Page 1 of 1
house rule, clever or not??
Posted: Thu Jan 28, 2016 1:18 am
by mercedogre
during the game, if a PC rolls 10% or lower on a skills check, that one skill automatically goes up a level ie adds the % per level normally added when reaching a new level. That skill will still get the usually increase on the next level also. Thought behind the idea is that the exceptional roll triggered some muscle memory or discovery of a profound technique. It can help a PC stand out as an expert in that specific skill/ability and may encourage skill roll playing in a heavy combat campaign.
Re: house rule, clever or not??
Posted: Thu Jan 28, 2016 3:51 am
by Alrik Vas
I would say 3% or lower, and only if that beats the total adjusted skill (penalties included) by more than 50%. I say it should be lower because 10% is like a 19-20 on a d20, it's a better rating than automatic success with critical damage, ya know?
If you want to keep it 10%, I suggest you make the increase only 1%, but allow it to go over skill cap for the purpose of overcoming penalties.
Having played quite a few games that went over 7th level, you end up with quite a few skills sty cap quickly. Gotta consider the long term when you make house rules.
I like the idea though, would love it if more GMs did stuff like that.
Re: house rule, clever or not??
Posted: Thu Jan 28, 2016 4:13 am
by mercedogre
maybe 5% then, that would be equal to a natural 20
Re: house rule, clever or not??
Posted: Thu Jan 28, 2016 5:10 am
by drewkitty ~..~
Rolling under 3% and only going up by 'one skill level' once per level, max. would be how I would set the numbers, if I did that.
Re: house rule, clever or not??
Posted: Thu Jan 28, 2016 9:06 am
by ShadowLogan
drewkitty ~..~ wrote:Rolling under 3% and only going up by 'one skill level' once per level, max. would be how I would set the numbers, if I did that.
Personally I would go with 1% on the dice since that is the closest equivalent of a Nat20 on a D20 when using Percent Dice. If the value is higher maybe require a string (3 or more) of consecutive rolls in the goldilocks zone.
I agree about the limitation here drew, I'd probably add some addition limitations:
-isn't accessible until a minimum character level (like say starting/after Level 5) since this would be a boon to higher level characters who generally have to wait a longer amount of time to level up.
-add a drawback of a natural 100/00-00 on the dice resulting a loss of skill as another balancing factor, if even only a temporary loss (because confidence is badly shaken, got facts really messed up, etc)
-maybe instead of making it a permanent level increase it should be a temporary bonus that would only apply for the next check/session/in-game-time-period so one does not have to "track" which skills have been effected each level.
Re: house rule, clever or not??
Posted: Thu Jan 28, 2016 9:11 am
by flatline
So the idea is that not only did they succeed while applying the skill, but they gained some new insight in the process.
I like the idea, but it's a step away from a level based system towards a points based system which, since the palladium system is a level based system, might cause some strangeness during play. But if it works for you, that's great!
One obvious effect of the rule is that skills that are used a lot will quickly max out.
One tweak I'd suggest is to make the increase a flat 1% increase and not allow a skill to increase more than once each day (give the new insight time to sink in). But you're still going to have characters with maxed out prowl and basic math very quickly.
Re: house rule, clever or not??
Posted: Thu Jan 28, 2016 2:15 pm
by Zer0 Kay
1% for a permanent skill increase otherwise it is like getting a permanent x2 to damage whenever you roll a 20 on a to hit roll. Sure it isn't double... but it is permanent and potentially more dangerous than any critical.
Re: house rule, clever or not??
Posted: Sat Mar 26, 2016 5:26 am
by malthos
See when i have someone roll a "crit" on their skill roles i just give them more ...critical information. Even if they get close to their target number and fail, ill still give them some info, not all because they failed. And the farther from their number the more vague or incorrect info i will give them, but said in a convincing manor so they take it as a success. But an increase to skill due to a roll can be exploited very easily. Oh i need to walk, skill roll "oh look a crit" gain in skill total, .."oh i need to breath" skill roll.....so on and so forth.
Re: house rule, clever or not??
Posted: Sat Mar 26, 2016 2:34 pm
by Zer0 Kay
malthos wrote:See when i have someone roll a "crit" on their skill roles i just give them more ...critical information. Even if they get close to their target number and fail, ill still give them some info, not all because they failed. And the farther from their number the more vague or incorrect info i will give them, but said in a convincing manor so they take it as a success. But an increase to skill due to a roll can be exploited very easily. Oh i need to walk, skill roll "oh look a crit" gain in skill total, .."oh i need to breath" skill roll.....so on and so forth.
For the win.
Re: house rule, clever or not??
Posted: Thu Apr 14, 2016 5:52 am
by Duster
My rule on the matter is that when a PC rolls a "crit" (under 10% of the ADJUSTED skill percentage) on a skill roll they earn twice the usual XP's (50 instead of 25) for such a "decisive" use of the skill. I also do like malthos said and make the result of the skill more pronounced (more information, a better performance, higher quality, etc.).
Re: house rule, clever or not??
Posted: Tue Jul 05, 2016 3:51 pm
by cyber-yukongil v2.5
I had tried a skill system that was a combination of the old Chaosium systems and newer RPGs like Skyrim, where use in a skill actively improved that skill. Once per session, if you used a skill it got a "tick" if it failed, success got it two and a "critical" got it three. When it got so many, it would automatically level up that skill. Once so many skills were leveled up (anyone familiar with Earthdawn?) the character leveled up, getting new HPs/ISP/PPE/whatever.
Worked okay in practice, but was a little "book-keepey"
Re: house rule, clever or not??
Posted: Sun Jul 10, 2016 6:54 pm
by torjones
malthos wrote:See when i have someone roll a "crit" on their skill roles i just give them more ...critical information. Even if they get close to their target number and fail, ill still give them some info, not all because they failed. And the farther from their number the more vague or incorrect info i will give them, but said in a convincing manor so they take it as a success. But an increase to skill due to a roll can be exploited very easily. Oh i need to walk, skill roll "oh look a crit" gain in skill total, .."oh i need to breath" skill roll.....so on and so forth.
I've usually got several players who are always trying to use skills, even when the roll itself is well beneath them. I've tried to teach the players that skill checks are only necessary when the GM calls for one, otherwise, its an automatic success.
As an example, I had a player who was about as basadd a pilot as one could get. He had nearly all the pilot skills that we were using and the primary ones were were using were maxed out. Undocking from port? Why would I call for a roll for such a simple task? He's a pilot with a decade of experience, this is something he's done thousands of times. But... Character asked to roll for it. I smiled my Evil GM Smile 
, and said "Sure!" I proceeded to apply a penalty to the roll because this was an experimental, one of a kind, custom built, starship that he had never flown before and had no design input on, and this was a station he had never flown out of before, and he never did any kind of checking for "Pilot's Notes" anywhere he went. Needless to say, the skill penalty was unnecessary as he critically failed the roll. I made him roll for damage to the craft, then damage for the station. He wound up owing them 20,000 cr. all because he wanted to make a skill check for the 25 exp. Hasn't asked for a skill check since! 
(If he had just failed, no consequences. but they like playing with criticals, so we play with criticals...)