I apologize if these are so obvious they shouldn't need to be asked. I haven't read the book cover-to-cover and am jumping around making some guys to see if I like the "feel" of the game first.
1) The Dwarven Vaultguard has the Alertness proficiency. Alertness says he gets a +4 to hear noise or detect secret door. But, what is he adding +4 to? I've only seen the base hear noise and detect secret door on the Thief's Skill chart.
2) I rolled up a Dwarven Craftpriest. He gets a +3 for every proficiency roll (other than identify masterworks) - so that means all his other rolls get a +3 no matter what, right?
3) the Theology proficiency says Dwarven Craftpriest gets this automatically - so this does not count against his # of proficiencies? Also, this isn't mentioned in the Craftpriest section, only under Theology or am I missing it there?
4) do you ever get better at proficiencies? For example, at first level if I take Trapping I have to roll 11 or better. What happens at level 7? Is it still 11+?
Thanks!
PS- I'm sure I'll have more questions but really like what I'm reading so for - have looked at many OSR type games the past few weeks and othis is certainly one of the ones that stands out for quality. I read ACKS a few years ago now regret not diving in farther back then. Better late than never, right?
Adidas
Re: Base Throws: Any throw not specified as being a different number is usually 18+
Re: Masterfulness: "Proficiency Rolls" are basically anything that would be a skill check in D&D. The text should call out any proficiency roll as such; off the top of my head, this means craftsdwarfs are really good at using the Heal proficiency to Cure Light Wounds, designing and penetrating disguises, assessing buildings, and determining the magical properities of items by taste.
Re: Theology: You are correct in that there is a dispute between the proficiency text and the craftpriest text. Class features do not count against the proficiencies you may take.
Re: Improving: Most proficiencies, you can invest additional profs in to improve. So if Trapping lets you suceed on an 11+, then taking Trapping a second time would boost it to a 7+. If you do not invest in proficiencies, then they do not improve, and a level 14 god-emperor with healing 1 is exactly as skilled as a 0th level peasant with healing 1.
Is the "assume 18+ if you don't see it stated otherwise" spelled out somewhere? PDF search not finding it - is this another thing assumed to be common knowledge or am I just being a doofus again an not seeing it?
Lessee...
Glad to hear you've come back to ACKS!
As a new player, I wonder why that stuff is buried on page 93 and not more obvious - not everyone has played D&D a billion times and knows this stuff in their sleep...what if ACKS was the first RPG I found not the 10,000th that I've found? :)
For one, you'd probably read the whole book before playing. I don't mean that to be in any way facetious, either! I have a lot of the same frustrations and errors so far, but they almost universally result from never having sat down and actually read the whole book. Why? Because I've played umpteen different variations of the game previously. This is not to say that doing so cures this problem entirely - there's a certain amount of disorganization based on the way the book written and structured - but it alleviates it a great deal.
I don't think even reading the whole book would save you, because it's too much to keep in RAM. I've run plenty of wargames where we all read the whole rulebook and promptly forgot a bunch of rules during the first couple of games.
This is true, and I acknowledged that. But it greatly improves the situation, and it's a big difference from someone who's totally new to the game, and someone who's played for ages. I dunno...I just hink it's really easy to overlook the slightly negative effect of that experience.
EDIT: Again, just to be clear, I am not arguing that there's nothing confusing about the rulebook - there is! - just that there is a difference in how someone without prior experience approaches ACKS.
I think it is fair to say that I went in with a lot of assumptions and thus didn't realize ACKS did things differently until it came up. Reading the thing cover to cover might've helped.
That said, the book does have some severe ergonomics issues where nothing is ever technically in the WRONG place, but it does seem like it takes me more guesses than with other systems to find what I'm looking for. That said, I think Alex knows and feels bad about it, so we try not to mention it too much.
The book was absolutely written as if you would read it cover to cover, and as a result many mechanics are in the wrong place when you want to use it as a reference. The inspiration/guide for the presentation was BX, which very much introduced rules in an as-you-are-ready-for-them format. Unfortunately (a) few players that buy ACKS read rule books that way anymore and (b) ACKS is a teensy bit longer than BX. So it didn't quite work as well as I'd hoped.
If someone is so inclined, it would be helpful to me if you started a thread mentioning the rules you find least accessible/hardest to find or learn in actual play.
Dreaming of 2nd edition, huh?
Nothing like opening a can of worms!
But back to my questions ... :)
Essentially you have a 10% to do stuff that's not explicitly stated you have a better chance (if I'm doung my 18+ on a d20 math correctly)...is that right?
tcgb, I find the ACKS reference tables (from the download section) invaluable at collecting key numbers spread across the book in one place for easy use at the table - and yes,they have the open doors stuff right on the first page. Some stalwarts put them together ages ago:
http://www.autarch.co/system/files/files/ACKS%20GM%20Reference%20Tables.zip
Regarding the last question, 18+ is basically a 15% chance and is the closest you can get to 1d6 on a d20 - it's a good guideline to use when there's no rule. Lots of things that were 2 in 6 chances in the old BX system are now 14+ in ACKS (like elves detecting a secret door).
By "10%" I meant "15%" of course. I was using that new metric math.
I get an "access denied" message trying that link. Perhaps they've vaporized my account for being a troublemaker. I'll try at home - maybe it's this phone that is the problem.
Weird, I'd drop support (email in the footer) a note about the downloads section. I thought it was public for all forum folks.
Can't get the file on my home PC either - sent question to support.
That particular file is locked to original Kickstarter backers of ACKS.
That being said, the Judge's Screen by Beragon at the bottom of the page is very much the same content, and has many of the adventuring proficiency rolls.
man, you'd think after all this time those reference files could be safely opened up to the public.
There's honestly not a lot in there that either hasn't been done better elsewhere or has been obsoleted.
No. The stuff mentioned is explicitly stated...it's just...well...here and there.
Just as background, ACKS core was written for a broad OSR audience, some of whom demonstrate their OSR -ness by despising anything that smells like a skill system. Therefore, ACKS core walks the difficult path of Proficiencies being presented as optional (with a light hand).
As time has passed, it *seems* people who like ACKS like Proficiencies, and there are numerous posts on the forum asking for more detail and explanation on Proficiencies and related throws.
Still, there are many who tweak Proficiencies and throws to their tastes, such as d6 rolls, ability checks, etc. "Every campaign is a law unto itself ..."
I think the Autarchs have way too much cool stuff in the pipeline to seriously contemplate a 2nd edition. However, *I* dream of a glorious 10th Anniversary Deluxe edition -- largely the same as ACKS core, but with a wealth of clarifying sidebars and cross-references. And a few key bits from D@W, maybe. And an integrated Auran Campaign primer. And a Judge's Screen, darn it.
You had me at "glorious 10th Anniversary Deluxe edition."
Shut Up And Take My Silver Talents!
It would be worth a lot of ducats if it had the spell points for each spell and build options used for each class in the fancy-schmancy sidebars.
It's the glorious 10th Anniversary Detect Invisible edition!
What stuff is in the pipeline?
This is from the Judges Screen on the download page:
Task Throw
Forcing Open a door 18+ (+/-4 per point of STR mod.)
Detect a Secret Door 18+ (Elves 14+)
Listening at a Door 18+ (Demi-humans 14+)
Spotting a Trap 18+ (Dwarves 14+)
If I want to improve Detect Secret Door, I would need to be able to get the Alertness Proficiency (which some classes like Cleric can not).
If I want to get better at Spotting a Trap, I would need to be able to get the Trap Finding Proficiency (which only the "thief" types can get).
So...if I make a fighter for example, there is no way for him to ever get better at finding traps.
Also, my Thief can get a little better by taking the Trap Finding - getting a +2 - otherwise they would improve in it as they level up.
I guess I would question why others could never get better at finding traps - though I suppose "class protection" is part of the history of this type of game.
In any case, I hope I'm starting to get the Proficiency stuff.
Class niche protection is ultimately the answer. However, Spot Trap, Listen at Door, and similar aren't learned Proficiencies. In fact, I'd go so far as to say they aren't really Proficiencies at all, and probably shouldn't be called out as such. These were what I was thinking of when I mentioned the Craftpriest's bonus not applying to all Proficiencies.
This may be Exhibit A of how Proficiencies' optionality in the rules created unintended confusion. Yes, if you're not using Proficiencies, all adventurers have these abilities. If you are using Proficiencies, all adventurers have these abilities via their free Adventuring proficiency.
[From elsewhere on the forum.]
ADVENTURING
The standard tasks that use Adventuring proficiency are:
- Listening for noises 18+
- Searching for traps 18+
- Bashing open doors 18+
- Searching for secret doors 18+
- Avoiding getting lost in the wilderness (varies)
- Evading wilderness encounters (varies)
- Swimming (varies)
Adventuring proficiency also covers a variety of activities that can be performed without a throw:
- Riding a horse in normal conditions
- Handling common animals
- Setting a camp
- Lighting a fire
- Cooking simple meals
- Cleaning and maintaining weapons and armor
- Appraising treasure
Etc.
I believe dwarven attention to detail would apply to the above tasks involving the throw mechanic.
Maybe allowing Adventuring to be "purchased" more than once would eliminate the "my Fighter can never get better at this" issue.
Meh. I think the ultimate reason for not allowing improvement in them is niche protection for Thief type classes. I missed that they are actually gained from Adventuring, although spotting traps and secret doors makes sense. I'd certainly question hear noise, though, as that's the same chance for pretty much anything to hear noise (see Surprise and Sneaking). There are other things on that list that have identical odds for anyone (i.e., monster, NPC, etc.), whether or not they have Adventuring.
Also, I think the main purpose of Adventuring is simply to remove any arguments over all the standard things that adventurers try and do (Swim the river? Well, do you have swimming? Tie up the Goblin? Well, do you have rope use? Make dinner? Well, do you have cooking? Climb out the window? Well, do you have defenestration?).
I've been accused of being of being a grognard about this stuff (actually, Alex calling me "more Orthodox than the Pope" is something I wear as a badge of honour), so consider that context with what I'm about to say. I'll also preface with every campaign is a law unto itself, so, fill yer boots! In any case, I feel like a lot of fixes like this actually tend to do more to break the game than to fix any actual problem. I think that's a lot of what drove the development of 3.x; many small changes to fix things where people said, "Well, that's stupid!" The trouble was that a lot of things were how they were for gameplay reasons. The same is true here. Why can't you improve these tasks? Because of gameplay. Class niche protection. The trouble with over-specialization. The arguments for changing it often boil down to: it's not realistic. But of course, neither is the vast majority of the game, to a greater or lesser extent.
Do I think allowing PCs to take Adventuring as a Proficiency multiple times will actually "break" the game? No, not really. But I don't think it will make the balance (for lack of a better word) of the game better, either. Complaints about the uselessness of the Thief Class have been a thing for a looong time. This does not help that situation. At the very least, I would make it a Class Proficiency. Allowing the improvement from attention to detail of the Craftpriest has less long term impact, as it's once, but consider that it means a 1st Level Craftpriest has the same chances to Hear Noise as a 4th Level Thief, and the same chances to Find Traps as a 7th Level Thief. Does that matter? To a Thief, the answer is probably, "Yes."
I know you're not suggesting that we get rid of thieves and replace them with taking Adventuring multiple times... but now I kind of want to do that. Assassin is everything my thiefy players ever wanted.
(I intend no offense and apologize if this comes off strangely; I basically failed to sleep last night and things are weird today)
there's a reason thief became rogue in later editions: skill monkey isn't nearly as compelling a niche as hitting stuff, being heavily armored, or casting spells, so the focus shifted to sneak attack and thus they shared the "hitting stuff" niche with fighters.
In ACKs there's a strong case to players sticking to only having thieves as henchmen, and if hijinks is that important to you, just make sure you play as an assassin or elven nightblade.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again here: the biggest thing the Thief suffers from is poor Judgement of Thief abilities. I've obviously had the experience myself and with people I know in real life, but I've also seen enough people online attest to the same thing to convince me that it's the single biggest problem with the Thief as a Class.
The 3.x model of skill-monkey obviates the need for a Thief by eliminating the niche protection for the Thief while simultaneously building in an implicit requirement for ultra-specialization because of how the skill system works. It as an extremely poor example of how to work a Thief-type Class.
When you say "poor judgement of thief abilities" do you mean like the game master adjuticating what happens based on what the thief says they do? or soemthing different?
Yes and no. That, as well as what requires a roll and what doesn't, what they are capable of doing that others can't, what the consequences of failure are, etc.
I vote we get rid of Thieves and give Cleric's spells at level 1. :)
<head a'splodes>
More Orthodox than the Pope?! Duly noted ;-)
You appear to have misattributed that quote; that one's from Mr. Macris. Okay, so he was talking about me...
...but the Pope's Catholic. He's not any kind of Orthodox, Greek, Russian, or otherwise.
Again, I suggest you take that up with Mr. Macris.
That just means that more orthodox than the pope is, much like being the pope, a pretty impressive title but ultimately not as useful as you'd think.
With all the tangents here (which I love)...not sure if I had my questions answered. Now not even sure what my questions were. :)
I think posts #2 and #4 did it. There is some later debate on these points.
This place is decidedly awesome.