skill use question

[kmspade]

Can a character use a skill he doesn't have?

Of course the obvious answer is no, but are there formal rules for it? Personally, I think that a character should be allowed to TRY anything, even if he doesn't have a snowball's chance in Hel of succeeding.

One house rule I am considering would be to make an attribute check against the appropriate attribute. Say d20 vs PP in place of prowl, or d20 vs IQ for a Lore: Monsters, or something similar, with appropriate modifiers thrown in to make it more difficult than if they had the skill.

My reasoning is this...You don't need the prowl skill to TRY and be sneaky, but you have a better chance of success if you do. You don't need the Lore Monsters skill to know something about a monster, or TRY to remember something you heard once about a monster, but again, it has a better chance of success with the skill rather than without it.

[Dustin Fireblade]

Can a character use a skill he doesn't have?

Of course the obvious answer is no, but are there formal rules for it? Personally, I think that a character should be allowed to TRY anything, even if he doesn't have a snowball's chance in Hel of succeeding.

One house rule I am considering would be to make an attribute check against the appropriate attribute. Say d20 vs PP in place of prowl, or d20 vs IQ for a Lore: Monsters, or something similar, with appropriate modifiers thrown in to make it more difficult than if they had the skill.

My reasoning is this...You don't need the prowl skill to TRY and be sneaky, but you have a better chance of success if you do. You don't need the Lore Monsters skill to know something about a monster, or TRY to remember something you heard once about a monster, but again, it has a better chance of success with the skill rather than without it.

Good house rule and reasoning.

[GA]

I think the rule on this is you apply the applicable stat and roll on it. For a Lore question you would roll under IQ. For something like sneaking around you would roll under the PP stat. This gives them some kind of shot at getting it, but its a low shot as it should be.

[Warwolf]

There is a rule for attribute checks in applicable situations (such as trying to keep balance without the Maintain Balance skill) in the Nightbane Q&A in Rifter #48.

[filo_clarke]

I don't think a character should be allowed to try and speak Dwarven, if he comes from Beyond the Supernatural. Nor do I think a character should be able to use Transdimensional Physics, just becuse he is brighter than average.

In fact, if you use the IQ attribute as your guide, then even the dumbest character has a 3-5% chance of being able to fluently speak Chinese, or perform a feat of Mechanical Engineering, simply because the dice were on his side.

Meanwhile a character with an IQ of 25-30 has a better chance of using Lore: Deomons & Monsters than someone who actually took the skill at base level.

No sir, I don't like it.

[sHaka]

According to Kev in Rifter #48, if you don't have the skill you can't attempt it - period.

[filo_clarke]

But that is not the same as using a skill. Accidentally cutting a wire that happened to be correct does not mean any amount of knowledge with explosives.

It's more of a luck roll than a skill check, really.

They say if you put ten thousand monkeys in a room with typewriters, statistically one of them is bound to write shakespeare. That doesn't make the monkey a stenographer - it makes him a statistic.

True. It's kind of the flip side of "there's always a chance for failure" reason that the skills are capped at 98%

In fact, if you use the IQ attribute as your guide, then even the dumbest character has a 3-5% chance of being able to fluently speak Chinese, or perform a feat of Mechanical Engineering, simply because the dice were on his side.

Ever hear of an idiot savant? Doesn't mean they'll be able to replicate the results again, but there should always be a chance, no matter how small, to succeed, whether it's luck or just deductive reasoning. Remember, the pc's are the "stars" of the story, heroes who should be capable of things normal people (most npc's) aren't.

Ultimately it's GMs call.

I don't think that an "Idiot Savant" is exactly what wwe're discussing here. Imagine an Elf Longbowman in the PFRPG with a high IQ, say 25. That means he has a 25% chance of designing a starship, using the Starship Engineering skill from Robotech. The skill itself starts at 25%, so he's no worse than some Fleet Engineer who took the skill under his "free MOS" from being a jack of all trades.

If you make the roll based on an attribute, then at least limit the skill choices available to Secondary skills. But I still don't like the idea of using them at all.

Another example would be a group of investigators in Beyond the Supernatural, coming into possession of an ancient mystical scroll. Unfortunately it's written in ancient Mongolian. The conversation around the table would go:

"Okay, we have a scroll written in ancient Mongolian. Does anyone know how to read it? No? Oh well, lets start with the Genius, he has a 30% chance of translating it, and he's been on a roll lately. He translated that ancient Aztec tablet last week, and the Chinese one two days before that. If he fails, pass it along to the Fire Walker, he has a 15% chance of doing it, so you know, not that bad."

After 5 PCs have taken a look, I can almost guarantee someone managed to translate a foreign language, merely by being lucky.

No sir, I don't like it.

[filo_clarke]

As I said, it should be GMs call, based on the situation. In your first example, those are two defferent settings, and unless there is dimension hopping going on, that skill wouldn't even exist in PF. Your second example however does show some flaws in the system. In such a case, there should be penalties. Or perhaps lesser results. "You cant translate the entire document, but you do happen to recognize a few words" Obviously someone with the correct skill should be better than someone without it.

The original argument made by kmspade above is that ANY character should be able to try ANY skill. This equates to people using the Xeno-Biology skill without ever having seen an alien. Or Radio: Satelite Relay when they come from a medieval tech-level. I agree, there is always a chance that a PC could "cut the blue wire" so to speak and avert a catastrophy, but this is a Luck roll and not some first-hand knowledge regarding the construction of timers and chemical composition of explosives.

The Mutants in Orbit skill Space Contacts starts a 6% +2% per level, this means that an Earth-bound Coalition Grunt with an IQ of 9 has a better chance of knowing someone in the Orbital Community than a mutant gerbil who was born there, and took the skill. The system is still Rifts, but the reliance on an attribute roll to dictate success or failure places too much weight on genetics, and not enough on common sense via location.

I agree there should be some skills, particularly those that are performed with the physical body, that should be allowed an attempt with an attribute;
Pilot: Bicycle, Maintain balance, Prowl, Climb, etc.

But allowing a PC to try any intellectual skill, simply because they have an IQ score above zero seriously undervalues those skills in the eyes of the PCs who actually took them. Imagine a Cyber-Doc who spends years in a medical school, and then plying his trade in the back alleys of Chi Town perfecting the fine art of nano-cybernetic implantation being told that his profession is irrelevant, because if 10 random vagabonds with average IQ scores get together, someone is statistically likely to be able to perform the same operation. Why bother even learning skills in the first place? Wouldn't it be simpler to travel in large packs of mediocre people, secure in the knowledge that any problem they come across will be solved eventually?

[kmspade]

According to Kev in Rifter #48, if you don't have the skill you can't attempt it - period.

On the site I play on, Rifter material is not considered canon. If it isn't in an actual book, we don't use it. Period. The reason being that the Rifters are fan submitted material, not canon Palladium sourcebooks.

But allowing a PC to try any intellectual skill, simply because they have an IQ score above zero seriously undervalues those skills in the eyes of the PCs who actually took them.

I think you are misunderstanding my original argument. I'm not saying that any character can try any skill. I'm just saying that in the same way skills are capped at 98% because there is always a chance for failure, perhaps there should be some rule that says there should always be (however small, depending on the situation) some chance of success also. As far as I know, Palladium does not address this issue at all.

I'm not saying that a PFRPG elf could try to design a starship or that anyone can make an IQ check vs a skill percentage. That's not what I had in mind. The elf with a 25 IQ could probably grasp the ideas if someone taught him fairly easily, but honestly he wouldn't even know what a starship is. If he wanted to try and design one, there would be significant penalties applied. Same with the CS grunt knowing people from space. Again significant penalties applied. (Although with Rifts being Rifts, who knows, he might end up knowing someone.)

And lets be honest. No player playing a vagabond is even going to ask if they can try cybernetic surgery. Or if they do, they shouldn't be surprised when the GM answers with a resounding "NO!" But a CS grunt without the prowl skill should be allowed to try and sneak up behind his enemy. He can make an attribute check (PP in this case) with a penalty tossed on top for not having the skill. I'd probably say 1d20 vs PP, -5 to the roll, and must hit under his PP by at least 5% (to account for armor) to pass the check and successfully prowl without the skill. In this case, someone with the skill has a significant advantage over the person without it, as it should be. But the PC without the skill should still be able to try, and have a small chance of success.

[filo_clarke]

Then I think you and I are in agreement. There are certain select skills that sould be allowed an attribute roll to accomplish, in lieu of the actual skill. Prowl is a good example, where a person with a high PP say 26, is slightly better than a 1st level person with the base skill of 25%, but his advantage of better reflexes doesn't compete with the skilled character's increasing knowledge as he levels.

[Warwolf]

According to Kev in Rifter #48, if you don't have the skill you can't attempt it - period.

On the site I play on, Rifter material is not considered canon. If it isn't in an actual book, we don't use it. Period. The reason being that the Rifters are fan submitted material, not canon Palladium sourcebooks.

The article he is referencing isn't fan-submitted material, it's canon (the quote he mentions comes straight from Mr. Siembieda). The article is material that was cut from the Nightbane Survival Guide due to space limitations.

[kmspade]

According to Kev in Rifter #48, if you don't have the skill you can't attempt it - period.

On the site I play on, Rifter material is not considered canon. If it isn't in an actual book, we don't use it. Period. The reason being that the Rifters are fan submitted material, not canon Palladium sourcebooks.

The article he is referencing isn't fan-submitted material, it's canon (the quote he mentions comes straight from Mr. Siembieda). The article is material that was cut from the Nightbane Survival Guide due to space limitations.

Doesn't matter. We don't consider Rifters canon material, and thus don't even read them. Couple that with the fact that the Palladium rules (written by K. Siembieda) are so full of loopholes that you need more house rules than canon rules to make them playable, and you can see why I don't put a lot of stock into even what K. Siembieda says. This rule in question just being one of many examples. Thus the reason for the question here, as I prefer to get the opinion of other GM's before deciding what my house rule will be.

[Warwolf]

Doesn't matter. We don't consider Rifters canon material, and thus don't even read them. Couple that with the fact that the Palladium rules (written by K. Siembieda) are so full of loopholes that you need more house rules than canon rules to make them playable, and you can see why I don't put a lot of stock into even what K. Siembieda says. This rule in question just being one of many examples. Thus the reason for the question here, as I prefer to get the opinion of other GM's before deciding what my house rule will be.

Hate to break it to you, pal, but the definition of "canon" for Palladium is what Kevin designates as canon (especially what he writes), not what you and your group do or don't like (that would be called what house rules are in effect for your group). A final helpful hint, though: when communicating in an established community it typically helps not to create your own definitions of terms without clarifying them when in use. It tends to be even better if you adapt to the accepted use of terms instead.

Best of luck finding a satisfactory solution, though.

[random_username]

For actual vaguely relevant information...

Modern Weapons can be used without having the appropriate WP skill but only in the most basic way. (RUE page 360)

Presumably Ancient weapons can be used without any penalties without the corresponding WP. Would just lack the WP bonuses.

Several extremely dexterous physical skills grant the equivalent of a 1st level prowl ability that doesn't improve with level. (RUE page 316)

Best Option:
Any character who would like to obtain some skills should check out the Rogue Scholar's Special Ability #1. (RUE page 93) A basic fee structure could easily be based upon the equivalent credit value of the Rogue Scholar's time for his #2 Special Ability. Presumably a character who never sleeps could be developing up to seven skills at a time with access to either a single Rogue Scholar that does not have to sleep or multiple Rogue Scholars. Note: Never sleeps possibilities (?): does not fatigue or supernatural PE.

Note: Technically the closest thing to using a percentage based skill without the skill would be applying the bonus percent from having an IQ of 16 or higher to an effective base skill of zero percent. Though in theory this could also mean that the actual full possibilities of the skill could be utilized.

In a variant defaulting to an attribute for skill use concept several other guidelines might be considered:
- should only be possible to apply it to the simplest uses of the skill, ones that beings who actually have the skill probably would not have to make a skill check for.
- maximum % capped at the level one base skill percent (with no bonuses); exception - beings who do not have any skills whatsoever.
- could add the OCC Related Skill percent bonus for that category of skill, still limited by the level one maximum % cap.

In the end whatever works for the GM and players 'is the right thing to do' for that campaign.

[SkyeFyre]

Turn the appropriate attribute into a percentage where each point is 5%. Take the base skill percentage and divide by 2. The character then can try the skill at the percentage of the half base skill. Round down. Example:
Chacacter with an IQ of 12 tries to perform a skill that normally is 35%. He would do it at 60% of 17% or 10%. Actually to clean up the math, lower the percentage from the attribute from 5% to 2.5% and don't bother halving the base skill.

Of course common sense should be applied.