Skill Bonuses vs Attack Strength Bonuses

[soulreaver]

I'm sure this topic has been done to death before but I couldn't find an equivalent active thread and I'd really like to hear peoples' thoughts.

It's particularly fresh in my mind from The Port of Peril, which is a particularly bad offender in this regard.

One longstanding and almost never changed rule in Fighting Fantasy is that you can't exceed your Initial scores.

But there are many instances in many books where picking up 'better' equipment (like helms, shields, swords etc) gives you a straight up +1 Skill bonus.  This is particularly common with some writers (*cough*Livingstone*cough*).

If you take the rules 'as read', then the Skill bonuses from this equipment is useless unless you've already lost some Skill due to injury/cursed equipment/whatever.  Which means that a warrior totally blinged out in magic helm, chainmail vest, shield and magically razor-sharp sword is no more effective in combat than the same guy with his dinged starting sword and crusty leather armor.

The Skill bonus from a sword/shield/helm is also problematic because Skill is not only used for combat.  It's used for things like jumping, climbing, picking a lock etc.  It doesn't make sense for someone who lost a sword to suddenly be worse at jumping, and then to regain that skill when they get their sword back.  Or for someone with an injured leg to be able to move fast again because they put on a metal hat.

Later books often feature Attack Strength bonuses instead of Skill bonuses for swords/equipment, which makes a lot more sense and basically solves the problem.

In terms of MAKING SENSE, I think the following is how these should be written:

- Combat equipment (sword, shield, armour etc) that provides a Skill bonus should really just provide an Attack Strength bonus unless it explicitly increases Initial Skill as well as current Skill (it's possible a particularly powerful magic sword might increase your reflexes/abilities merely by being in your possession).

- Losing your sword should incur an Attack Strength penalty, not a Skill penalty.

- Accessories are bit more difficult:

-- If the item is a piece of apparel (like Elven Boots) that increases your speed/reflexes etc, it should increase current and Initial Skill

-- If the item explicitly assists in your swordsmanship only, it should increase Attack Strength only

-- If the item provides some sort of 'healing boost' when put on, it should only provide a normal Skill bonus (ie, healing you of skill-draining injuries, but not boosting it over the maximum, and having no malus if lost/dropped later).  The reasoning being that their effect is not ongoing, but rather delivered as healing/boosting only the moment they are put on.

- Potions/healing/magic items that heal or strengthen you provide a normal Skill bonus only.

Any bonuses from equipment/accessories are lost if the item is lost/unavailable, and you can only 'wear' (and thus benefit from) one sword, helm, body armour, shield, set of boots at once (no limit to rings/amulets etc though).

The above makes the most sense to me.....

....EXCEPT it messes up the difficulty something fierce.  The Port of Peril hands out +Skill items like candy and I think you'd end up with a cumulative total of about +5-6 to your Attack Strength/Skill in combat near the end if you pick them all up.  This does make it possible for a low-Skill character to finish it relatively comfortably, but also makes combats utterly trivial for a Skill 10+ character.

Which is why some people suggest having +Skill points from equipment/accessories be applied to the current Skill score even if it takes the score over the Initial but to then treat the effective Skill score, if higher than the Initial, as merely equal to the capped (ie, Initial) score.  Which works from a balance perspective but doesn't address the issue that a healthy leather armour/starting sword wielding adventurer is no better than a fully kitted out one.

I'd kind of like to know what the author's intent was when they give us a +Skill shield/helm/sword, but in books with this issue I'm not sure it's worth asking, as I doubt the author (a) thought about it much or (b) playtested it enough to understand the implications of +Skill over +Attack Strength.

So what do you think?

Ideally, if you could change the books, would you like to see the +Skill bonuses work exactly as per the rules?

Or would you like them to create a 'pool' of points that you can eat into if you suffer a Skill penalty later?

Or for them to be Attack Strength bonuses (effects on difficulty be damned)?

Or something else?

[kieran]

Dec 2, 2022 2:36:10 GMT soulreaver said:

The above makes the most sense to me.....

....EXCEPT it messes up the difficulty something fierce.  The Port of Peril hands out +Skill items like candy and I think you'd end up with a cumulative total of about +5-6 to your Attack Strength/Skill in combat near the end if you pick them all up.  This does make it possible for a low-Skill character to finish it relatively comfortably, but also makes combats utterly trivial for a Skill 10+ character.

Which is why some people suggest having +Skill points from equipment/accessories be applied to the current Skill score even if it takes the score over the Initial but to then treat the effective Skill score, if higher than the Initial, as merely equal to the capped (ie, Initial) score.  Which works from a balance perspective but doesn't address the issue that a healthy leather armour/starting sword wielding adventurer is no better than a fully kitted out one.

The original version of Eye of the Dragon allowed items to increase your abilities above your initial scores but with a cap of +2. Maybe something like that would be a compromise? The maximum attack strength bonus you can gain could be +2. I guess you could justify it from a realism perspective that there's only so much good equipment could help someone with no natural ability.

[Pete Byrdie]

I think I agree with all your points. I can't think of any instances, but presumably if you're on your initial skill and you get a +2 item, it won't raise your skill, but if you later lose that item, it removes 2 of your skill points. Similarly, if you're on initial skill and get a +2 item, it won't raise your skill but if you then lose a skill point because you stub your toe the uncashed skill bonus won't help. If you're strictly following the rules. Making the bonuses attack strength bonuses solves those problems.

Is there anything to be said for scrapping the 'initial skill' rule? In a roleplaying game, you'd want to keep track of your natural stat, but in a gamebook it's probably less necessary.

[terrysalt]

Dec 2, 2022 18:58:15 GMT Pete Byrdie said:

Is there anything to be said for scrapping the 'initial skill' rule? In a roleplaying game, you'd want to keep track of your natural stat, but in a gamebook it's probably less necessary.

I think you should feel free to try it and see if you like it better that way. I expect the results will vary book by book. Some have a lot more unclaimable bonuses than others but if you enjoy the series more by changing that rule, then go for it.

[soulreaver]

Dec 2, 2022 18:58:15 GMT Pete Byrdie said:

Is there anything to be said for scrapping the 'initial skill' rule? In a roleplaying game, you'd want to keep track of your natural stat, but in a gamebook it's probably less necessary.

The reason that might be wonky is that there are also quite a few instances where you gain skill from resting/healing.

Those instances make sense for cancelling out penalties from injured legs/concussions/sprained ankles etc. but probably shouldn't raise your skill over your normal, 'healthy' level.

[Pete Byrdie]

Dec 2, 2022 20:48:17 GMT soulreaver said:

Dec 2, 2022 18:58:15 GMT Pete Byrdie said:

Is there anything to be said for scrapping the 'initial skill' rule? In a roleplaying game, you'd want to keep track of your natural stat, but in a gamebook it's probably less necessary.

The reason that might be wonky is that there are also quite a few instances where you gain skill from resting/healing.

Those instances make sense for cancelling out penalties from injured legs/concussions/sprained ankles etc. but probably shouldn't raise your skill over your normal, 'healthy' level.

Yeah, I hadn't thought of that.

[thealmightymudworm]

The muddle between SKILL and Attack Strength is particularly irritating for armour. At least with a sword you can reasonably assume that having it doesn't improve e.g. your juggling skills (unless it's one of the items that you're juggling, maybe). But when you see mention of armour being described as lighter and better fitting, you wonder whether it could actually improve your character's ability to sneak, climb or breakdance. That's aside from anything described as a 'helmet of clear thinking' or whatever.

Part of the problem with SKILL more generally is that the initial limit doesn't recognise the difference between a bonus and a restorative. We understand the limit with STAMINA: you shouldn't be allowed to increase your STAMINA indefinitely by e.g. eating all your provisions for 40 points and waddling into a difficult fight with a score of around 60. But most SKILL bonuses intuitively shouldn't be restricted just because you are at your limit. A ring of SKILL or, as mentioned, elven boots should surely allow you to exceed your normal limits.

On the other hand, I've never understood how restoratives are supposed to help you regain SKILL points generally, especially without affecting other stats. So in your desperate efforts to escape a dungeon you've lost a finger (-1 SKILL), sprained your ankle (-1 SKILL) and received many non-specific injuries in combat (reducing you to 2 STAMINA). Fortunately you have a potion of SKILL which restores your ligaments and grows back your finger(?) but heals none of your ordinary injuries, so you die at the next combat round you lose.

Generally it would be better if objects which increase your SKILL allowed you to exceed your initial levels by default (there would need to be fewer of them, but that seems appropriate) whilst SKILL losses could be tied to afflictions which would need to be individually healed/countered if at all. Perhaps healing potions could restore a point of SKILL as well as fully restoring STAMINA and the idea of specific SKILL potions could be consigned to the scrapheap.

[Pete Byrdie]

I've often felt that the strength of the FF system is also its weakness. It's a very simple system, designed to be accessible. But I think the authors of the books often treat it as being simpler than it is. It's perfectly easy to say, 'You put on the breastplate. Add 1 to your attack strength from now on', or, 'The Helmet of Agility adds 1 to your SKILL, even if that exceeds your initial SKILL'. Of course, it would be great to have more stats and secondary stats, but that would potentially alienate many casual players. Oddly, I think the books are more niche now at a time when the concept of role-playing games is more popular and familiar, and they could perhaps expand the system without it scaring away their potential market.

[a moderator]

Dec 2, 2022 18:58:15 GMT Pete Byrdie said:

I can't think of any instances, but presumably if you're on your initial skill and you get a +2 item, it won't raise your skill, but if you later lose that item, it removes 2 of your skill points. 

That is exactly what happens with the chainmail coat in City of Thieves. And yet at two points earlier in the same book, Ian remembered the phrase 'Attack Strength'. Madness.

[Pete Byrdie]

Dec 3, 2022 0:23:14 GMT a moderator said:

Dec 2, 2022 18:58:15 GMT Pete Byrdie said:

I can't think of any instances, but presumably if you're on your initial skill and you get a +2 item, it won't raise your skill, but if you later lose that item, it removes 2 of your skill points. 

That is exactly what happens with the chainmail coat in City of Thieves. And yet at two points earlier in the same book, Ian remembered the phrase 'Attack Strength'. Madness.

I knew someone would know of this happening. It's an inevitable result of how the mechanics are often used.

[soulreaver]

Dec 2, 2022 22:27:39 GMT thealmightymudworm said:

On the other hand, I've never understood how restoratives are supposed to help you regain SKILL points generally, especially without affecting other stats. So in your desperate efforts to escape a dungeon you've lost a finger (-1 SKILL), sprained your ankle (-1 SKILL) and received many non-specific injuries in combat (reducing you to 2 STAMINA). Fortunately you have a potion of SKILL which restores your ligaments and grows back your finger(?) but heals none of your ordinary injuries, so you die at the next combat round you lose.

If I remember right, there are some books in the series which handle these sort of injuries a bit better - specifically, if you lose a finger/eye or the like, it causes a loss of both current and Initial Skill - so there's no way of getting those points back through 'standard' means of skill restoration.  But 'lesser' injuries (pulled muscles, knocks on the head etc) could potentially be mitigated through rest, healing or magic.  But you are right that it seems a little odd that something like the potion of Skill can heal the disability caused by such injuries without any actual Stamina healing being involved.  Maybe it's actually a really good painkiller?  Potion of Skill = Potion of Morphine perhaps?

Another strangeness in the Potion of Skill is that some books specify that you lose 4 Skill for losing your sword, but if you were to then quaff one of those potions right after losing your sword you'd be back to fighting just as well as if you never lost it, turning you into a deadly iron-fisted monk.  Again, Attack Strength penalties would make a lot more sense than a Skill penalty.

[Pete Byrdie]

Dec 3, 2022 4:06:09 GMT soulreaver said:

Another strangeness in the Potion of Skill is that some books specify that you lose 4 Skill for losing your sword, but if you were to then quaff one of those potions right after losing your sword you'd be back to fighting just as well as if you never lost it, turning you into a deadly iron-fisted monk.  Again, Attack Strength penalties would make a lot more sense than a Skill penalty.

Perhaps a box on the adventure sheet called Attack Strength Bonuses would help, and on creating your character you move however many SKILL points you get for your sword into your Bonuses.
For what it's worth, I don't remember much about AFF, but back in the day my D&D playing group played The Riddling Reaver and a couple of the adventures in the AFF books, and it was a perfectly serviceable rpg, relatively simple but with everything you needed. I just thing it needed to be handled more mindfully in the gamebooks.

EDIT Sorry Soulreaver the quote in this post is misattributed, I have parkinsons and I struggle with the fiddly editing on my phone.

[CharlesX]

We''re being heavily logical and serious about these kid-audience books. Giving Livingstone as an example, I imagine that when he wrote his early works his thinking was merely "that looks cool, maybe the adventurer could get a Skill bonus for that", which half the time is balanced out by his penchant for Skill losses when an adventurer goes off true path, or even just fails tests. It might make less narrative sense for an adventurer to gain skill, not attack strength, after picking up a magic sword, but if they have lost skill from injuring their hand after failing an earlier test to open a trapped chest, you know, gameplay over cold calculation.

   One alternative is the Test Your Skill mechanic introduced in Legend of The Shadow Warriors - I think this was not used in other FFs (although Jonathan Green's works sometimes included armour which affected your attack strength or dice rolls against Skill). I see no reason a player character shouldn't be clothed like a D&D plate-mail knight but with a penalty against Skill tests. Or wearing Elf boots which help you make jumps instead of affecting your entire body (do they?).

[bloodbeasthandler]

Dec 4, 2022 15:57:30 GMT CharlesX said:

We''re being heavily logical and serious about these kid-audience books. Giving Livingstone as an example, I imagine that when he wrote his early works his thinking was merely "that looks cool, maybe the adventurer could get a Skill bonus for that", which half the time is balanced out by his penchant for Skill losses when an adventurer goes off true path, or even just fails tests. It might make less narrative sense for an adventurer to gain skill, not attack strength, after picking up a magic sword, but if they have lost skill from injuring their hand after failing an earlier test to open a trapped chest, you know, gameplay over cold calculation.

Yes, that's probably true. The writers were 'winging it' a bit, I'd say, rather than coldly and calculatedly crunching numbers and working out probabilities.

Dec 4, 2022 15:57:30 GMT CharlesX said:

I see no reason a player character shouldn't be clothed like a D&D plate-mail knight but with a penalty against Skill tests. 

By all means let them wear platemail. But I'd say it would be pretty unsuitable for adventuring where ropes need climbing, pits need jumping and pools of water need swimming.  I doubt the knight in Deathtrap Dungeon would have done all that well where the 'corridor doth water meet'... 

[kieran]

Dec 4, 2022 16:08:54 GMT bloodbeasthandler said:

I doubt the knight in Deathtrap Dungeon would have done all that well where the 'corridor doth water meet'... 

'Where the corridor doth water meet
Prepare to proceed with rusty feet.'