feel useful.

...but we try to make the checks fit with previous examples and the way the game is meant to be played. If you want to be good at dodging behind a door, get stealth. Get talents that boost that stealth. Don't pick up dodge and try to 'slot it in' every time....

IMO the game is meant to be played as a very loose way in order to tell the story. As such, I see nothing in the rules to suggest that a PC couldn't use Intuition to avoid being surprised by an ambush (for example). The intuition check isn't being used to hear the sounds of goblins talking on the other side of a door, but it could be used to "get a bad feeling" about the door and allow the PC to be cautious about opening it. An observation check in a room would allow PCs to see a hidden design in the floor. An intution check instead would allow the PC to recognize that there is something odd about the floor, but not what (as another example). All of this is perfectly reasonable and well within the scope and intent of the rules. Dodging behind the door might work to avoid visual detection, but won't help with sound, while stealth will. So stealth is still a better alternative. Dodge won't help with trying to sneak into the room after you've avoided the initial detection, while stealth will. And so on. Every request needs to be explained, and not every request is allowed. The game is meant to tell a story, and should be played that way. As such, skills/abilities often blur or overlap in situations.

...To you that's 'easier' to me that's 'proper usage of game mechanics'...

Ok, you're misunderstanding what I am saying here. I totally understand that if they want to be focused purely on defense (or being untouchable) that the dodge/parry/block specializations are not what they want to use. If that is their goal/intent, then I am not suggesting that you try to force it on them, nor am I saying that their choice of something else is selecting what is "easier". they are following their character design and plan. However, if a player has a character concept that is about being nimble and lithe, maybe a cat burgler or acrobat, etc, then specializing in Dodge, despite not giving a boost to Defense, is *not* a bad option. Immediately discounting it as useless because it doesn't give a boost to Defense *is* taking the easier choice, IMO.

However you feel about the specializations, they do not mechanically reflect what the system does or should do.

They completely reflect what the system does and should do. Specializations are ACTIVE bonuses. They assist the PC in their own dice pools when they attempt tasks. They are in no way designed or stated to be used to hinder others. They do not influence someone else's dice pool. In order to benefit from a specializiation, the PC must be generating a dice pool and performing a skill/action. That is the intent for specializations, that is what the rules say, and that is how they are/should be used. Doing otherwise, such as allowing a specialization to give a to someone's dice pool, is totally a house rule and does not reflect mechanically what the system does or should do regrading specializations. I am explaining exactly how and when players may actively use certain specializations within the rules.

...but the rolls are outside the scope of the precedents set in the game according to our call (as I discuss this with my players) meaning tha the specialization would not come into play and there are better ways to go about it.

Which is fair enough. Your game and group are different from mine. I personally feel you are missing out on a lot by not allowing some leeway or creativity when it comes to skill checks, though. I am NOT saying that you are doing anything wrong, or that you are playing badly, or anything else of a negative nature when I say that. I just have found in my own experience that players get excited and get more involved when they can do unusual things that their character is good at, and that I get more energy and interaction with the players by allowing them to think up alternatives and explain why they are plausible. I don't always allow what they ask, but it gets them thinking about what is going on and how their character might handle things. I think allowing a broader view of skill use is beneficial to the game and player interaction, and would like to suggest/assist others in seeing this.

dvang said:

Of course I did. I always enjoy good debate/discussion

I agree. You don't want them to min-max and try to use it every time for every instance. Then again, I , as the GM, don't want to stifle them either.

This is true. Keep in mind though, that one of the things that is important about a game, is to showcase what is good where. So there are 6 stats. If you can solve every social encounter with intuition(INT) then fellowship becomes useless. I stress the different abilities to showcase the different strengths of our group (we have some good at investigating, some good at beat-stick-ing, and some good at schmoozing). So making sure different skills and stats are stressed keeps variety in characters and roleplay high, and forces us to rotate styles of game (investigative, interrogative, communicative, violent).

For example: an opponent has a pair of tens. It's a middle-scoring hand, but it is scoring and somewhat decent. The opponent doesn't think anyone can beat his hand, so he's optimistic. An intuition read of this opponent sees him happy and secure that he has a winning hand. Now, the gambler bluffs the opponent into thinking he (the gambler) has got an excellent hand (high pair, straight, or what have you). The opponent's confidence in his own hand, and his self-assurance of winning, have now plummeted. An intuition check of the opponent at this point reveals that the opponent thinks he's probably going to lose and has a losing hand. The hand itself has not changed, but the information coming from the opponent has. Thus, actually, the gambler *has* done much better. The gambler, through bluffing, could get his opponent to fold when actually the opponent had a stronger hand. The roadwarden, merely using intuition to read his opponents, would merely be able to cut his losses by folding himself if he detected his opponent's strength.

This sounds great, and I actually agree with you. There's a couple problems with the idea. First off, we have 4 players. Of them, 1 is good at gambling (as he is a gambler) and the other wanted to support him in a 'rough area of town'. So 2 players, wander off to have a game. How do you run this? Well a single roll is horribly unfair, since skill SHOULD come into play in a dice game (also the players were risking everything they owned to come out ahead, so risking it all on 1 roll was pretty bad).

Sure, I could probably make all sorts of side rules, and reflect hands, but the fact is I needed something quick, reasonably accurate, fun, and focused on keeping the game going. I didn't want to 'pretend' to play poker for two hours while two players took naps. So I made a quick performance meter, and said 'Ok X vs Y is something that can boost you on the meter. Z vs Q is what drops an opponent. If you're above the middle you get X increment of money per position. Go.' So Gambler did his thing. Roadwarden checked his sheet. Saw he had jack all for skullduggery, guile, charm etc, and just read the table into the ground. He didn't get ahead much, but he made sure others were behind him

Point is, without going too deep into simulation, you can't actually reflect this. If you need 1-2 rolls it's fine to say 'hey you learn something different' but if you get 'effectively the same result' (you avoid ambush dice, you do well at a gambling hand) then it's only splitting hairs and semantics to play around with the GMs execution (well i said something different so the skills are not the same).

1) It is not bending the rules.

Yes and no. The rules on what skills do are stated in the skill section. The cards for parry and dodge are on the cards. Giving someone the chance to 'dodge' with an active roll is as much a 'house rule' as far as I can tell, as the black die. You can argue your point by quoting what you think specializations do, and I'll argue mine based on how combat and combat specs work. I'd rather talk about how to fix it, what house rules are great, and how to invigorate the game with some cool new roles/rules/examples. I don't think at this point either one of us has a chance to convince the other of being 'right' so I'll settle for some good discussion and maybe some useful rule flexing.

2) Of course some of the fun comes from a character being "awesome". You would penalize someone who wanted to use something they are good at, when they have an excellent explained reason why they should be able to do so? That certainly isn't letting them feel "awesome".

You and I might have different definitions of awesome. If my mom is stellar at accounting, it's very tough for me to see it as 'awesome'. If she proceeds to try and use accounting to play soccer better, even if somehow successful I still don't see that as awesome. If your weapon skill parry spec lets you parry a pie while getting squished by a hammer (if you can dodge this wrench, you can dodge a ball!) it is definitely not awesome. Letting someone 'dodge' behind curtains I don't think really fits said definition amigo. This may be a semantics/linguistic difference or disagreement though.

3) I don't see this as in any way taking the spotlight away from anyone. Remember, different checks will come up with different results and information. While sometimes Intuition might be able to be used instead of Observation, does not mean that the two rolls will result in the same knowledge. They might both allow the PC to avoid surprise, but the Observation will allow one PC to spot the enemy and see their number and types as well, while intuition just avoids missing the first round of combat.

Let us premise that you have a well rounded observer character, and the guy who has 3 skills but is OUT of game really skilled at making them do everything. Then Dave McNumberCrunch can handle most of what's needed, and Bob McWellRounded is left feeling like he's just not as good. Now mind you - I take your point well. The GMs allowance and interpretation can really make the difference. BUT, take a look at your example up above.

Observer Bob and Intuiter Dave both roll. Neither is surprised. Bob gets to say to the party 'what the GM said about the enemies'. Then first round occurs and people see the layout of all the beasties as well. Bob didn't actually get to do anything interesting or different. Dave achieved essentially the same effect, with the init delay (as after init they could see the beasties). I grant you that you interpreted it differently, but effectively (IE mechanically) they are the same.

4) Allowing players the chance to use an alternate skill, one they are more proficient at, allows them more time to be "awesome", and to feel useful.

You know, if I had a player that wasn't participating much, and suddenly perked up with this idea? I'd surely let it fly. But most of the time the characters are 'awesome' because they do what they are meant to do well. The mage eats faces. The sigmarite lights the battlefield up with the golden fire of his god. The parry monkey dances around being all Diestro (and a badass investigator), and the gambler-noble directs, inspires and strategizes. If you need to dodge through crowds not to get pickpocketed, or parry flying pies to be 'awesome' ... you are right, our games are seriously different.

(Although, that example of the mystic following the aura of people, and having a sort of sense and visions to help track them? Yea, ok, that was pretty awesome. )

IMO the game is meant to be played as a very loose way in order to tell the story. As such, I see nothing in the rules to suggest that a PC couldn't use Intuition to avoid being surprised by an ambush (for example).

I agree 100% with the first part. Being fast and loose is what makes this game wildly better than a number of it's competition. Loose calls, quick adjustments and bargaining, adjusting diff and risk on the fly - it's great. The second part I disagree with because of a) skill descriptions and b) precedent in cards and examples in adventures.

However, I find it odd that you will fight vehemently to defend a really strange interpretation of the rules as 'legit', and you insist that this method of play and being loose is'more fun' and 'more accurate' in a thread where you fight equally hard to condemn a GM for making a very similar call to add a black die to an attack pool based on his call that a PCs skill makes it 'more difficult'. Does it not seem sort of a dual standard to use 'active dodge' in some situations, but it's not ok to let a stealth master make it harder for his opponent to spot him (in the same way a parry master makes it harder to hit him while parrying)?

However, if a player has a character concept that is about being nimble and lithe, maybe a cat burgler or acrobat, etc, then specializing in Dodge, despite not giving a boost to Defense, is *not* a bad option. Immediately discounting it as useless because it doesn't give a boost to Defense *is* taking the easier choice, IMO.

Then they should take specializations in coordination for 'nimble' and 'lithe'. Or an athletics specialty dealing with 'climbs like a squirrel'. Dodge, would be a bad option, because there are again better and more accurate ways to have the system portray what you are trying to achieve (unless you want to be someone who is skilled at obscure and infrequent dodge things that you aren't always good at). Look at accuracy of wording, and frequency of utility. I'm not sure it has anything to do with 'easy'. So far, I think that this is the only word you've used I dislike. My players don't do the easy thing. They work very hard to craft their stories, and they roleplay their butts off (not talking about dice rolling). It's not about 'easy' it's about 'accurate'.

If you take a parry spec in a combat skill (it is called weapon skill), it needs to make you better at parrying. And not just better at parrying sometimes. Out of combat. If you bend the rules and use active parries. And you're really creative.

Doing otherwise, such as allowing a specialization to give a to someone's dice pool, is totally a house rule and does not reflect mechanically what the system does or should do regrading specializations. I am explaining exactly how and when players may actively use certain specializations within the rules.

It also clearly states that based on difficulty, mitigating circumstances, and whatever the GM feels, they can adjust die pools. As a GM I feel that someone who spends time to get both a skill and a spec, and focuses on having the ability to parry better, fights with a main-gauche in a defensive style, and uses a card with the same name, describes his maneuver appropriately - has met the criteria for one single black die. This too is well within the scope of the rules. I can add 1 black or two for darkness, 3 because of the excessive training of someone, or 2 because your character drank last night (1 is for drinking, the 2nd is for ALOT of drinking). I honestly don't see any place where it suggests to avoid giving a black die for extra training etc.

Which is fair enough. Your game and group are different from mine. I personally feel you are missing out on a lot by not allowing some leeway or creativity when it comes to skill checks, though. I am NOT saying that you are doing anything wrong, or that you are playing badly, or anything else of a negative nature when I say that. I just have found in my own experience that players get excited and get more involved when they can do unusual things that their character is good at, and that I get more energy and interaction with the players by allowing them to think up alternatives and explain why they are plausible. I don't always allow what they ask, but it gets them thinking about what is going on and how their character might handle things. I think allowing a broader view of skill use is beneficial to the game and player interaction, and would like to suggest/assist others in seeing this.

Amigo, I don't mean to insult you either, and I enjoy our witty repartee But you are mistaken in one regard. As a GM I am not stymying my players. They suggest the skills and work with me to add white/black dice to rolls. It is they as a unit that agreed that this 'active' defense style of play is incosistent with the game, and it feels like cheating for the purpose of bringing a seldom useful specialization to bear. It is they who think that it's forcing the system when there is a simple and elegant solution. I have the tie-breaker vote, but I'm going with them on this one. I am not forcing them to think linearly, they are simply trying to use the skills as written (we had a great discussion the other night on how skullduggery was different than DnD Thievery, and how it's only the physical half of the acts and Guile covers the rest), and follow the precedent set in the game. I guarantee you that they are plenty creative (I really should start jotting down journals like some folks in the GM forum), but this is a case of seeing 'loose' and 'interpretive' in a light that lets us do this (add a black die), and you see it in a light that lets you do things like the examples provided (adding a white to the check examples you provided instead).

If you can solve every social encounter with intuition(INT) then fellowship becomes useless.

True, so as the GM you need to be aware of this. This still leads to my point. Succeeding at an INT test in a social encounter isn't very likely to "solve" the encounter. The two characteristics and skills are very different. Intution is mostly "passive" and will give the player information, but doesn't really DO anything. Fel, obviously is more "active" and will influence the encounter. So, while I might allow an Intuition roll to replace something in a social encounter (I'm having a hard time thinking of when it might replace a Fel roll, though), the results of the successful roll will be quite different. An Intuition roll won't make someone like you, although it might help you discover what to best thing to say is, whlie Fel/Charm/Guile immediately goes into influencing the other so that they do believe you/like you/etc. So, actually, BOTH end up being useful.

Re: Roadwarden & Gambler

Seems simple enough to make the Roadwarden have an additional challenge die (or misfrtune dice, etc) to his test. Or, say that the Roadwarden's test provides fortune dice on the gambler's test, and the gambler's test is the real one that gains the money.

Giving someone the chance to 'dodge' with an active roll is as much a 'house rule' as far as I can tell, as the black die.

It's not, because they aren't dodging in combat. There are numerous situations where a PC could be dodging something that isn't an attack, and the Dodge action card only applies to an attack during a combat Encounter. It's well within the rules. Considering that "dodge" is a listed specialization example for coordination (for example) it seem pretty clear that it can be used as a type of non-combat coordination-type active roll.

Observer Bob and Intuiter Dave both roll...

There are a couple ways this could be done such that the results are mechanically different. However, I'm not sure that it makes a big deal in this one case (surprise/initiative). In most if not all other cases, Observation provides much more crucial detail/information than any Intuition check could do. Intuition will *never* be able to replace Observation nor make it "useless". So while in this one instance, perhaps one isn't mechanically better than another as far as effects, Observation is not useless. Then again, if you feel that you *must* make them mechanically different it would be simple enough to impose a or [bB] penalty to Dave's rolls in the first round. Unlike those that failed their test, at least Dave gets to act in the first round... but without having actually spotted the enemy (he didn't use Observation) his reactions are slowed. Or you could have Dave take a couple stress, perhaps for FEELING like something was wrong but not KNOWING. Or something similar to make Intution inferior to Observation (the designed check), but still make it useful.

You know, if I had a player that wasn't participating much, and suddenly perked up with this idea? I'd surely let it fly.

Generally this is the root cause of why I do this. Some people, including in demo games I've run, aren't familiar with roleplaying, and are a bit withdrawn as well. Giving them the advantage of thinking about the game world and the circumstances their PC is in, and letting them use their PCs abilities to their advantage is fun for the player. WFRP is essentailly a co-op game, so when one person does well everyone does well. No one person is singled out, and they all have their moments.

Consider a thief PC that wants to climb a wall. Typically an Athletics check (Climb). The wall has some banners and awnings on it. The player asks if they could use Coordination instead of athletics, because they feel like their PC could swing and leap their way up instead of purely climbing and relying on strength. It sounds reasonable to me. Would you, as a GM really say no? I'm not talking about a player who is trying to abuse the rules to their advantage, I'm talking about (typically) a relatively inexperienced player who truely wants to know why their PC cannot use their cat burglar's agility to climb a wall.

In my experience, saying flat out "no" generally isn't the best recourse. Say "yes, but..." and apply some modifiers. There is nothing to stop you, for example, for having the Intuition test be more difficult than the Observation test.

...Does it not seem sort of a dual standard...

I think you are misunderstanding what I am saying, though. The problem is that I think having a parry/dodge/block specialization add is the fact that it can significantly alter the mechanics of combat. What I am advocating is well within the rules, while altering the specializations to apply to Defense is not. I don't see a dual standard. Also, I never condemned anyone for using the suggestion. I merely stated that I didn't think it was necessary, since the specializations technically work fine IMO, as well as suggesting for people to be *very* careful making changes that affect combat.

Then they should take specializations in coordination for 'nimble' and 'lithe'.

They could if they wanted. Mechanically, they could even work the same, depending on how the discussion between the player and I result. Dodge, however, is one that is listed in the book, so most frequently comes to mind. My examples were quickly thought up and designed around the "Dodge" because that is what we are talking about. If a player wanted to take a "dodge" specialization, I would explain how it doesn't affect combat defense. If asked how it works, then I can come up with a few examples like these. <shrug> It's mainly up to the player to try to fit that in the story.

So far, I think that this is the only word you've used I dislike.

I didn't mean to offend you, and wasn't suggesting that your players are bad or anything. What I was trying to convey is that using the specialization to automatically add to Dodge is "easier" than trying to use an "active" dodge specialization and think up situations where it can be used. A specialization like "climb" is also easier to use than "dodge". It's a bit more well-defined through verbage and vocabulary, for example. "Dodge" can at times be difficult to see the usefulness of it. It wasn't as easy as I made it appear coming up with examples out of thin air, for instance. There are other specializiations that are easier to recognize situations they can be used in. Thus, "Dodge" is a "harder" specialization to use, so people will (by nature) tend to gravitate to specializations that are "easier" to understand and therefore see their usefulness more easily. There is nothing wrong with this. I just wanted to point out that they probably didn't sit down, like I did with this thread, and try to think about ways that a dodge specialization could work. Without that, or without someone giving some suggestions related (such as I am trying to do here), of course Dodge will seem useless, so people will automatically take something else. That's all I was trying to say. Hopefully I've conveyed what I meant more clearly. Again, I'm not saying your players don't roleplay or work hard, it is just that utilizing a "dodge" specialization is inherently more difficult than using a lot of other specializations.

I honestly don't see any place where it suggests to avoid giving a black die for extra training etc.

I can see what you're saying to an extent. Yes, it is within the GM's perogative to assign difficulty. My point is, though that:
1) Specializations specifically say they give fortune dice to a player's dice pool when they attempt an action.
2) The Dodge/Parry/Block cards mention for being trained but not for specializations.
Take those together, and the obvious intent of the rules is for specializations to not provide a bonus to defense.
It is not to say you couldn't. I just want to recommend caution if you start making changes that could have ripple reprecussions on the rest of the game, such as combat, where mechanics are much more "important" to how the game plays.