Forums of the Megaverse®

Posted: **Sat Mar 10, 2012 3:59 am**

Is it just me or does the average O.C.C. gain too many skills?
I haven't done a precise calculation but I think that if I were to collate all my skills in real life, I would probably have less than the average human in Palladium, even assuming I am only level one.
Are other people in that same boat, or am I just incredibly unskilled?

Posted: **Sat Mar 10, 2012 4:23 am**

Giant2005 wrote:Is it just me or does the average O.C.C. gain too many skills?
I haven't done a precise calculation but I think that if I were to collate all my skills in real life, I would probably have less than the average human in Palladium, even assuming I am only level one.
Are other people in that same boat, or am I just incredibly unskilled?

You haven't looked at Ninjas And Superspies then, the average OCC has more skills than a half-dozen Rifts OCC combined if not more. You can quite legitimately end up with 70+ skills for your N&SS character (including ALL Weapon and Piloting Skills).

Posted: **Sat Mar 10, 2012 4:24 am**

Giant2005 wrote:Is it just me or does the average O.C.C. gain too many skills?
I haven't done a precise calculation but I think that if I were to collate all my skills in real life, I would probably have less than the average human in Palladium, even assuming I am only level one.
Are other people in that same boat, or am I just incredibly unskilled?

Sorry bro.

That said, I am no City Rat. :angel:

Posted: **Sat Mar 10, 2012 5:37 am**

Giant2005 wrote:Is it just me or does the average O.C.C. gain too many skills?
I haven't done a precise calculation but I think that if I were to collate all my skills in real life, I would probably have less than the average human in Palladium, even assuming I am only level one.
Are other people in that same boat, or am I just incredibly unskilled?

I hear yah Bro.

My group, we create characters that US usually. Just Normal everyday US. We put ourselves into the games. I did this orginally as an experiment. And it made the player feel an actual connection to the character since it was them, their name, their skills. I just have them somehow end up in Rifts, or Encounter Secret Supers, or undergo the "Becoming", or whatever...

Yes it is hard to fill out the Skill List for PB characters, or even Education Levels lists in HU2.

In Rifts, HU2, etc...I usually tell the players that the Skills they know Now, will most likely be Secondary Skills only. But I try to make exceptions depending on what a character want to learn to become once the game starts.
Originally in RIFTS i had them make themselves as RMB Vagabonds. But even that occ has skills they wouldn't have.

PB expects any Characters to be Exceptional Characters/People in general. So they have more skills than what normal people would have.

Posted: **Sat Mar 10, 2012 7:28 am**

Giant2005 wrote:Is it just me or does the average O.C.C. gain too many skills?

It's just you.

Although if you want to feel better on that score, just realize that you're being hard on yourself and easy on your characters. Technically, according to the rules, the average person without a climbing skill can't make it to the second branch of a tree. Even the optional rules only let him make it 9% of the time. You realize that's insane and simply don't bother to force your players to roll for such dinky tasks. Since to you having a skill means a considerable level of achievement (i.e., lore: china means not just knowing the dynasties but being able to identify clothing or even the authors of rare verse of poetry), you feel you only have mastery over a few things.

Then again, as said above, these are heroes.

Posted: **Sat Mar 10, 2012 7:49 am**

Well having these skills as non-secondary skills is suppose to mean of a Proffessional Quality, and recieved training in that skill.

Where Secondary skills are skills you just pick up on your own somehow, self-taught, read in books. Skills you have, but not of a proffessional quality, so its stuff your not likely to use to get a certain job doing. Where the OCC/Related Skills are Proffessional, and should be the skills you need for your Job(s).

Posted: **Sat Mar 10, 2012 10:05 am**

Giant2005 wrote:Is it just me or does the average O.C.C. gain too many skills?
I haven't done a precise calculation but I think that if I were to collate all my skills in real life, I would probably have less than the average human in Palladium, even assuming I am only level one.
Are other people in that same boat, or am I just incredibly unskilled?

I've heard other people make the opposite argument, that they had more skills when they were in high school than most characters get.

I think that part of it comes down to how you count something as a skill. For some, taking high school Biology would give you the skill, but for others you'd need to graduate college.
Another part is that not all skills are equal. Pilot: Bicycling and Pilot: Jet Fighter are given equal weight in the game.

Personally, I don't think that it's a matter of too many skills or not enough skills, but rather that they need to break the skills up into different levels of skill, so that easy-to-learn skills like bicycling don't take up a full skill slot and/or the harder-to-learn skills take up more than one skill slot.

Posted: **Sat Mar 10, 2012 10:08 am**

llywelyn wrote: Technically, according to the rules, the average person without a climbing skill can't make it to the second branch of a tree. Even the optional rules only let him make it 9% of the time.

Untrue.
You only need to make skill checks when attempting something difficult.
You wouldn't need to make a check when attempting an easy climb- you'd automatically succeed.

And the rules for defaulting aren't optional, last I heard, only unprinted.

Posted: **Sat Mar 10, 2012 10:10 am**

Killer Cyborg wrote:
llywelyn wrote: Technically, according to the rules, the average person without a climbing skill can't make it to the second branch of a tree. Even the optional rules only let him make it 9% of the time.

Untrue.
You only need to make skill checks when attempting something difficult.
You wouldn't need to make a check when attempting an easy climb- you'd automatically succeed.

And the rules for defaulting aren't optional, last I heard, only unprinted.

Kind of hard to say a rule that's unprinted actually is a rule wouldn't you say?

Posted: **Sat Mar 10, 2012 10:18 am**

Nightmask wrote:
Killer Cyborg wrote:
llywelyn wrote: Technically, according to the rules, the average person without a climbing skill can't make it to the second branch of a tree. Even the optional rules only let him make it 9% of the time.

Untrue.
You only need to make skill checks when attempting something difficult.
You wouldn't need to make a check when attempting an easy climb- you'd automatically succeed.

And the rules for defaulting aren't optional, last I heard, only unprinted.

Kind of hard to say a rule that's unprinted actually is a rule wouldn't you say?

Nope.

Posted: **Sat Mar 10, 2012 11:07 am**

Killer Cyborg wrote:
Nightmask wrote:
Killer Cyborg wrote:
llywelyn wrote: Technically, according to the rules, the average person without a climbing skill can't make it to the second branch of a tree. Even the optional rules only let him make it 9% of the time.

Untrue.
You only need to make skill checks when attempting something difficult.
You wouldn't need to make a check when attempting an easy climb- you'd automatically succeed.

And the rules for defaulting aren't optional, last I heard, only unprinted.

Kind of hard to say a rule that's unprinted actually is a rule wouldn't you say?

Nope.

You've a really odd idea of what constitutes a valid rule then. 'Hey what are you talking about, that's not in the rule books?' 'Doesn't matter it's still a rule.' Sorry, don't see that kind of argument flying.

Posted: **Sat Mar 10, 2012 11:16 am**

Nightmask wrote:You've a really odd idea of what constitutes a valid rule then. 'Hey what are you talking about, that's not in the rule books?' 'Doesn't matter it's still a rule.' Sorry, don't see that kind of argument flying.

You don't have to see it flying.
RPGs everywhere deal with errata and other rule-changes that exist outside of the official books- this is not something that is unusual, although Palladium is sloppier about it than other companies.
When the makers of a game say something is a rule, then it is a rule.
That's why we know that the rules printed in the book are rules- because the makers of the game are telling us so.

Posted: **Sat Mar 10, 2012 11:26 am**

Killer Cyborg wrote:
Nightmask wrote:You've a really odd idea of what constitutes a valid rule then. 'Hey what are you talking about, that's not in the rule books?' 'Doesn't matter it's still a rule.' Sorry, don't see that kind of argument flying.

You don't have to see it flying.
RPGs everywhere deal with errata and other rule-changes that exist outside of the official books- this is not something that is unusual, although Palladium is sloppier about it than other companies.
When the makers of a game say something is a rule, then it is a rule.
That's why we know that the rules printed in the book are rules- because the makers of the game are telling us so.

And something that's not in print or not where the person running things can see that it is a valid rule can't be claimed to be a rule. I doubt some player coming to your game going 'hey this is a rule, I just saw it over here' is going to get anywhere with that when you can't verify it.

Posted: **Sat Mar 10, 2012 11:51 am**

Nightmask wrote:
Killer Cyborg wrote:
Nightmask wrote:You've a really odd idea of what constitutes a valid rule then. 'Hey what are you talking about, that's not in the rule books?' 'Doesn't matter it's still a rule.' Sorry, don't see that kind of argument flying.

You don't have to see it flying.
RPGs everywhere deal with errata and other rule-changes that exist outside of the official books- this is not something that is unusual, although Palladium is sloppier about it than other companies.
When the makers of a game say something is a rule, then it is a rule.
That's why we know that the rules printed in the book are rules- because the makers of the game are telling us so.

And something that's not in print or not where the person running things can see that it is a valid rule can't be claimed to be a rule.

Again, something need not be in print in book form in order to be a rule.
This is pretty obvious, since most games have online errata and rule clarification.

Whether or not the person running the game can see the rule is irrelevant. By that logic, if the GM forgets to bring his books to the gaming table, then suddenly there are no longer ANY rules to the game, since they're located someplace where that particular GM cannot see them.

I doubt some player coming to your game going 'hey this is a rule, I just saw it over here' is going to get anywhere with that when you can't verify it.

Probably not, but that doesn't affect whether or not it IS a rule, only whether or not I know that it is a rule.

Posted: **Sat Mar 10, 2012 9:12 pm**

Killer Cyborg wrote:Online errata

But Palladium has online errata. I don't remember that rule being included there either.

In any case, the GM can make it a rule if he wants and the players can't force it on the GM even if it showed up in print.

Posted: **Sat Mar 10, 2012 9:21 pm**

llywelyn wrote:
Killer Cyborg wrote:Online errata

But Palladium has online errata. I don't remember that rule being included there either.

Yup.
It's dreadfully incomplete.
The only way we've heard about this rule is via staffers and such in the message boards.

In any case, the GM can make it a rule if he wants and the players can't force it on the GM even if it showed up in print.

The makers of the game made it a rule.
GMs can follow it, if they hear about it.

In the case of the rule for defaulting skills, my main questions are:
1. Is it official?
And the answer is yes, or so we've been told by Palladium staff.
2. Does it fit with the existing system?
And the answer is yes, perfectly. More so than some of the printed rules, in fact.

So I don't see people's problem with accepting the rule, unless they're unhappy that a flaw in the game has been secretly resolved.

Posted: **Sat Mar 10, 2012 9:31 pm**

Killer Cyborg wrote:
Giant2005 wrote:Is it just me or does the average O.C.C. gain too many skills?
I haven't done a precise calculation but I think that if I were to collate all my skills in real life, I would probably have less than the average human in Palladium, even assuming I am only level one.
Are other people in that same boat, or am I just incredibly unskilled?

I've heard other people make the opposite argument, that they had more skills when they were in high school than most characters get.

I think that part of it comes down to how you count something as a skill. For some, taking high school Biology would give you the skill, but for others you'd need to graduate college.
Another part is that not all skills are equal. Pilot: Bicycling and Pilot: Jet Fighter are given equal weight in the game.

Personally, I don't think that it's a matter of too many skills or not enough skills, but rather that they need to break the skills up into different levels of skill, so that easy-to-learn skills like bicycling don't take up a full skill slot and/or the harder-to-learn skills take up more than one skill slot.

I think this is probably the case.
I aced High School Biology but don't consider it a skill, the same goes for Climbing - I can climb and have even been abseiling a few times but I wouldn't consider that a skill either.
Starting to feel a little better

.

Posted: **Sat Mar 10, 2012 10:44 pm**

Killer Cyborg wrote:
Nightmask wrote:
Killer Cyborg wrote:
Nightmask wrote:You've a really odd idea of what constitutes a valid rule then. 'Hey what are you talking about, that's not in the rule books?' 'Doesn't matter it's still a rule.' Sorry, don't see that kind of argument flying.

You don't have to see it flying.
RPGs everywhere deal with errata and other rule-changes that exist outside of the official books- this is not something that is unusual, although Palladium is sloppier about it than other companies.
When the makers of a game say something is a rule, then it is a rule.
That's why we know that the rules printed in the book are rules- because the makers of the game are telling us so.

And something that's not in print or not where the person running things can see that it is a valid rule can't be claimed to be a rule.

Again, something need not be in print in book form in order to be a rule.
This is pretty obvious, since most games have online errata and rule clarification.

Whether or not the person running the game can see the rule is irrelevant. By that logic, if the GM forgets to bring his books to the gaming table, then suddenly there are no longer ANY rules to the game, since they're located someplace where that particular GM cannot see them.

I doubt some player coming to your game going 'hey this is a rule, I just saw it over here' is going to get anywhere with that when you can't verify it.

Probably not, but that doesn't affect whether or not it IS a rule, only whether or not I know that it is a rule.

So what is this defaulting rule, and is there anywhere I can find it written down? Or are you saying this is only passed via word of mouth?

Posted: **Sun Mar 11, 2012 12:20 am**

strtkwr wrote:
Killer Cyborg wrote:So what is this defaulting rule, and is there anywhere I can find it written down? Or are you saying this is only passed via word of mouth?

Unfortunately, I think the original postings have been archived- they took place back in 2004 or before, iirc.

It's simple enough to remember, though this isn't the exact wording that was used:
When a character is attempting to perform a skill that he/she does not have (but may reasonably attempt), that character must roll under the appropriate attribute using percentile dice.

Posted: **Sun Mar 11, 2012 2:23 am**

Killer Cyborg wrote:
strtkwr wrote:
Killer Cyborg wrote:So what is this defaulting rule, and is there anywhere I can find it written down? Or are you saying this is only passed via word of mouth?

Unfortunately, I think the original postings have been archived- they took place back in 2004 or before, iirc.

It's simple enough to remember, though this isn't the exact wording that was used:
When a character is attempting to perform a skill that he/she does not have (but may reasonably attempt), that character must roll under the appropriate attribute using percentile dice.

So for example, Bob the Regular Dude has IQ 10, MA 9, PP 8, and PB 13. He has drive automobile at 98%.

Some situation pops up and he needs a skill check.

Driving an automobile? Roll under 98%.
Driving a motorcycle? Roll under 10% (IQ) or 8% (PP).
Climbing a tree? Roll under 8% (PP).
Remembering some piece of common lore? Roll under 10%.
Seducing the waitress? Roll under 22% (MA+PB) if he's trying to take her home or 9% (MA) if he's just pumping her for information.

Generic stuff? Use IQ.

Posted: **Sun Mar 11, 2012 2:26 am**

Killer Cyborg wrote:So I don't see people's problem with accepting the rule, unless they're unhappy that a flaw in the game has been secretly resolved.

I think the griping is the secret part and the problem with accepting the rule is the bad precedent of "No, it's not in the book, but I talked to some guy who heard from Kevin that..." lines of communication.

Posted: **Sun Mar 11, 2012 5:06 am**

It's a game, man. Relax.

Posted: **Sun Mar 11, 2012 5:29 am**

Every group I know just Defualts unknown Skills to Base Skill % minus 10%.

Posted: **Sun Mar 11, 2012 10:33 am**

llywelyn wrote:
Killer Cyborg wrote:So I don't see people's problem with accepting the rule, unless they're unhappy that a flaw in the game has been secretly resolved.
I think the griping is the secret part and the problem with accepting the rule is the bad precedent of "No, it's not in the book, but I talked to some guy who heard from Kevin that..." lines of communication.

I can get that, but only to a point.
Fact is, there's this rule that makes sense, patches a hole, and that is supposed to be official according to staff.
Fact is, Palladiums system is chock full of unwritten rules that people accept without question.
People hear about this one, but because there is some reasonable doubt for IT it's 100% official, they react like they'd rather complain about the hole than anything else.

A reaction of "That's cool, but I wish to hell Palladium would PRINT the damned rule sometime!", I get.
A reaction of "Well, I'm not 100% sure it's official, but it sounds good!" I get.
A reaction of "Well, I'm going to pretend that I never heard about it, and only ever reluctantly mention it" is something that I don't get.

Especially when a lot of people STILL trot out the original FAQ as if it were canon or relevant.

If there were a conflicting rule somewhere, I'd discard this one.
If the rule didn't fit with the system perfectly, I'd discard it.
If it came from the original FAQ or from a staffer offering it up as their own opinion, I wouldn't count it as canon.

But it came from official staff, related as having come from Kevin.
Now, since you're hearing this from ME, I get that it's one more step removed.
The questions are:
Do you think that I'm lying about it?
Do you think that I'm relaying the information inaccurately, having not properly analyzed the situation?
An unbiased look through my posts should show that either of the above would be out of character for me.
And, at worst, should result in people saying "the rule that KC claims is canon," instead of referring to it as "optional" or whatever else.

Posted: **Sun Mar 11, 2012 10:39 am**

llywelyn wrote:
Killer Cyborg wrote:
strtkwr wrote:
Killer Cyborg wrote:So what is this defaulting rule, and is there anywhere I can find it written down? Or are you saying this is only passed via word of mouth?

Unfortunately, I think the original postings have been archived- they took place back in 2004 or before, iirc.

It's simple enough to remember, though this isn't the exact wording that was used:
When a character is attempting to perform a skill that he/she does not have (but may reasonably attempt), that character must roll under the appropriate attribute using percentile dice.

So for example, Bob the Regular Dude has IQ 10, MA 9, PP 8, and PB 13. He has drive automobile at 98%.

Some situation pops up and he needs a skill check.

Driving an automobile? Roll under 98%.
Driving a motorcycle? Roll under 10% (IQ) or 8% (PP).
Climbing a tree? Roll under 8% (PP).
Remembering some piece of common lore? Roll under 10%.
Seducing the waitress? Roll under 22% (MA+PB) if he's trying to take her home or 9% (MA) if he's just pumping her for information.

Generic stuff? Use IQ.

Pretty much.

Again, though, skill checks only need to be rolled when attempting something tricky. So if you're trying to climb a pine tree that can easily support your weight, when you're not trying to be stealthy, and you've got all the time in the world, no check is needed- the GM can just say that you succeed.
And with seducing the waitress, I'm don't think that adding the two relevant abilities would be in accordance with the rule. You'd just go with the higher or more relevant of the two. Or role-play it out. Or, again, if the GM decides that it's an "easy" situation- no check necessary.

Posted: **Sun Mar 11, 2012 11:24 am**

The rule is published in the Cutting Room Floor part of Palladium's website. In the cutting room floor it specifically says they are official rules that were left out or have not yet made it to books. As such, they're effectively errata. Learn me, love em, or ignore them but don't deny they're there for people who WANT to use them.

Posted: **Sun Mar 11, 2012 12:08 pm**

Akashic Soldier wrote:The rule is published in the Cutting Room Floor part of Palladium's website. In the cutting room floor it specifically says they are official rules that were left out or have not yet made it to books. As such, they're effectively errata. Learn me, love em, or ignore them but don't deny they're there for people who WANT to use them.

Huh!
So it is:
http://www.palladiumbooks.com/index.php ... -questions

35. How are the pilot and horsemanship skills to be used? I have ruled that every time a PC starts a vehicle or mounts a horse (or whatever) he must make a successful skill roll to do so. He must then make a roll every time he tries a complicated maneuver (a barrel roll, spinout, steeplechase style jump, etc.). Do you have any suggestions that differ from my system?

Answer: Standard things (starting up a vehicle, mounting a horse, etc.) do NOT require a piloting roll; however, complicated maneuvers do

36. I'm having trouble with my players trying to use skills that they don't have. Is there a base skill percentage that should be used in this situation? (The players are trying to perform a logical and reasonable task i.e. trying to locate a door that a villain had gone through.)

Answer: For attempting a task that they are unskilled in, a character should roll percentile vs. an applicable attribute (i.e. IQ, ME, PS, PE, etc.).

I hope that settles things for people who had issues with it.

Posted: **Sun Mar 11, 2012 5:11 pm**

Killer Cyborg wrote:
Akashic Soldier wrote:The rule is published in the Cutting Room Floor part of Palladium's website. In the cutting room floor it specifically says they are official rules that were left out or have not yet made it to books. As such, they're effectively errata. Learn me, love em, or ignore them but don't deny they're there for people who WANT to use them.

Huh!
So it is:
http://www.palladiumbooks.com/index.php ... -questions
35. How are the pilot and horsemanship skills to be used? I have ruled that every time a PC starts a vehicle or mounts a horse (or whatever) he must make a successful skill roll to do so. He must then make a roll every time he tries a complicated maneuver (a barrel roll, spinout, steeplechase style jump, etc.). Do you have any suggestions that differ from my system?

Answer: Standard things (starting up a vehicle, mounting a horse, etc.) do NOT require a piloting roll; however, complicated maneuvers do

36. I'm having trouble with my players trying to use skills that they don't have. Is there a base skill percentage that should be used in this situation? (The players are trying to perform a logical and reasonable task i.e. trying to locate a door that a villain had gone through.)

Answer: For attempting a task that they are unskilled in, a character should roll percentile vs. an applicable attribute (i.e. IQ, ME, PS, PE, etc.).

I hope that settles things for people who had issues with it.

Yup. Seems pretty official to me. Thanks everyone!!!

Posted: **Sun Mar 11, 2012 7:06 pm**

Rifter 48 has an official print of this rule answered by KS. It is specifically for Nightbane.

pg 24.

roll % under attribute, or d20 under 1/2 attribute, if it is a skill that almost anyone could do (such as sense of balance). No chance on a skill like driving, swimming, prowl, which do require more in depth knowledge.

He also adds a rule of 'maybe' and said he doesn't know why he never printed it. basically if a player asks to do something and doesn't have a skill, but it is plausible, roll a d20. 1-10 = yes. 11-20 = no.

Posted: **Sun Mar 11, 2012 7:39 pm**

I've got enough skills for a lot of Men-At-Arms OCC's, but then again I've been in the Marines for nearly 8 years. Unfortnately, I'm in aviation so my SDC and PS are severly low so if I had to take on a man at arms OCC in a rifts setting, I'd die...quickly.

Posted: **Mon Mar 12, 2012 9:05 am**

I also use default to attribute.

It's annoying though that in a Rifter (not sure of number, one with Kent Burles Nightbane art on cover) there's an official Nightbane FAQ where Kevin (and it is him in an "ED note" type paragraph) completely contradicts this by saying that you cannot even attempt to do something unskilled. He even uses his own inability to swim as an example.

This is the sort of thing that really needs clarification in a new edition/online errata, or whatever else Palladium plan on doing in the future. It seems to me though that it would be simple enough in the skill list section of the rules, simple annotate skills that can be attempted unskilled with an '*' and leave those that cant - I don't see that every skill can be attempted unskilled with a chance for success.

Posted: **Mon Mar 12, 2012 10:58 am**

Aaryq wrote:I've got enough skills for a lot of Men-At-Arms OCC's, but then again I've been in the Marines for nearly 8 years. Unfortnately, I'm in aviation so my SDC and PS are severly low so if I had to take on a man at arms OCC in a rifts setting, I'd die...quickly.

YOU Aviation in RIFTS. FLYING ACE OCC, Fly any of the Skycycles, or SAMAS PA., etc...
Their done. So why would you die in Rifts quickly. For being a Normal Human ? Nah, you just need POWER ARMOR !!

:lol:

Posted: **Mon Mar 12, 2012 11:40 am**

ZorValachan wrote:Rifter 48 has an official print of this rule answered by KS. It is specifically for Nightbane.

pg 24.

roll % under attribute, or d20 under 1/2 attribute, if it is a skill that almost anyone could do (such as sense of balance). No chance on a skill like driving, swimming, prowl, which do require more in depth knowledge.

He also adds a rule of 'maybe' and said he doesn't know why he never printed it. basically if a player asks to do something and doesn't have a skill, but it is plausible, roll a d20. 1-10 = yes. 11-20 = no.

Forums of the Megaverse®

Skills in Palladium

Skills in Palladium

Re: Skills in Palladium

Re: Skills in Palladium

Re: Skills in Palladium

Re: Skills in Palladium

Re: Skills in Palladium

Re: Skills in Palladium

Re: Skills in Palladium

Re: Skills in Palladium

Re: Skills in Palladium

Re: Skills in Palladium

Re: Skills in Palladium

Re: Skills in Palladium

Re: Skills in Palladium

Re: Skills in Palladium

Re: Skills in Palladium

Re: Skills in Palladium

Re: Skills in Palladium

Re: Skills in Palladium

Re: Skills in Palladium

Re: Skills in Palladium

Re: Skills in Palladium

Re: Skills in Palladium

Re: Skills in Palladium

Re: Skills in Palladium

Re: Skills in Palladium

Re: Skills in Palladium

Re: Skills in Palladium

Re: Skills in Palladium

Re: Skills in Palladium

Re: Skills in Palladium

Re: Skills in Palladium

Re: Skills in Palladium