Im new to the system and want to avoid house rules at all costs but Im having trouble with the concept of the 'one size fits all' Survival skill.
One of my players is a sewer rat, a child of the big city, grew up pilfering from peddler's stalls and stealing from open windows. They have a Survival skill of 4.
One of my other players is was born in the woodlands, hunts and traps, forages for edible plants and the like. He has a Survival skill of 4.
Do I just have to make the necessary adjustments to thir skill based on the enviroment? Basically use my knowlege of the history as an impromptude modifier?
Really? Nobody has run into this? Two extremely different concepts using the same skill? How do I fairly limit the street urchin from suddenly becoming an herbalist when hes a thousand miles from home in a strange forest without the player balking?
To answer your question in a straightforward manner: Yes, Survival skill 4 is Survival skill 4, regardless of the characters background. Nothing keeps you from applying case-by-case modifiers to bring the chars history into the game.
Play GURPS if you want that level of minutae, maybe? That system would andle it.
|
I understand where you are coming from. As a survival buff, it irks me a little that the Ranger from Qadira is able to survive in the icy Realm of the Mammoth Lords just as easily as the Ranger from the Realm of the Mammoth Lords is able to survive in the deserts of Qadira.
There is a point in RPG development where you have to draw the line on what feels realistic (within the context of the game) and what is reasonable for gameplay. In this case, they left it open.
The same could be said of many other skills like Knowledge (Local), Knowledge (Nature), Spellcraft, Diplomacy, etc. where it feels unrealistic for characters to be able to effectively use skills with foreign cultures, lands, or peoples.
You just have to decide how you wish to handle it. Traits are one way to differentiate it a bit in that they often give bonuses to a character's native land.
Another way is to add circumstance penalties when characters are outside their normal area of expertise; but then you have to consider what happens if the character becomes acclimated to the area. When does the penalty go away? Do they have to 'buy off' the penalty? The, the other thing is tracking these penalties/boons for each character. While realistic, making those adjustments can lead to other challenges.
In my game, I don't worry about it too much. I have so much more to track that I think it is an acceptable compromise.
If you do not want a house rule you just have to take the skill without flavour. If you could see yourself using a hr I suggest the following:
Before rolling survival first roll a knowledge check depending on surroundings vs 15 if the roll is successful give a bonus to the survival roll.
With that the wilderness guy would be better if he has the appropriate knowledge nature skill and the sewer rat would be better if he has knowledge local.
If the sewer rat has no knowledge local, why should he get a bonus on survival? Living in the city didn't teach him much it seems.
The two options that I would have gone with have already been mentioned, but I'm going to put them down anyway:
- Give each of them a trait that gives a +2 to Survival checks for a specific terrain type; One would pick urban, and the other would pick forest (I assume)
- Give a bonus to Survival checks base on another skill the character has, such as knowledge
Personally, I would go with the trait option, as that's what traits are for: character flavor dictating minor mechanical changes.
Play GURPS if you want that level of minutae, maybe? That system would andle it.
MINUTAE! Pardon me I dont normally (havent ever actually) responded emotionally on a forum but... geeeze! First off if your only suggestion to a plea for assistance on a site dedicated to a particular game system is to go find another one... well next time ignore the post please. Secondly Ill be nice and say we obviously have a very different definition of the term Minutae if your artic tundra barbarian, never before having seen civilization, suddenly becomes an expert at getting by in the city sprawl. Its a valid question, as Im sure others will attest to in their responses.
Thanks (most of you) for the helpful insight. The trait idea does seem to be the simplest but it ignores the fact that the character's background doesnt just hieghten their ability in one area but pretty much eliminates it in another.
I think the situations when the peculiarity arise are fairly obvious, to the players as much as the GM. An 'off the cuff' ruling of a modifier or something doesnt seem to extreme. Its not as consistent as I would like but as RedDog mentioned, an actual rule could get hairy.
I would think that a character who finds him or herself in a very unfamiliar environment is so affected and after spending an adventure or two there is probably freed of the hindrance is rule enough for our group, perhaps withholding the skill for a time, then applying 1/4 the bonus, then half and so on or whatever.
And you are right that many of the other skills have this same oddity and one approach to all of them is exactly what Im looking for. Knowledge:Royaly in Taldor being fairly useless in Katapesh until the character interacts there for a time and begins to see the similarities and learns the culture for example.
Uggh I suppose it is sort of a house rule afterall.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
... uh, sorry? My comment was not intended to offend. Poor word choice. "Realistc Simulation"
I'm actually serious. Some game systems take these things into account. GURPS is one of them.
I wasnt offended Tangaroa and no apology necessary, I was just a little shocked.
As far as it being an issue for a more realistic set of rules, I would say that consistency and a making 'game sense' is more appropriate. The game separates handle animal and ride, climb and swim yet lumps other less similar activities together. Thats fine, as long as we have a way of sorting them out when those odd occasions occur when it just doesnt make sense.
Players, at least the ones Ive associated with, dont expect perfect realism but do want an explanation of why something is as it is.
There are other areas of the game that are extremely specific.
A cleric is awarded proficiency with simple weapons, so he can pick up a 6lb morningstar and charge into battle but is evidently severely hampered with 5lb warhammer (martial weapon) - makes about as much sense as my urban savvy tundra barbarian I guess.
Adjust the DC of the check by a situational modifier. Rangers get this type of bonus in favored terrain as specialists in said terrain. Consider the "general" Survival skill as the basic skills applicable to most situations (i.e.finding food/water, coping with the elements, tracking, etc.). The various knowledge checks that may apply are still diversified, yet somewhat general (Nature, Dungeoneering, Local for urban, etc.). Specific terrain mastery comes from the ranger class and traits, as BBT said.
Hmm, so in theory you could design an Urban Ranger then, if you wanted a true expert and living and operating within the urban sprawl.
I wouldnt want to speak within the rules, but this kind of thing is definitely something I'd prefer to houserule - knowledge (local) is my pet peeve. I really can't see how that isnt extremely penalised if you're not in the area you've previously spent your life in. It doesnt really bug any of my players though, so we just go with it.
If it were up to me, I think I'd give +2 in your 'usual' environment and -2 in all others (since there's probably some crossover) or something like that.
Maybe Knowledge:Local is the ability to acquire local knowledge?
Maybe Knowledge:Local is the ability to acquire local knowledge?
And the amount of time you spend during your downtime in any area doing so.
At least, those are how I've always seen that particular skill.
Maybe Knowledge:Local is the ability to acquire local knowledge?
Yeah, I'm sure that's part of it. I think it makes sense that someone trained in the skill would be better at acquiring knowledge than someone not trained in the skill - it doesnt always seem wrong to me.
.The way it's often written in adventures though there's also an element of "make this roll to see if you know this factoid" with no time given to ask around (explicitly or implicitly). It's not a big deal, just one of those things that happens to irk me when it comes up.
Don't forget that survival is mostly about following tracks, finding north, and finding food/drink.
For catching rabbits/food, I'm fairly sure that setting up simple traps would be know by both. Rabbits/birds also exist in parks in modern cities... why shouldn't a street urchin have learned how to catch these? when you are hungry/starving you'll be happy to eat anything you can get your hands on.
A street urchin should know similar methods to catch rain, purify water from pools, figure out north through moss on trees/houses, ...
and while a street urchin might not know the tracks left by panthers and bears, he'd know wolves (dogs) and most humanoids just fine.
But looking at tracks to ID the creature who left it would be covered by knowledge skills anyways... survival is for following those tracks.
The only thing that would be weird, is if a street urchin knew how to assess dangers in wilderness (ravines, quicksands, ...). But usually I prefer to roll knowledge geography for these (but that's our table's houserule). It also gives knowledge geography more uses, because right now it's a rather pointless skill.
Natural hazards are already covered by Knowledge Nature: DC 15 + hazard's CR
Wow, it appears I need to find a commentary on exactly what each skill provides somewhere. There is quite a bit of overlap in there, easily missed by a novice to the system.
The game is more of an abstraction and less of a simulation than many other RPG's. Nothing wrong with being a simulationist, but you will be houseruling things if you want that level of detail.
As an example you can use a swinging weapon like an axe in a confined area as well as you can use a jabbing weapon like a spear.
The simplest thing to do would be to refluff Knowledge (Local) as your urban survival skill. I use a Streetwise skill, which is Knowledge (Local), Gather Information and Survival (urban). I think it works very well.
If you want to get slightly more fancy, you could also use Knowledge (Dungeoneering) as your underground survival skill and leave Survival for overland rural/wilderness environments only.
It sounds like maybe the urban guy should be skilled in Sleight-of-Hand instead of Survival, if he got by on stealing.
Note: one (gameplay based) way to indicate more skill in a specific terrain are the favored terrains, which means a ranger from the desert WILL be better there than in an icy realm. And rogues can get it too.
However, there might be an expectation issue here; "survival" is a catch-all skill for outdoorsmen, representing foraging, tracking, etc. I wouldnt see it as appropriate in a city (where there isnt enough wilderness to forage) so I would probably replace it with something else (what I'm not sure).
As for the general usage of each skill, I would check the d20pfsrd, it's got some information at least.
|
The +2 circumstance bonus/penalty is a DM's best friend.
Often overlooked, it provides a mechanical effect, for just about any situation, circumstance, or relevant boon/hindrance due to personal experience.
It also lacks the requirement to over complicate things, which is good, unless complicating things is your goal.
You can also create custom traits, that reflect the personal experience of a PC.
Usually, just using a published trait, and reflavoring it, does the trick.
Let each PC have an extra trait, with maybe some custom restriction, if you want, and you have solved your problem.
Thanks guys, Im really trying to stay away from rules doctoring if I can. When one of my new players makes a character I want them to be able to just walk through the rules as is without my modifying the mechanics because of their vision of their character.
I think the safest bet for me is to assign that circumstance bonus/penalty when something like this pops up until the character takes measures to remove it (spends time in a given terrain type or whatever.)
Maybe Knowledge:Local is the ability to acquire local knowledge?Yeah, I'm sure that's part of it. I think it makes sense that someone trained in the skill would be better at acquiring knowledge than someone not trained in the skill - it doesnt always seem wrong to me.
.
The way it's often written in adventures though there's also an element of "make this roll to see if you know this factoid" with no time given to ask around (explicitly or implicitly). It's not a big deal, just one of those things that happens to irk me when it comes up.
Yeah, if you had a bit of time, it would make sense. I mean, knowledge(local) would be the experience so that you could say "yeah... that bar looks seedy enough to be a place were drunks talk about local bandits." And it also would encompass the ability to discern rumors of strangers in the woods from tall tales kids tell their friends to impress them.
With most of the other knowledges (religion, planes, magic, nature, etc), you can imagine that the character had previously read about the factoid in some book during their training, or it was mentioned once during a lesson from their old master. You just have to do the same with knowledge(local) too I suppose, where you retcon in your character overhearing rumors on the streets.
Along with your comments on Knowledge:Local - using the skill as an acquisition skill rather than current knowledge would also help explain that character that lives in an area their entire childhood and into young adulthood but since they dont want to waste a Skillpoint on Knowledge:Local - apparently doesnt know a thing about the area.