|
Over in the skill forums there have been several people who've said they like skill synergies and would like to see them in Pathfinder. Back in the Alpha 1 forums we came up with a easy way to retain synergies without messing up the way ranks are calculated.
The Lordzack Synergy Compromise
Skill synergies could work like Aid Another. You roll the first skill check (using the 'helping' skill) against DC 10 and if you succeed you get a +2 bonus on the second skill check with the main skill. Which skills synergize and under what conditions is up to the DM.
For example, succeed a DC10 skill check with Knowledge (nobility) and get a +2 to your Diplomacy check with the king.
I like it because it doesn't affect the calculation of skill ranks, rather it is situational. AND people who don't want to use it can just forget about it without worrying about their stats being wrong. Everybody gets what they want. How often can you say that?
That's a very good idea. I love it.
I, for one, don't like to see a synergy bonus added to a skill on the character sheet, as it doesn't always apply.
That would be the solution.
And occasionnally, the synergy bonus could be higher than +2, according to the roll or the context.
Good.
Over in the skill forums there have been several people who've said they like skill synergies and would like to see them in Pathfinder. Back in the Alpha 1 forums we came up with a easy way to retain synergies without messing up the way ranks are calculated.
The Lordzack Synergy Compromise
Skill synergies could work like Aid Another. You roll the first skill check (using the 'helping' skill) against DC 10 and if you succeed you get a +2 bonus on the second skill check with the main skill. Which skills synergize and under what conditions is up to the DM.For example, succeed a DC10 skill check with Knowledge (nobility) and get a +2 to your Diplomacy check with the king.
I like it because it doesn't affect the calculation of skill ranks, rather it is situational. AND people who don't want to use it can just forget about it without worrying about their stats being wrong. Everybody gets what they want. How often can you say that?
We have been using this for synergy bonuses for the past four years. I, as DM, have found it much more simpler than the straight addition of synergy bonuses from the PHB. Plus it keeps min/maxing down,as the DM has control of what and when a skill acts as a synergy. Also, it allows PFRPG to keep them in the game, which keeps more of the backwards compatibibily. Finally, for those who don't care for skill synergies, as stated, you can choose to leave them out with no harm done.
|
Over in the skill forums there have been several people who've said they like skill synergies and would like to see them in Pathfinder. Back in the Alpha 1 forums we came up with a easy way to retain synergies without messing up the way ranks are calculated.
The Lordzack Synergy Compromise
Skill synergies could work like Aid Another. You roll the first skill check (using the 'helping' skill) against DC 10 and if you succeed you get a +2 bonus on the second skill check with the main skill. Which skills synergize and under what conditions is up to the DM.For example, succeed a DC10 skill check with Knowledge (nobility) and get a +2 to your Diplomacy check with the king.
I like it because it doesn't affect the calculation of skill ranks, rather it is situational. AND people who don't want to use it can just forget about it without worrying about their stats being wrong. Everybody gets what they want. How often can you say that?
Yep, I wholeheartedly agree with this. So it occasionally adds one more roll to the skill checks, but I think it's an elegant solution/compromise to the skill synergy problem. There are two ways I could see this mechanic working in the system:
1) A bit like "Skill Challenges" in 4E, which would mean that the player may freely suggest that his character is using skill X to give skill Y the synergy bonus, and if the DM deems that skill X is indeed "relevant" to the task, the player may roll against DC 10 to see if he gets the bonus. I see this system benefiting experienced groups a lot, and it probably encourages character immersion and benefits the "story", too.
2) Tweaking the current synergy bonus list in 3E PHB to match PF skills. Otherwise it would work just like above.
In any case, I love those synergy bonuses and the simulationist in me would hate to see them go, so I'd like to have it at least as an optional rule in the game.
Jason, what do you think? :)
I'm really glad people like this idea. It's something I'd really like to see in the Pathfinder Rules.
If you like/dislike the idea, please post over [t]here to keep the thread alive and hopefully get noticed by Jason.
Like the idea! ;)
tfad
|
Even with this loosey goosey approach, its still demanding on the DM to keep memory of contextual instances throughout the game (and games) to apply this consistently.Fair enough. Good to hear some constructive criticism.
I've used this system for a while now but rather than having the onus on the GM, I encourage the players to think about it and suggest that an additional skill is relevant to the situation. That way the DM doesn't have to remember event to event or worry about consistency and the player can provide evidence that the skill is useful by saying that it was used in previous situation.
Personally, I'd prefer a static bonus to deciding on the spot which skill does or doesn't help in a given situation. Also, more dice rolling for a single test = more time spent on mechanics, less on the fun parts.
Edit: To clarify: I think cutting the synergy boni from Pathfinder is a good idea. Synergy boni are nice and all, but hey, they're just not necessary, and simplification is good. Pathfinder effectively gives more skills (by joining skills) and improves cross-class skills; the loss of a +2 bonus here or there shouldn't really hurt anyone.
This is a very elegant solution - simple yet powerful. I like it a lot.
I like this idea, but I believe this is something that would be excellent to add in a sidebar as an optional rule. Let the player come up with the reason why skill X works with Y, rather than a fixed table.
Right now, I am not certain about synergies at all:
In the new system there is more flexibility and less table-reviewing of which skill gives what kind of synergy.
BUT: Most synergies ARE just always applying. You are good in knowledge (Natur)? So when does this NOT benefit for survival (wilderness) check?
I think, while I really LIKE the idea of "help-yourself" I ask myself, if we could just get rid of synergies in favor for a condensed skill list and a quick-and-simple system.
I might go for this, however a part of me fears the character taking 1 skill point in a lot of skills, then trying to see if they get lucky and get a good roll, passing the DC check to pass for the synergy in another skill they want.
That would both slow the game down and irritate me considerably.
I really like the idea of having this as a supplemental rule.
My players tend to come up with pretty creative uses for skills, and so I tend to use this kind of approach often. There are times when there's just no listed synergy that applies: for instance, hoisting someone out of a pit by pulling on a rope should probably be a simple Strength check, but Use Rope or even Climb might apply depending on the situation.
On the other hand, I find that it takes a little bit of excitement out of really desperate moments when you have to make multiple checks for a single action. Especially when it happens more than once in quick succession.
So it's a good idea, but I agree with those who want to keep it optional.
|
|
Not keen on it. I'd still rather see a condensed skill list that accounts for the bulk of synergies.
Even with this loosey goosey approach, its still demanding on the DM to keep memory of contextual instances throughout the game (and games) to apply this consistently.
It's completely optional, and you let the *player* come up with the logical explanation and how it happens in the story. If it's plausible, you let it happen. I see this system encouraging role-playing and character immersion, as players get creative.
To clearify my point: I would get rid of static synergies since they often get abused for (putting 5 ranks to get it and done) and are just a pain in the ass to calculate.
Plus: add the above mentioned rule as an option.
That's just the best way I can see right now.
EDIT: Maybe the DC should be 15? (maybe for all aid-other actions?)
For example, succeed a DC10 skill check with Knowledge (nobility) and get a +2 to your Diplomacy check with the king.
This seems more of a RP/DM mandated mechanic rather than something that needs to be written down as a rule in the book. We've been doing the same thing for years simply because that's how skills should work together. Skills don't work in a vacuum they need to work together.
The +2 bonus granted in your example is a situational bonus. It is something a DM should do for characters using skills properly in conjunction with one another and in the right circumstances.
It doesn't need a rule written in the book for it. Especially considering any rule for it would limit it's flexibility.
Personally, I'd just do away with synergies.
Personally, I'd just do away with synergies.
I don't even consider it a synergy. I think of it as smart roleplaying and good DMimg to realize a character used two skills in conjunction to get an affect on the situation and the DM should recognize this and reward it with a situational bonus on the second role.
I just came across this thread and being someone that was against skill synergy, this is a nice alternative. I like it so much that I plan to start using it in my next game. Good job guys.
|
I do like this idea - not love it - but do like it. I'm usually not a big fan of things that require MORE dice rolling.....
As an alternative to the "extra" dice rolling (if that is your complaint to the idea) you can:
Roll the skill check. IF it fails by only one or two, or has varying levels of success that just missed the next benchmark by one or two THEN have the secondary synergizing skill be rolled.
So a player who is crafty and says they are using skill X to aid their skill Y check - just roll the skill Y and see if there's even a point in rolling the other....
I do agree with a previous poster that the DC should be 15 - not 10; but then again, my games are usually on 32 point buy - not 28; so characters are generally a little better off in the modifiers department...
Robert
I really like this idea. I will be incorporating this on my playtest this Saturday.
Actually, I have used something like this without really thinking about it. It only seems logical to me, especially in the case of using knowlege checks like nobility to enhance diplomacy checks. It only makes sense that a character can use his knowledge to aid a character in convincing someone that he/she knows what they are talking about or are worthy of trust or consideration. Or think of it like this:
Suppose a group PCs are in a place where they encounter NPCs that are indifferent or even hostile to people they perceive as foreigners or trespassers. If these characters have sufficent knowledge about the area, like through knowledge (local) or even knowledge (history) or knowledge (geography), that would realistically increase their chances that the NPCs will have a better attitude toward them because they demostrate an awareness or understanding of something very important to the NPCs (this increased chance would manifest itself as the +2 bonus to the actual diplomacy check).
|
|
Personally, I'd just do away with synergies.I don't even consider it a synergy. I think of it as smart roleplaying and good DMimg to realize a character used two skills in conjunction to get an affect on the situation and the DM should recognize this and reward it with a situational bonus on the second role.
That is so, but I'd still like to have it in PF at least as an optional rule. I know DMs who refuse to try any "houserules" (as in: "anything not mentioned in the rules") -- no matter how innovative or sensible they might be.
Remember with skills, there's no autofailure on 1.
So basically there's no roll required once your bonus is +9 or higher.
So really, if the player can think up a reason it might apply, they can add a +2 bonus. I like it.
|
|
That is so, but I'd still like to have it in PF at least as an optional rule. I know DMs who refuse to try any "houserules" (as in: "anything not mentioned in the rules") -- no matter how innovative or sensible they might be.
And that is well ok as it is their perogative; thats the whole point of an "optional" rule. They can Opt to use it or not to.
I hate as DM getting flack from people when I opt not to use an optional rule; people seem to feel that since it's an optional rule the onus is on using them. If that were the case it wouldn't be called "optional" it would be called "Highly recommended" rule.
Robert
|
|
Remember with skills, there's no autofailure on 1.
So basically there's no roll required once your bonus is +9 or higher.
So really, if the player can think up a reason it might apply, they can add a +2 bonus. I like it.
Kaisoku is absolutely correct. By 6th level for class skills and 9th for non-class skills, these bonuses could become almost automatic.
In case anyone doesn't like the idea that synergy bonuses become automatic, remember that in 3.5 the +2s were automatic and always on once you had 5 ranks, usually by 2nd level. This system is a lot more conservative and player driven.
This system is a lot more conservative and player driven.
It's a trade off. You have to wait later before it becomes automatic, but the player gets to decide when to apply it so it may come up more often than before.
An alternative would be to take a page from 4e and increase or decrease the DC based on how applicable this second skill would be. The DM could decide whether history skills could be useable for escaping guards, but in this case he might decide that it's barely applicable and would need a DC 15 or 20 (maybe make a chart for the DM to consult to see general applicableness). Also, even with success it would only be giving a +2, not replacing the skill check completely.
I think it should be stressed that the onus is on the player to decide when to try applying this bonus. Conversely, it should be stressed that the DM should allow it unless it's really stupid or inapplicable (using linguistics in a non-speaking or listening activity like jumping).
I'd also limit it to one skill, pass or fail. This would be to prevent trying acrobatics to give a bonus to sneaking past some guards (jumping over an obstacle to add additional cover), and when it fails, the player tries to use a different skill, like a knowledge, etc.
This should be inspirational, in the moment stuff... not a "lets run the gamut of skills and see what I can boost my chances with".
|
|
This system is a lot more conservative and player driven.
Let me add that I think this is good.
The DM could decide whether history skills could be useable for escaping guards, but in this case he might decide that it's barely applicable and would need a DC 15 or 20 (maybe make a chart for the DM to consult to see general applicableness). Also, even with success it would only be giving a +2, not replacing the skill check completely.
I agree, and can see myself doing this on occasion, but now I think we're deep into house rule territory. But I think the basic Aid-Self Synergy mechanic is straight forward enough that it should actually be a core Pathfinder rule. Folks who don't like it can just skip it, but I'd like to see it in the book as the norm.
|
|
I would allow only a single skill, or two at most, to affect any given situation. Of course, it depends on the situation itself and also how the player "sells" his idea of how his PC's skills might affect the situation. For example, I might allow him to use Perform and Bluff to boost his Diplomacy check, if he was giving a speech to a non-hostile audience. Of course, you have to have some limits, but then again, I had sometimes synergy bonuses from three skills, so why not in PF, too?