forums.cubicle7.co.uk
archive

I was curious about how LMs should allow their players to use their characters' Specialties. A Specialty can be used:

1) To have an automatic success on Common skill checks, where appropriate;
2) To get a roll in an unforeseen situation, where the players would otherwise get no roll;
3) To get an Advancement Point.

So, to make an example, let's consider a Barding with Boating. He can:

1) Obtain an automatic success when he needs to sail across the Long Lake, to get from Esgaroth to the Stairs of Girion;
2) Get a roll (maybe Explore, or Athletics) to avoid crashing into rocks with his boat in a starless night (people without Boating wouldn't notice the danger early enough);
3) Get an Advancement Point after succeeding in the roll at point 2.


But now let's consider, say, a situation where he is chasing a boat full of orcs along a river. The orcs haven't Boating of course: would you allow an automatic success, so the Barding reaches his quarry without making any roll?

I think this may be a bit anti-climatic, while if the LM decides that the player has to roll, not granting any bonus would make the player unjustly deprived of one of his chances to shine.

I would perhaps still require a roll, but allowing my player to get a bonus so that his superior skill can make the difference: maybe allowing him to add to the result his relevant Attribute without spending any Hope point? What do you think?

More in general, how would you treat any situation where a Specialty would definitely matter, but the results of the action could have deep consequences on the rest of the adventure?

I would allow the use of the specialty regardless of the weight or impact of the consequence. In other words, don't screw over the player just because he has the exact right specialty at the time to make the perfect difference. That really hurts your player's sense of his character's value.

This situation is to me no different than any other situation. The only thing you need to decide is does the use of boating fall into category 1 or 2, independently of the stakes? If he would normally NOT be allowed to roll (for whatever reason), his boating should allow him to roll. If he would normally be allowed to roll, you should allow him to claim an auto-success.

What I would personally suggest here, is that perhaps the "boating" skill, to catch up to the Orcs, should be a pro-longed test. I don't know the exact circumstances but I'm envisioning this scenario was played out as some kind of chase, where players were chasing orcs by boat? Unless the gap was very narrow, I might consider this a prolonged test, and I would allow the character to invoke "boating" for a single automatic success. there are any number of ways you could rule this. You might rule that (assuming other players were on board), that they needed to make a Riddle or Explore roll to determine the nature of the weather and wind so as to maximise their speed. If they were rowing, you might call for rolls of Athletics or Travel from other party members. You could do something where the players started 3-5 "spaces" behind the Orcs' boat, and had to catch them. For every normal success, the players maintain their current distance. For every great or extraordinary success, they catch up by 1 or 2 spaces, for every failure they fall behind by 1, and for every Sauronic failure they fall behind 2. That way the boating player has to do more than just tap his boating trait for an autosuccess.

Again, though, I would rule all these things irrespective of a player using his traits for autosuccess.

Michebugio wrote:But now let's consider, say, a situation where he is chasing a boat full of orcs along a river. The orcs haven't Boating of course: would you allow an automatic success, so the Barding reaches his quarry without making any roll?

I think this may be a bit anti-climatic, while if the LM decides that the player has to roll, not granting any bonus would make the player unjustly deprived of one of his chances to shine.

I would perhaps still require a roll, but allowing my player to get a bonus so that his superior skill can make the difference: maybe allowing him to add to the result his relevant Attribute without spending any Hope point? What do you think?

More in general, how would you treat any situation where a Specialty would definitely matter, but the results of the action could have deep consequences on the rest of the adventure?

I think there's a little problem here. While none of the orcs have Boating this doesn't prevent them from rolling Athletics, Travel or whatever skill is most appropriate. Hence the Barding must roll every round to get to them or he can avoid rolling and get an automatic basic success, which equates pretty much to playing it safely and constantly gaining on his quarry. Clearly if the orcs got lucky with a couple of 6s, playing safe will backfire and they will get away.
Given that there's are at least one case in the basic rules where having a Trait allows to add the Attribute bonus for free (preliminary rolls in the Journey rules), so it might not be out of question to apply this logic to other situations.

The situation you describe with the orcs, into my eyes it falls either in 1 or 3.

As a LM I would either allow him to pass the check automatically counting as a simple success as Woodclaw says or let him roll normally but granting him an advancement point if he succeeds on the test.

I don't see why this situation will fall into category 2, that is of course unless the LM will dictate that the orcs are too far away and they cannot be reached, then it will fall into category 2.

Regarding the automatic success, I don't find it anti-climatic, at the end his character has the boating trait, meaning that he is very good at this. The player will probably like seeing how his PC rocks at it and is able to catch the orcs easily. As a LM just put some narrative there to embellish the scene. Besides, once the PCs reaches the orcs there is going to be some nice fight...may be even on top of the boats

Rocmistro wrote:What I would personally suggest here, is that perhaps the "boating" skill, to catch up to the Orcs, should be a pro-longed test. I don't know the exact circumstances but I'm envisioning this scenario was played out as some kind of chase, where players were chasing orcs by boat? Unless the gap was very narrow, I might consider this a prolonged test, and I would allow the character to invoke "boating" for a single automatic success.

Yepesnopes wrote:Besides, once the PCs reaches the orcs there is going to be some nice fight...may be even on top of the boats

Yes, this situation is going to happen in my campaign (and a battle on board of the boats will follow, with special rules to throw opponents off in the water ) and I also developed it as a prolonged test: a contested action (TN 14) against the orcs with 3 successes needed, and if players fail the roll against the TN it counts as an automatic success on orcs’ behalf.

Possible applications of the Barding’s Boating (actually he’s a Man of the Lake ):

- The players automatically start with 1 success, so they only need 2 more to reach the orcs’ boat;
- Instead or rolling on their turn, the players can get a basic success: this may actually be counterproductive, since on contested rolls it’s the number of Tengwars that matter, and if the players choose the basic success the orcs just need a 6 on their roll to beat them;
- The players automatically WIN the chase.

Each of these has pro and cons. The first seems nice, but what if the prolonged test requires 12 successes? Should I still grant just 1 success to start? I would be a very slight advantage. The second application seems the hardest to come by, since the players will almost always prefer to roll. And the third, well, while it rewards players the most, it feels so much anti-climactic to me, no matter how I describe it to the players: but maybe this is really how the RAW intend it to be.

But let’s not focus too much about this single example.

Thinking broadly about Specialties’ usage, I struggle to understand if they can be useful in a kind of half-way situation between those described in the RAW: either they can be used to “play it safe” as Woodclaw says, getting a simple basic success, or they allow a roll where nobody else would be allowed to roll.

But what about a situation (like the one described) where:

a) You can’t really “play it safe”, because you need a really good performance to succeed (not just a normal performance), AND
b) A roll would still be allowed to other participants of the test, even if they don’t have a Specialty.

To me this seems to fall neither in case 1, nor 2 (in my first post). Case 3 has no real effect on the performance of the test, since it’s just a mean to get Advancement points. And it seems unfair to give my player the hard choice “either you can have a basic success, or you risk and roll normally”, because he would rightfully want his Specialty to really make the difference here.

Woodclaw wrote:Given that there's are at least one case in the basic rules where having a Trait allows to add the Attribute bonus for free (preliminary rolls in the Journey rules), so it might not be out of question to apply this logic to other situations.

This is interesting. I believe you’re referring to preliminary Lore rolls in the case where the characters already know the route, right?
So if a Specialty is something that a character has done so many times in the past (to the point that, of course, they now have a Specialty), it would be reasonable to make an equivalence between the two cases, effectively adding a fourth possibility: you can get an automatic, basic success; you can get a roll where others wouldn’t be allowed to; you get an Advancement point; you get a free Attribute bonus to the roll.

This, however, would make Specialties a whole lot more important... any thoughts?

Michebugio wrote:So if a Specialty is something that a character has done so many times in the past (to the point that, of course, they now have a Specialty), it would be reasonable to make an equivalence between the two cases, effectively adding a fourth possibility: you can get an automatic, basic success; you can get a roll where others wouldn’t be allowed to; you get an Advancement point; you get a free Attribute bonus to the roll.

It is noteworthy to add however that LM must carefully select the situations where this may apply, as they should be quite rare instances. And the rule may be prone to player's abuse, especially if extended to Distinctive Traits.

But on a rationale point of view, it makes sense to me that a Specialist can make full use of his skills and attributes without spending a Hope point, when trying to do something special with his lifetime-honed capabilities.