Using skills "untrained"

[capnhayes]

Is it possible to attempt to use a skill that a character is NOT trained in at all? If so what are the rules if any governing such an attempt?

[Looonatic]

My personal rule of thumb is to use an alternative skill if there's a similarity to the needed skill. For example, I've let someone with Basic Electronics or Computer Operation try to tune and use a radio even though he didn't have the Basic Radio skill. Then I assign an appropriate skill penalty.

If no skill seems similar enough and the player still insists on trying, I usually use his IQ attribute as the % chance of success. Usually no penalty is necessary, but if the task is particularly insane, I'll assign one. I call it the 'Monkeys Writing Shakespeare' rule.

[Killer Cyborg]

Is it possible to attempt to use a skill that a character is NOT trained in at all? If so what are the rules if any governing such an attempt?

The most official thing we've gotten was stated online, from a Palladium staffer (iirc), and was that you roll percentile dice against the appropriate attribute:
If you have a PP of 15, then you have a 15% chance to pick a lock, given the right amount of time, tools, and whatever else the GM requires you to have.

[lostsoul336]

I am currently chewing on revamping the skill system to be a little more fluid. My house rule I am going to implement next game is:
- Base % is an appropriate stat for the skill
- Add original base % to the skill
- % per level stays the same
- Bonus for the skills will use the same chart BUT you will use the appropriate stat for the skill instead of just using I.Q.
- untrained skills will only use the appropriate stat if it is reasonable that you could actually do the skill.

Characters will get a bonus in the beginning but after that it should

[Glistam]

I used to believe in usiing skills "untrained" until I played with a G.M. who believed it too. The G.M. believed it so strongly, in fact, that players had little incentive to actually seek out people (or other players even) with the appropriate skill. When I started my new campaign I told the players flat-out that I no longer believed in "untrained" skill use and instead I encourage them to seek out others with the appropriate skill when the need arises. I also allow them to make NPC's for these purposes.

[The Oh So Amazing Nate]

I have to agree with Killer Cyborg. What he wrote is about as official as I've ever seen. There are some pretty tense moments when PC's are trying to role under their IQ to pull off a skill that they're untrained in. In my games it's less of a "monkey's writing shakespeare" type moment and more of a "let's see if i can pull this out of my @$$".

I had a PC once roll under his IQ skill to try and convince 2 adversaries (that had been woken up by a failed prowl roll) that I wasn't really there and they were dreaming. I rolled a 01. Critical success. The gm was so impressed he allowed it and still tells the story.

[random_username]

The Mercenary Training/Obstacle course in the back of the Mercenary Adventures book briefly addresses the use of skill not known to those attempting a specific task in a controlled training/testing environment. Listed under several of the specific tasks.

[Bill]

I play Palladium skills as "skill exclusive", meaning that only characters with the skill can attempt most things. That's one of the few reasons I can see for there being such an absurd plethora of skills available. If there's an argument in favor of another skill, I have allowed it at a penalty. And, if it's arguable that anybody could try, I have allowed an untrained check defaulting to the most appropriate attribute as the base percentage for success. The last could conceivably run into issues when defaulting to PS or PP, but very few skills would do the former and most characters emphasizing PP come with a wide range of skills related to it; reducing the possibility of it becoming an issue to practically nil.

[MADMANMIKE]

I used to believe in usiing skills "untrained" until I played with a G.M. who believed it too. The G.M. believed it so strongly, in fact, that players had little incentive to actually seek out people (or other players even) with the appropriate skill. When I started my new campaign I told the players flat-out that I no longer believed in "untrained" skill use and instead I encourage them to seek out others with the appropriate skill when the need arises. I also allow them to make NPC's for these purposes.

This. After 26 years GMing Palladium Games, I've come to realize the characters not having a necessary skill creates opportunities for role-playing with NPCs; it's one of the reasons I created my minion creation rules (in my sig), to have those extra NPC's not always be the GM responsibility.

That said, Kev has explained in print that rolling for skills isn't necessary in all situations. If the Players have a skill and there's a no pressure situation where they can take their time, generally speaking no roll is necessary. I've extended that in my games with the house rule that similar skills can be used (say Basic Electronics to 'pick' an electronic lock with out the Lock Picking skill), but I always require a roll in those instances, and sometimes with a penalty.

As a G.M. though, I'm trying to create a fun story with the players, so often I'll allow rerolls and flub the results for the sake of the game. It's about the fun after all, not being locked into the mechanics.

I am currently chewing on revamping the skill system to be a little more fluid. My house rule I am going to implement next game is:
- Base % is an appropriate stat for the skill
- Add original base % to the skill
- % per level stays the same
- Bonus for the skills will use the same chart BUT you will use the appropriate stat for the skill instead of just using I.Q.
- untrained skills will only use the appropriate stat if it is reasonable that you could actually do the skill.

Characters will get a bonus in the beginning but after that it should

I'm sorry, are you saying.. Oh, wait, I get it, you take the base skill and add the appropriate Attribute to it.. I thought you were saying to just double the base % at the start... That sounds interesting.. So Walk Highwire for example; if you had a P.P. of 18, you'd give an additional bonus of +4%?

Are you having trouble with players never making their rolls?

[lostsoul336]

I used to believe in usiing skills "untrained" until I played with a G.M. who believed it too. The G.M. believed it so strongly, in fact, that players had little incentive to actually seek out people (or other players even) with the appropriate skill. When I started my new campaign I told the players flat-out that I no longer believed in "untrained" skill use and instead I encourage them to seek out others with the appropriate skill when the need arises. I also allow them to make NPC's for these purposes.

This. After 26 years GMing Palladium Games, I've come to realize the characters not having a necessary skill creates opportunities for role-playing with NPCs; it's one of the reasons I created my minion creation rules (in my sig), to have those extra NPC's not always be the GM responsibility.

That said, Kev has explained in print that rolling for skills isn't necessary in all situations. If the Players have a skill and there's a no pressure situation where they can take their time, generally speaking no roll is necessary. I've extended that in my games with the house rule that similar skills can be used (say Basic Electronics to 'pick' an electronic lock with out the Lock Picking skill), but I always require a roll in those instances, and sometimes with a penalty.

As a G.M. though, I'm trying to create a fun story with the players, so often I'll allow rerolls and flub the results for the sake of the game. It's about the fun after all, not being locked into the mechanics.

I am currently chewing on revamping the skill system to be a little more fluid. My house rule I am going to implement next game is:
- Base % is an appropriate stat for the skill
- Add original base % to the skill
- % per level stays the same
- Bonus for the skills will use the same chart BUT you will use the appropriate stat for the skill instead of just using I.Q.
- untrained skills will only use the appropriate stat if it is reasonable that you could actually do the skill.

Characters will get a bonus in the beginning but after that it should

I'm sorry, are you saying.. Oh, wait, I get it, you take the base skill and add the appropriate Attribute to it.. I thought you were saying to just double the base % at the start... That sounds interesting.. So Walk Highwire for example; if you had a P.P. of 18, you'd give an additional bonus of +4%?

Are you having trouble with players never making their rolls?

I am not having issues with people not making their rolls, I have issues with people not being able to do things because they don't have a skill that I could try to do such as walk a tightrope or climb a rope for instance. Without the skill what to do...

[lostsoul336]

I play Palladium skills as "skill exclusive", meaning that only characters with the skill can attempt most things. That's one of the few reasons I can see for there being such an absurd plethora of skills available. If there's an argument in favor of another skill, I have allowed it at a penalty. And, if it's arguable that anybody could try, I have allowed an untrained check defaulting to the most appropriate attribute as the base percentage for success. The last could conceivably run into issues when defaulting to PS or PP, but very few skills would do the former and most characters emphasizing PP come with a wide range of skills related to it; reducing the possibility of it becoming an issue to practically nil.

The problem i see with skill exclusive is for example in one of my games i ran a character was being chased by zombies and had no where to go but up and had to climb...she didn't have the climb skill...anybody can try to climb but without the skill what should i have her roll. A lot of times i will simply just allow simple things that a person can reasonably do happen but i like to roll in certain instances in case of failure.

[MADMANMIKE]

Okay, I see what you mean now, but you didn't answer my other question; did I understand you correctly on how you work the bonuses?

[Glistam]

I play Palladium skills as "skill exclusive", meaning that only characters with the skill can attempt most things. That's one of the few reasons I can see for there being such an absurd plethora of skills available. If there's an argument in favor of another skill, I have allowed it at a penalty. And, if it's arguable that anybody could try, I have allowed an untrained check defaulting to the most appropriate attribute as the base percentage for success. The last could conceivably run into issues when defaulting to PS or PP, but very few skills would do the former and most characters emphasizing PP come with a wide range of skills related to it; reducing the possibility of it becoming an issue to practically nil.

The problem i see with skill exclusive is for example in one of my games i ran a character was being chased by zombies and had no where to go but up and had to climb...she didn't have the climb skill...anybody can try to climb but without the skill what should i have her roll. A lot of times i will simply just allow simple things that a person can reasonably do happen but i like to roll in certain instances in case of failure.

In that case she would've made it 20 feet before she would fall and suffer 2D6 damage.

[Nightmask]

I play Palladium skills as "skill exclusive", meaning that only characters with the skill can attempt most things. That's one of the few reasons I can see for there being such an absurd plethora of skills available. If there's an argument in favor of another skill, I have allowed it at a penalty. And, if it's arguable that anybody could try, I have allowed an untrained check defaulting to the most appropriate attribute as the base percentage for success. The last could conceivably run into issues when defaulting to PS or PP, but very few skills would do the former and most characters emphasizing PP come with a wide range of skills related to it; reducing the possibility of it becoming an issue to practically nil.

The problem i see with skill exclusive is for example in one of my games i ran a character was being chased by zombies and had no where to go but up and had to climb...she didn't have the climb skill...anybody can try to climb but without the skill what should i have her roll. A lot of times i will simply just allow simple things that a person can reasonably do happen but i like to roll in certain instances in case of failure.

In that case she would've made it 20 feet before she would fall and suffer 2D6 damage.

So you think it's a given she'd have to fall because unless you're trained in Climbing you're incapable of climbing anything? Not particularly believable or realistic if so.

[say652]

As a climber irl. Sure til about twelve feet and you look down and freeze or force yourself to move at 1/100th of your normal speed in inches. Seen this many many many times when training. Lol. Then of course how do you get down??

[Bill]

And, as she could arguably make the attempt untrained, I would have had her roll percentile with her PS as the chance of success, with situationally applicable modifiers (rope, high winds, people shooting at her, etc). An otherwise athletic person, in good conditions, can probably make it over a chain link fence even if not a trained climber. They're still going to fall off a mountain though.

[Damian Magecraft]

I handle "untrained" skills as follows.
House Rule:
Level 1 is a level so "trained" skills start at base + 1 level increase at level 1.
Attempting a skill you are not "trained" in will check at the base percentage. (no level bonuses ever)
Penalties may also apply.

Certain skills (such as MD) can never be attempted untrained.

[Glistam]

I play Palladium skills as "skill exclusive", meaning that only characters with the skill can attempt most things. That's one of the few reasons I can see for there being such an absurd plethora of skills available. If there's an argument in favor of another skill, I have allowed it at a penalty. And, if it's arguable that anybody could try, I have allowed an untrained check defaulting to the most appropriate attribute as the base percentage for success. The last could conceivably run into issues when defaulting to PS or PP, but very few skills would do the former and most characters emphasizing PP come with a wide range of skills related to it; reducing the possibility of it becoming an issue to practically nil.

The problem i see with skill exclusive is for example in one of my games i ran a character was being chased by zombies and had no where to go but up and had to climb...she didn't have the climb skill...anybody can try to climb but without the skill what should i have her roll. A lot of times i will simply just allow simple things that a person can reasonably do happen but i like to roll in certain instances in case of failure.

In that case she would've made it 20 feet before she would fall and suffer 2D6 damage.

So you think it's a given she'd have to fall because unless you're trained in Climbing you're incapable of climbing anything? Not particularly believable or realistic if so.

No. I think it's a given she'd have to fall because the Climbing skill in Palladium makes you roll every 20 feet to climb. Since she doesn't have the skill, the first time she's called on to make a skill roll (after climbing 20 feet) she fails the roll. THEN the Climbing skill gives the climber a second chance to not fall, and requires a roll against the skill. It's because, once again, she doesn't have the skill that she fails and then falls. But she got up to 20 feet before a roll was called for, that should be considered no small task for an untrained novice. I certainly don't have any skill in climbing and I'd be hard pressed to get up as high as 20 feet.

You don't find it particularly believable or realistic that someone with no skill in climbing couldn't scale a vertical surface higher than 20 feet? You don't find it believable or realistic that someone with no skill in climbing should be unable to find all the appropriate, safe hand and foot holds which allow one to safely ascend? I choose to believe the opposite.

[filo_clarke]

I think there should probably be a breakdown of the various skills into several categories (like Easy, Moderate, Difficult, Impossible), and then a Luck roll should be introduced to cover other types of skill use that fall outside of actual training.

Easy Skills would be those that could potentially be attempted by anyone, even untrained (assuming the character is not limited in other ways, like being weelchair bound, etc.). These could have a set percentage that is below the actual "trained" level, but still attemptable, or perhaps simply the base-first-level percentage?
Ex: Prowl, Swimming, Climbing, Maintain Balance, Sommersault, Cook, etc.

Moderate Skills would be those that could also be tried by most characters, but the percentage should be proportionally lower than the base skill (maybe half?).
Ex: Pilot Automobile, Pick Locks, Basic Mechanics, Computer Operation, Photography, Trap Construction, etc.

Difficult Skills would be those that cannot be attempted untrained, unless the character has a number of cross-related skills that might be substituted, at which point they could use the "Moderate Skill" percentage from the previous example.
Ex: Computer Hacking (but the PC does have Computer Operation and Programming), MD Cybernetics (but the PC does have Medical Doctor and Mechanical/Electrical Engineering)

Impossible Skills would be those that must have formal training in order to perform. No amount of substituting high attributes or cross knowledge will help. These might also be contextual, based on the game setting.
A PFRPG Elf Longbowman cannot perform the Starship Engineering skill, Astrophysics, Advanced Electronic Combat, Radiology, etc. Again some of these might be on the previous list of the game setting makes them more common.

Luck Rolls would be a rule for when the result of a particular problem could be solved with a simple action, in lieu of actual training. Maybe disarming the bomb can (in this instance) be done by "cutting the blue wire". Obviously having Demolitions Disposal would tell you in absolute terms the correct course of action, but you may be able to simply get lucky. Shutting down a machine might be a simple push of a button, which Basic Mechanics would tell you, but a Luck Roll might also accomplish. Luck rolls do not give you information about the situation. You do not learn how the machine works by pushing the button, or how the bomb was made by cutting the blue wire, you simply managed to avoid catastrophe by luck.

Palladium also has very good rules in place for additional bonuses to skill use, such as taking extra time to perform a skill, or being in a no-pressure situation, or having superior tools. Likewise being in a high-pressure situation, or being fatigued, or being in a difficult environment places additional penalties. The addition of these makes for a very realistic system of skill performance.

[say652]

I do not allow skills to be used untrained.

[MADMANMIKE]

I see some great ideas here, some that I'm considering trying in my games in fact. but I feel I have to point out that the majority of the complaints about Palladium's system is that it's already too complicated..

[Nightmask]

I play Palladium skills as "skill exclusive", meaning that only characters with the skill can attempt most things. That's one of the few reasons I can see for there being such an absurd plethora of skills available. If there's an argument in favor of another skill, I have allowed it at a penalty. And, if it's arguable that anybody could try, I have allowed an untrained check defaulting to the most appropriate attribute as the base percentage for success. The last could conceivably run into issues when defaulting to PS or PP, but very few skills would do the former and most characters emphasizing PP come with a wide range of skills related to it; reducing the possibility of it becoming an issue to practically nil.

The problem i see with skill exclusive is for example in one of my games i ran a character was being chased by zombies and had no where to go but up and had to climb...she didn't have the climb skill...anybody can try to climb but without the skill what should i have her roll. A lot of times i will simply just allow simple things that a person can reasonably do happen but i like to roll in certain instances in case of failure.

In that case she would've made it 20 feet before she would fall and suffer 2D6 damage.

So you think it's a given she'd have to fall because unless you're trained in Climbing you're incapable of climbing anything? Not particularly believable or realistic if so.

No. I think it's a given she'd have to fall because the Climbing skill in Palladium makes you roll every 20 feet to climb. Since she doesn't have the skill, the first time she's called on to make a skill roll (after climbing 20 feet) she fails the roll. THEN the Climbing skill gives the climber a second chance to not fall, and requires a roll against the skill. It's because, once again, she doesn't have the skill that she fails and then falls. But she got up to 20 feet before a roll was called for, that should be considered no small task for an untrained novice. I certainly don't have any skill in climbing and I'd be hard pressed to get up as high as 20 feet.

You don't find it particularly believable or realistic that someone with no skill in climbing couldn't scale a vertical surface higher than 20 feet? You don't find it believable or realistic that someone with no skill in climbing should be unable to find all the appropriate, safe hand and foot holds which allow one to safely ascend? I choose to believe the opposite.

People can and have achieved things that would have seemed impossible in moments of desperation, which is why you have that long-shot check to see if they've managed in spite of the odds against them to pull it off. Failing the check (as is most likely to happen) just means that you weren't one of those where circumstances lined up in your favor to make that seemingly impossible feat possible.

[Nightmask]

I think there should probably be a breakdown of the various skills into several categories (like Easy, Moderate, Difficult, Impossible), and then a Luck roll should be introduced to cover other types of skill use that fall outside of actual training.

Easy Skills would be those that could potentially be attempted by anyone, even untrained (assuming the character is not limited in other ways, like being weelchair bound, etc.). These could have a set percentage that is below the actual "trained" level, but still attemptable, or perhaps simply the base-first-level percentage?
Ex: Prowl, Swimming, Climbing, Maintain Balance, Sommersault, Cook, etc.

Moderate Skills would be those that could also be tried by most characters, but the percentage should be proportionally lower than the base skill (maybe half?).
Ex: Pilot Automobile, Pick Locks, Basic Mechanics, Computer Operation, Photography, Trap Construction, etc.

Difficult Skills would be those that cannot be attempted untrained, unless the character has a number of cross-related skills that might be substituted, at which point they could use the "Moderate Skill" percentage from the previous example.
Ex: Computer Hacking (but the PC does have Computer Operation and Programming), MD Cybernetics (but the PC does have Medical Doctor and Mechanical/Electrical Engineering)

Impossible Skills would be those that must have formal training in order to perform. No amount of substituting high attributes or cross knowledge will help. These might also be contextual, based on the game setting.
A PFRPG Elf Longbowman cannot perform the Starship Engineering skill, Astrophysics, Advanced Electronic Combat, Radiology, etc. Again some of these might be on the previous list of the game setting makes them more common.

Luck Rolls would be a rule for when the result of a particular problem could be solved with a simple action, in lieu of actual training. Maybe disarming the bomb can (in this instance) be done by "cutting the blue wire". Obviously having Demolitions Disposal would tell you in absolute terms the correct course of action, but you may be able to simply get lucky. Shutting down a machine might be a simple push of a button, which Basic Mechanics would tell you, but a Luck Roll might also accomplish. Luck rolls do not give you information about the situation. You do not learn how the machine works by pushing the button, or how the bomb was made by cutting the blue wire, you simply managed to avoid catastrophe by luck.

Palladium also has very good rules in place for additional bonuses to skill use, such as taking extra time to perform a skill, or being in a no-pressure situation, or having superior tools. Likewise being in a high-pressure situation, or being fatigued, or being in a difficult environment places additional penalties. The addition of these makes for a very realistic system of skill performance.

I'd have to agree with this, not all skills are created equal and it would be unrealistic to insist that prowl and electrical engineering have the same degree of difficulty and require training to pull off. Some skills training is essential (electrical engineering) some skills (prowl) it's not essential it just makes you better at it.

[Grug]

/agree with Mr.Madman, a lot of great ideas here.

My personal system is the appropriate attribute +1% per level. I went through and assigned an attribute to every skill for my campaigns. I do try and use some common sense on what skills can even be tried untrained (Medical doctor no way, first aid sure.). Hardest ones to figure out were cooking, play musical instrument, singing, fishing and a few others. Ultimately I used M.E., figure the skill doesn't get a lot of love to begin with.

I should mention I also make all skills base percent 35 and all skills get a + 5% per level. So more than likely a level one character trained in a skill will have a higher chance of success than an untrained character. It's not perfect but speeds up character creation a bit and works.

Figured I should add, for skills that I have deemed unusable unless trained in. I have been known to give a +1% chance per level to try. It makes for some exciting role-playing moments and makes some sense to me that they might have picked something up during their travels.
Times like when your mage has just been dropped by an M.D. attack and the power armor pilots runs over and tries field surgery to keep you player alive and makes an incredible roll. Yes it might take twice as long to heal, have a nasty scar and more then likely a permanent injury. But hey your alive!

[say652]

Yes but as most skills are iQ based. A highly intelligent person has 25% chance to attempt open heart surgery? ?

[Grug]

Yes but as most skills are iQ based. A highly intelligent person has 25% chance to attempt open heart surgery? ?

That would fall under the can't try unless trained category, with my system. I have a sheet with all the skills on it with the assigned attribute and if the skill can be used by non-trained characters.

[Nightmask]

Yes but as most skills are iQ based. A highly intelligent person has 25% chance to attempt open heart surgery? ?

That would fall under the can't try unless trained category, with my system. I have a sheet with all the skills on it with the assigned attribute and if the skill can be used by non-trained characters.

Which is where it should fall, you'd need several alternate skills to even attempt something like that and it'd have to be something you're doing out of desperation. Something like surgery would require skill with precise movements and an attention to detail and not just intelligence enough to figure out what you need to try and do.

[Grell]

/agree with Mr.Madman, a lot of great ideas here.

My personal system is the appropriate attribute +1% per level. I went through and assigned an attribute to every skill for my campaigns. I do try and use some common sense on what skills can even be tried untrained (Medical doctor no way, first aid sure.). Hardest ones to figure out were cooking, play musical instrument, singing, fishing and a few others. Ultimately I used M.E., figure the skill doesn't get a lot of love to begin with.

I should mention I also make all skills base percent 35 and all skills get a + 5% per level. So more than likely a level one character trained in a skill will have a higher chance of success than an untrained character. It's not perfect but speeds up character creation a bit and works.

Figured I should add, for skills that I have deemed unusable unless trained in. I have been known to give a +1% chance per level to try. It makes for some exciting role-playing moments and makes some sense to me that they might have picked something up during their travels.
Times like when your mage has just been dropped by an M.D. attack and the power armor pilots runs over and tries field surgery to keep you player alive and makes an incredible roll. Yes it might take twice as long to heal, have a nasty scar and more then likely a permanent injury. But hey your alive!

My system is similar to this. You can attempt a skill without training with a percentage based off the most relevant attribute's score. I hadn't considered the +1% per level and I like it!

As for skills that CAN'T be attempted without training, I always limit it to skills that don't have any prerequisites. So no amateur surgeons in my games.

[Alrik Vas]

I like the stat = skill method for untrained, but clearly you can't do certain things if you have no training. However I also grant a bonus equal to the character's level to the attempt

Certain technical skills that you need special training for I allow if someone with proper training is helping or directing them. In this case the skilled character has to succeed at their check, then the unskilled character makes their attempt at stat+ level +20.

[lostsoul336]

I like the idea of going through the skills and marking the ones that would be untrained use possible and go from there. I also believe that skills should be based off of an appropriate stat such as in D20. The % bonus could come from PP instead of IQ for backflipping IMO. For now I think I am just going to use an appropriate attribute + level for the % to try untrained.

[Alrik Vas]

I use that method, lostsoul. Though i also have them add the actual attribute to their skill, rather than the bonus from the attribute table.

This lets me throw in all kinds of crazy penalties for poor conditions, tools, injury and the such and the players still have a chance at succeeding. Then under great conditions, they basically never fail, which i'm okay with, because they should be compitent anyway.

[say652]

Yea picking a lock while taking laser fire would be nerve racking to say the least.

[lostsoul336]

I use that method, lostsoul. Though i also have them add the actual attribute to their skill, rather than the bonus from the attribute table.

This lets me throw in all kinds of crazy penalties for poor conditions, tools, injury and the such and the players still have a chance at succeeding. Then under great conditions, they basically never fail, which i'm okay with, because they should be compitent anyway.

So you are saying you would just add what stat you felt appropriate for the skill as an additional bonus and just use the I.Q. bonus table for their bonus on the skills?

[Alrik Vas]

Naw, i eliminate the IQ bonus altogether. If they're adding their total PP attribute to their Prowl skill, for instance, there's no need to give them +4% or whatever for having a decent IQ.