It occurs to me that in the web application, and in the rules generally, I have not properly taken care of the Light, Medium and Heavy weapons calculation for Attack Level.

It seems to make sense to me that if you spend SLP on any of those skills that it should effect the weapon usage for your character. You should be able to use the weapon at your Attack Level with a +1 AL so that if your character is 1st level and you take Medium Weapons Skill for 1 SLP that your character should then have the benefit of being able to use the weapon at 2nd Attack Level. Those who do not learn the skill can not use the weapon above 1st Level Skill. This way a 6th level cleric picking up a sword that he has no training in would give him a 1st Attack Level and no more. This gives the fighting class much more umph in terms of skills, and means that those untrained in weapons will not simply be able to pick up a weapon and use it according to their character level (which would be grossly unfair).

However, while that all works out fine, there is one point that needs further clarification. Currently I allow players to add Bonus Skill Learning Points (SLP) to skills when they learn them. The Bonuses are given in denominations of the Skill Level. So for a player to beef up a 3rd Level Skill (which costs 3 SLP to learn) he must spend an additional 3 SLP to add +1 Skill Level for his Character's usage. In the case of Light, Medium and Heavy Weapons the SLP is 1, which is only fair to Fighters. In this case, however, adding additional SLP is cheap. It would be all too easy for a Player to add +3, +4, or +5 SLP to any of the Weapons skills and beef up their character's Attack Level by that amount.

Therefore, in the case of Weapons, I am thinking to either not allow SLP Bonuses, OR make the denominator for the SLP Bonus 3 or 4 so that it takes 3 or 4 to augment the Attack Level by 1.

Thoughts?

I am in complete agreement with paragraph two. The reasoning is sound.

However, I think the problem you're encountering may stem from the costs of skills to begin with. Why are some more expensive than others? Can the costs be justified?

Regardless of this, if you simply limit any skill to no more than +1 character level, the problem is largely solved. Considering the extremely small range of numbers in Elthos, someone shouldn't be jumping that far ahead of level anyway. It breaks the system. Let's say one player saves his points, and spends them all increasing a weapon skill to two higher than everyone else. The DM will have a tough time balancing the game for the other players.

I am in complete agreement with paragraph two. The reasoning is sound.

However, I think the problem you're encountering may stem from the costs of skills to begin with. Why are some more expensive than others? Can the costs be justified?

The reason skills cost different amounts are varied, but one of them is that I feel that some skills should be harder to learn than others. For example basket weaving vs diamond cutting. I also like the idea that as you go up in levels more skills become available to your character. It acts as a level up reward. It is also reminiscent of the traditional D&D leveling mechanic where characters receive access to better spells at higher levels, and I see skills as a 'kind of' spell (not literally, but from a game mechanic perspective I like things to stay parallel). I also have it that higher level skills provide a larger monthly stipend for 'career' skills (characters should learn 1 career skill) where you earn 10 Iron more per week / SLP.

Regardless of this, if you simply limit any skill to no more than +1 character level, the problem is largely solved. Considering the extremely small range of numbers in Elthos, someone shouldn't be jumping that far ahead of level anyway. It breaks the system. Let's say one player saves his points, and spends them all increasing a weapon skill to two higher than everyone else. The DM will have a tough time balancing the game for the other players.

That's a good proposal. Keeps the rule simple. I like. Thanks!

Is it the case that learning a weapon skill (but not putting bonus SLP into it) at 1st level makes you AL2? Is that different from the way it works for the non-weapon skills? My inclination is that it should be handled the same way, but then you're already handling it differently in having underlying ability scores play a role, so maybe not. And if it is to be made uniform, maybe everything should be handled like attacks (training at 1st level means skill level 2, perhaps even factoring in ability bonuses to other skills but that's a more major change).

With regards to the problem of cheaply boosting AL with bonus SLP, I agree with grimjester that the simplest solution is simply to put a cap on how much above-level a skill can get. I'm not particularly happy with 1st level characters getting level 3 skills anyway, not to mention my preference - already heard and rejected on other questions - for not forcing players to choose between being behind the curve early game (because they did not invest in bonus SLP) or having wasted those SLP when they hit AL 6 and can't go any higher. The level cap system is a much cleaner rule than an exception for weapon skills that makes them more expensive to boost (fewer exceptions is always good) and it doesn't hammer people who pick up weapon skills as electives late game but want to boost them to a competitive level.

Thanks for the thoughtful reply.

Is it the case that learning a weapon skill (but not putting bonus SLP into it) at 1st level makes you AL2? Is that different from the way it works for the non-weapon skills? My inclination is that it should be handled the same way, but then you're already handling it differently in having underlying ability scores play a role, so maybe not. And if it is to be made uniform, maybe everything should be handled like attacks (training at 1st level means skill level 2, perhaps even factoring in ability bonuses to other skills but that's a more major change).

The way I had it originally when you learn a skill using SLP and adding it to your list of skills that allows you to grow in that skill over the course of future levels, but does not immediately augment the character's skill level when they are first level. However, as they go up in levels they get to improve at the skill over time. So if you took a primary skill for a thief like Picking Pockets at 1st level you would be Level 1 at that skill. At level 2 you would be 2nd level. Etc. However, anyone can try to do anything unlearned or not. So if you didn't learn the skill then you would be 1/4 your level. I abandoned that as too complicated earlier on after we discussed that question, and came to the conclusion that simplicity is the golden rule and so exceptions should be avoided when possible.

So the new rule has been if you learn a skill you go up in levels. If you don't they you can always use any skill, but you will be 1st level at it, no matter what your current level is. That seems simple enough, and I don't think it is dreadfully unfair. Higher level characters may be occasionally peeved that at 6the level they still suck at basket weaving, but them's the breaks.

What I hadn't done in the application was specifically handle the Light, Medium and Heavy Weapons Skill in terms of weapons usage. As I circled back around on that over the weekend I realized that it should play a role. So currently if you take a Weapon Skill, and you buy that weapon, it does give you a +1. If you add a Bonus SLP (max of 1 allowed now) you can boost that to 2.

So here's the rub at the moment - no, I am not doing that for other skills, though I easily could. If you buy a Skill I could easily add a +1 Skill Level to it for having the skill. In a sense I think that is a good solution to the problem you pointed out before --- when I buy a skill at 1st level but I'm still 1st level at it, then it feels like at the time that I didn't get much for my money. Going up 1 level feels like I paid for something. The ancillary benefit of continuing to go up in levels at that skill doesn't hurt either. So that makes sense to me. I'm going to run with that for now. But should I do the same for all skills? I'm kind of thinking I should. On the other hand in the ODS a bump of even 1 level is a significant advantage, so I have to weight that in as well. Currently, your Skill Level in learned skills is your current Character Level. That makes sense to me too. So... meh... not sure. What do you guys think?

With regards to the problem of cheaply boosting AL with bonus SLP, I agree with grimjester that the simplest solution is simply to put a cap on how much above-level a skill can get. I'm not particularly happy with 1st level characters getting level 3 skills anyway, not to mention my preference - already heard and rejected on other questions - for not forcing players to choose between being behind the curve early game (because they did not invest in bonus SLP) or having wasted those SLP when they hit AL 6 and can't go any higher. The level cap system is a much cleaner rule than an exception for weapon skills that makes them more expensive to boost (fewer exceptions is always good) and it doesn't hammer people who pick up weapon skills as electives late game but want to boost them to a competitive level.

I should point out, and it's a bit of a cheat... players can go onto the website and remove BonusSLP from skills at any time... so when they hit AL 6 they *could* then remove the BonusSLP and regain those point(s). I know, I know... that is a kind of annoying kludgy kind of thing, but I'm going to leave it as is for now and see how that plays out. I'm not sure if I would really even consider that "cheating" in any sense. Curious how people may respond that that though. Not sure if it will have a negative feel to it or a positive one ("oh look, I figured out a cool gimmicky way to regain an SLP when I don't need the boost anymore). Hmm... not sure.

I'm up for clean rules, definitely. Easier to play with, and easier to remember. 🙂

To make certain I understand what's happened:

There have been two changes to the skill rules.

A skill when bought now starts at use level 2 instead of 1.

Only one level worth of bonus SLP can be added to a skill instead of unlimited.

How do skills with effects based on level work under the new system?

For example, Star has the Medical Healing skill, which has text as follows:

Level 1: First Aid +1 LP per combat. Level 2: Bind Light Wounds 1d6 LP per day. Level 3: Bind Serious Wounds 2d6 LP per day. Level 4: Splinting Broken Bones 3d6. Level 5: Cure Poisons and Diseases 4d6. Level 6: Surgery 5d6.

Are the "levels" above the use levels of the skill or the level of the character?

To make certain I understand what's happened:

There have been two changes to the skill rules.

A skill when bought now starts at use level 2 instead of 1.

A skill when bought will now add +1 to the Skill Level. So if you get an elective skill at 4th Level it will add +1 to the skill level, which t means that the character will have that skill at Skill Level 2, instead of Skill Level 1.

Only one level worth of bonus SLP can be added to a skill instead of unlimited.

Correct.

How do skills with effects based on level work under the new system?

For example, Star has the Medical Healing skill, which has text as follows:

Level 1: First Aid +1 LP per combat. Level 2: Bind Light Wounds 1d6 LP per day. Level 3: Bind Serious Wounds 2d6 LP per day. Level 4: Splinting Broken Bones 3d6. Level 5: Cure Poisons and Diseases 4d6. Level 6: Surgery 5d6.

Are the "levels" above the use levels of the skill or the level of the character?

Yes, go by Character Level, not Skill Level. Note, in this case if the Character picks up an Elective skill of Medical Healing at 4th level he will be able to do 1st Aid, Bind Light Wounds, Bind Serious Wounds, and Splinting Broken Bones all of which he does at 1st Level proficiency (since it is Elective). Or, conversely, making the rule a little more complicated, I could say that the First Aid is at 4th level proficiency, Bind Light Wounds is 3rd, Bind Serious Wounds is 2nd, and Splinting Broken Bones is 1st. That can be defined in the rule definition, which means that it is not a system rule, but something that each Gamesmaster will adjust according to their own preference. In this case I prefer the latter rule, which expressed as a rule would state: "For each sub-skill the level at which it comes into effect subtracted from the level at which the character took the Medical Healing Skill is the Level of Proficiency for that skill. For example, the First Aid is at 4th level proficiency, Bind Light Wounds is 3rd, Bind Serious Wounds is 2nd, and Splinting Broken Bones is 1st."

What do you think?

Also note that in light of the new rule I may need to go back and adjust some of the skills, but at the moment I'm going to leave things as they are and see how that goes.