# Views on 2nd ed. Non Weapon Proficiencies.



## Dolgo (Feb 10, 2011)

I recently discussed the differences in skill mechanics from many different games.  One person said that 2nd edition d&d's NWP was his favorite skills mechanic, which was jaw dropping to me.  I was never a fan of NWP even if the were optional.  I'd like to get other views of 2nd ed. NWP pros and cons, maybe I don't see the merits of them.


----------



## Jhaelen (Feb 10, 2011)

Dolgo said:


> I recently discussed the differences in skill mechanics from many different games.  One person said that 2nd edition d&d's NWP was his favorite skills mechanic, which was jaw dropping to me.  I was never a fan of NWP even if the were optional.  I'd like to get other views of 2nd ed. NWP pros and cons, maybe I don't see the merits of them.



Yeah, they were pretty terrible. Of course, at the time and in the context of D&D they were revolutionary 

Compared to any other rpg system already including a skill system (i.e. pretty much everything else) it was really bad.

The main problems were the binary nature and the lack of balancing between different NWPs.
Both problems were basically fixed in 3e by splitting them into feats and skills, as appropriate.

4e further improved on skills by generally allowing untrained skill use, automatic improvement of every skill and the introduction of skill powers. At the same time feats have a taken a hit in usefulness (imho, mainly because of the multitude of available powers).

There's still lots of room for improvement, though.


----------



## cleverkobold (Feb 10, 2011)

I love th 2e NWP system.  Its simple and effective, however i dont like the skills being grouped by class, rogues should be able to smith weapons as well.


----------



## TerraDave (Feb 10, 2011)

used them for many years, and not a big fan. 

As was common in skill systems of the time:
-Too many rarely used and non-adventuring skills
-A fixed degree of difficulty, or I should say almost fixed, as you could vary difficulty, but it was sort of a pain. 

Specific to them:

-The roll low d20 mechanic. Yes, pretty simple, but still, yet another resolution mechanic. (I think one goal of 2E was to have as many as possible). 
-Too linked to ability scores and to hard to boost 
-Included proto-feats (blind fighting...)
-Existed in paralel with the "real" adventuring skills (theif skillls, various perception mechanics)


----------



## TanisFrey (Feb 10, 2011)

The 1ed system of non-weapon proficiency were better than 2ed one, alto the 3ed skill system is my preferred method.

1ed NWP system
the Non-weapon proficiency were first seen in the Oriental Adventures and expanded for the standard game with the Wilderness Survival Guide and the Dungeonirs Survival Guide.

They gave you a base number then you would lower that by the additional number slots added to that NWP to find you base chance of success (to a minimum number of 3).  You had to roll over this number to success.  Some NWP were considered difficult to learn and cost you 2 slots to learn, but only 1 to improve.  In cases of contested rolls you keep on rolling until someone failed.

2ed NWP system.
Not everyone got those three books and added them to their game.  So, they reworked and added them as an optional system in core books, if I remember correctly.  They were worse rules than the 1ed system.  Each NWP had a ability score with a modifier to find you base score.  You would then want to roll under your score.  You could increase you base score by adding slots.  Contested rolls were deterred by whom ever rolled higher but not too high.

I always disliked the fact that a dancer with high dex and minimal training was better than the average dex dancer who poured her heart out in training in the second ed system.  You stat was far too important to you base skill.  Add in the contested skill where you wanted to roll high but not too high was screwy.

3ed Skill system
You buy ranks with a modifier from your raw ability.  Success is deterred by taking your skill total modifier and adding a d20 roll and getting higher score than a DC based on your task.  Contested rolls have also been simplifies whom ever gets a higher score win.

Both you natural ability and your training are important in this system.  Eventually your training will be more important that you natural ability.  In order to dance Swan Lake you need raw ability and practice to preform it right.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Feb 10, 2011)

TanisFrey said:


> Both you natural ability and your training are important in this system.  Eventually your training will be more important that you natural ability.  In order to dance Swan Lake you need raw ability and practice to preform it right.




Well, not by RAW, at least. You can have a 7 Dex and a 10 Cha, but if you have 20 ranks, and you take a 10, then you just owned that Perform (Dance) check.

This seems to be an inherent evil within the system, though. I might have a half-orc with a 20 Str, but since I have a 7 Cha, people generally laugh me off when I try to intimidate them at lower levels.


----------



## TanisFrey (Feb 11, 2011)

JamesonCourage said:


> Well, not by RAW, at least. You can have a 7 Dex and a 10 Cha, but if you have 20 ranks, and you take a 10, then you just owned that Perform (Dance) check.
> 
> This seems to be an inherent evil within the system, though. I might have a half-orc with a 20 Str, but since I have a 7 Cha, people generally laugh me off when I try to intimidate them at lower levels.



Oops, I mixing editions there.
Well in 2ed dance was controlled by Dex and in 3rd Preform (Dance) is control by Cha.

If you have Dex of 18 in 2ed you dance score when you took it was 18.
If you have Cha of 18 in 3rd ed you got a +3 to your preform skill and you can dance if you have no ranks in it.  Preform is an Everyman skill.


----------



## Dolgo (Feb 11, 2011)

Good responses thanks for all the feedback.  

My main issue is take for instance a Thief, he gets his starting proficiencies (more if using the optional Int rule which I always used) then he doesn't get another proficiency until 4th level, meaning that a fifth of his total levels = one NEW proficiency or, get this,  +1 to an existing proficiency.  So at 8th level he has gotten maybe a new proficiency and a +1, 2 proficiencies, or one proficiency at +2.  God forbid the proficiency you want takes 2 slots (case in point a 2 slot prof taken at 1st level is +1 at 8th level if you decide to "save up" your 4th level prof).

Its also strange that the Rogue Group is the slowest to level up NWP and further versions they became the skill masters.  A complete 180 degree change.

On top of that if I have an 18 INT and choose Animal Lore, I'm apparently super animal lore master but have no clue how to survive, know any history or anything else with my high intelligence, without having taken the actual proficiency.  It was all or nothing with NWPs.

PS: Kudos to the guy that picked Pottery as a NWP, he loved him some pots.


----------



## slwoyach (Feb 11, 2011)

I liked the 2e system, though I don't like how few slots characters get.  I'd also prefer it used the Alternity Ordinary/Good/Amazing success levels.


----------



## sellars (Feb 11, 2011)

*Mixed feelings*

We are currently playing 2 2nd edition campaigns after many years of 3rd edition. Our experience is that it takes a lot of adjustment to 2nd edition mechanics. 

I'm not sure what to think of it. On the one hand I feel the NWP's as inflexible, arbitrary and an odd-duckling within the rules. On the other hand, i like thefact that they leave lots of space to fill in as we see fit.


----------



## Dolgo (Feb 11, 2011)

sellars said:


> On the other hand, i like thefact that they leave lots of space to fill in as we see fit.




This sentence sums up a good bit of 2nd edition.  If you notice, a lot of rules are "optional" in 2nd edition, and I think thats my main gripe as I like to think that 3rd edition took all those "optional" rules and made it core mechanics.  2nd is still a fun edition despite the fact that I feel the main core books lack a lot of rules that 3rd edition main standard.  I like to be follow concrete rules in a system (im not much for house rules) but I would still play 2nd edition without hesitation flaws and all, for nostalgia.


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 11, 2011)

The only real problem with the NWP system was that it was implemented haphazardly.  The basic concept is sound, and to me the 4e skill system is basically identical to a cleaned up NWP system.  

The basic idea behind NWP is that you are either skilled or unskilled, and that your chance of success or failure doesn't depend much on level but on your ability score (and perhaps on a degree of specialization or focus).  Early editions do this with static difficulties and 4e does this with ever increasing bonuses largely matched by the expectation of ever increasing target numbers (or difficulties), but its basically the same idea of 'fixed math'.  

To me then, the merits of the NWP system are basically the same as the merits of 4e system - fixed math, ease of play, and high focus on character concept.  To a certain extent, because the old system allows for increasing breadth of skill through the course of play (as opposed to just depth, which 3e tends to encourage) I like it better than the 4e system and see merits of it over the 3e system (though not enough to adopt it into my homebrew).

The problem with NWP's in practice is that some fit this core concept well, while others departed from it.  One of my favorite NWP's was in fact a proto-feat that took some element of the game that D&D had never treated as a skill and gave you a bonus in it.  Some NWP's were quite narrow and some quite broad.  Others were just not that well thought out mechanically or had unique systems all to themselves.  In this way, they were alot like the 2e concept of 'kits' - good basic idea but frequently very poor implementation.

But you could clean up the system as part of a general house cleaning of the older editions and by and large I think it would work as well as any skill system in any system.


----------



## mmaranda (Feb 16, 2011)

I liked 2nd Eds System assuming they were used to show things the PCs  did exceptionally well. There are several places where the game  improperly or split its defeinition of a skill.

1) These are what your PCs do well. Other things they might be able to do but aren't experts at.

2) These are the things your PCs know how to do. If it isn't on the list your PC is no good at it.

It is a point they gloss over. But it should be if your PCs has the NWP  then they usually don't need to make a check they just do it. (See  languages) but if the task is really hard then they need to make the  check whereas an untrained person couldn't do it at all.

Another good example is riding: riding a horse a PC trained can do, but  untrained PCs will need to make checks and when combat happens will  likely fall off or dismount. In combat the trained rider can fight from  horseback but will need to make checks.


----------

