Glad to see the skill training laid out like this. Most people eventually get that it's a scale from Inability to Specialized with "untrained" not being an official--but still useful--definition. But showing it as an explicit chart definitely helps people just getting into Cypher/Numenera. Open-ended skill definitions are trickier to work with, but allow for a lot more flexibility than defined skill lists (e.g. D&D 5e/Pathfinder).
I'll say, even though I have been playing Numenera since it's original release, I still always learn something new from watching your videos. Thank you!
This is interesting, I had not noticed the Detailed Knowledge bit in the book until watching this and it makes some majure differances to the game overall. I think that adding some other skills along with the three already in the game is a good idea and I love the concept of specific and general skills as well. Thanks for the video and thanks for helping me find something new about a TTRPG I love.
This video is highly underrated for how much it has helped me. Very explanatory, beautifully edited and perfectly labeled. Thank you very much for your content
Thank you for the great discussion on Skills! Although I'm running a Cypher Ptolus game, I'll be sharing it with my group because the same principles apply. One thing that slipped by us: allowing skills related to a task to stack!
You're welcome! Thanks for watching! As a note, others have pointed out that the rules as written may seem to suggest that you can never stack more than 2 skills. I'm skeptical that the language specifically says this, but there is a section on page 103 of Discovery that does seem to suggest that, like Assets, you can only stack two skills at a given time and they cannot reduce a difficulty, it would seem, by more than 2 steps, again like Assets. That said, there are clear examples in the book of at least stacking two skills two lower a difficulty by 2. I prefer to reward players who think of interesting applications of their skills, so I don't typically impose limits on how many skills can be used, but sometimes I'll allow a +1 or +2 on a die roll if a player wants to stack a skill that's a bit of a stretch, but still interesting and makes sense.
@@THEINFINITECONSTRUCT Definitely agree with you finding creative ways to stack skills (as long as they 'fit.'). I'm all about creativity in the game - especially using existing Abilities for their Mechanics to reskin them and make new ones. I'm not a big fan of creating +1 and +2 bonuses, but that may be some PTSD from prior editions of other systems, LOL.
Great video, the only thing I have an issue with would be raising "General Skills", I would set them to a maximum of Trained. If a player wants their character Specialized in "Lying" they could take the advancement twice, where another player could take "Social Interactions" twice and achieve the same result but also benefit when they are not Lying.
That's where the GM may want to address the expectations and create some differences there. Some people like super detailed, well outlined skills with clear and direct functions, others like them a bit more open. If its the former you're after, or somewhere in between, you can always remove the option to take something like "Social Interactions" as a house rule and instead ask for more clear and outlined skills. There's nothing wrong with just using the list of skill names from something like 5e and just going by what those usually mean in that context.
It actually makes a lot of sense, thinking about this from the perspective of "deep knowledge" thing. So, let's say, you are trained in all Social Interactions - ok, this is quite general. Meaning, that you haven't ever had any training in lying/deception, so at some vital situations, general skill may simply not apply. Let me give you an example: Imagine a PC, who's trying to act gradually as somewhat of a charlatan, like in a classic stereotype dnd rogue-ask kinda way (...in all negative sense of it). So pretty much every social interaction initiated by that character will quite likely imply lying or deceiving. In this case, I'd say normal "All Social Interactions" may not apply any longer, as this requires not only "Interaction", but "Remembering all the legend that you've built so far, not to get confused in your own lies". So in this case, I would say, such action model would require way more specific training, rather than simply "All Social Interations". Like, sure, you know how to lie to people. You can tell a kid that Santa Claus is real - that is certainly a lie. But if you want to build an entire alternative story of Santa Claus and your personal relationships with him, including "Yeah I've met him last week, nice dude" - that would require a lot more than just a social interaction :) Well, or at least this is how I see it :)
I've never had much trouble with the skill rules. I'm used to classic *Traveller* where high levels of skills are almost unknown, so Numenera feels like a natural fit. The limitations imposed by the Cypher System, to me, make for more interesting situations and conflicts. Skills, Assets and Effort are all useful in achieving a task and, after all, the pools of attribute points are there to be used! Players should always consider Skills, Assets and Effort. We interpreted the levels of skill fairly literally, with "trained" being quite common, while "specialised" is unusual and ....err, special. Also -- 1st level of Asset, Skill or Effort is automatically granted (if relevant), but the 2nd specialised level requires a solid, narrative justification, or at least a bit of background colour. PC1: "This headshot is going to be better than the time I brought down a jiraskar with a hand buzzer!" PC2: "It has to be better, since you've never even seen a jiraskar." As there are also up to 2 levels of Assets, we're fairly generous with the 1st level of assets or skill, and much more strict on awarding a 2nd level. Another person's skill can be an Asset on your roll -- we never use more than one skill at a time as skills, but rarely a second skill can be an Asset if very (very) relevant. Thinking of real-world examples is useful and practical: trained soldier vs. specialised reconnaissance trooper, trained painter vs. outstanding landscape artist, trained aircraft pilot vs. Air Force test pilot or new Senator vs. whatever they called Emperor Palpatine before he became a wizened Skywalker-abusing piece of crap.
Another fantastic video, very eye-opening. That said, I'm a bit hung up on the idea that "all characters are assumed to start off with an inability in understanding, crafting, & salvaging Numenera". Many descriptors and Foci specifically penalize character builds (as a trade-off for other skills, abilities, or bonuses) with an inability in one or more of these detailed knowledge skills. If an inability is defined as a one-step increase in difficulty and all characters innately have an inability in these skills, would the penalized builds then not be "innabled" twice, once for the innate and once for their build-specific penalty? I think a better terminology here might be that all characters are assumed to be "untrained" in any skill not on their build sheet. Untrained would be a zero sum status quo for most denizens of the Ninth World, with no negative or positive effect on the difficulty track whereas an inability means they have an even harder time being effective at it, it doesn't click for them. Like me with advanced mathematics. I will not be solving any groundbreaking equations anytime soon. 😁 So: Inability - 1 Untrained 0 Trained +1 Specialized +2 Or am I just missing the forest for the trees on this?
I think it's easier to think of it as you would disadvantage in 5e, you can only have an inability of something. Not have an inability with inability on top. Of cause if you want to have your home game work with lower than -1, or higher than +2, I am sure nobody will stop you. It's your game. :) Edit: I think they choose -1 to 2 as a range to not discourage people too much from trying stuff they aren't on paper specialized at. Effort being another way to lower the difficulty outside skills, helps with this.
You do correctly grasp Inability. Your understanding is correct. The thing is, characters truly do have an Inability in numenera-based tasks unless explicitly states otherwise. (Nanos get Understanding Numenera, Wrights get Crafting, and Delves get Salvaging.) This was a change made with Destiny & Discovery. It wasn't this way in the original Corebook of 2013. I think The Infinite Construct explained it really well.
@@elementzero3379 So everyone in the Ninth World, by default, is disadvantaged by 1 difficulty level to these Numenera-based skills and certain character builds that specify these as inabilities get an additional difficulty level for a total of difficulty + 2? Confusing to track but certainly makes sense in the lore of the world.
@@zeuslgn I don't think I was clear, but rather muddied the waters. I'll try again. Everyone in the Ninth World starts out with an inability in numenera-based tasks because of the inscrutable nature of the numenera. The various Inabilities called out for Glaives, Jacks, Nanos, Arkai, Delves and Wrights DO NOT compound this. There's no double-dipping in this case. If there were, we'd have Nanos worse at crafting and salvaging numenera than your average farmer. The concept of an over-arching numenera inability is cited in one part of Discovery (probably page 27), and then the situation is explicitly repeated as a reminder under each Type. I can see how it might cause a bit of confusion. I imagine it was done this way to make sure we had a reminder right there in the character creation process. After all, few will pore over the detailed explanation of skills on page 27 before creating their character, but everyone will read the info for their chosen Type.
@@elementzero3379 No, the explanation you modified to this one was much more clear to me: “I'm not sure if I've been clear, so I'll try again to be sure. Everyone in the setting starts out bewildered by the numenera. This includes player characters. This initial bewilderment is represented by an inability in the three numenera-based skills. Unless a player character is explicitly stated to be an exception, that character begins with an inability. This initial inability is the one called out in the rules text for types. Glaives, Jacks and Nanos don't begin with a double inability in "crafting numenera". They only begin with the inability cited in the rules text under the Type. Characters who are Nanos begin Trained in "understanding numenera". This means that the Nano character has not only overcome that initial inability by the time they take the stage at Tier 1, but that they've also progressed to Trained. They're effectively two steps ahead of your average Ninth Worlder. Delves are similarly advanced in salvaging, and Wrights in crafting. So, no double-dipping in Inabilities. It's just the single Inability that most player characters will face, at least in terms of the numenera skills. The Type will always lay it out explicitly. I'm sure there is a corner case here or there. If you get an inability in Knowledge skills from your Descriptor, for instance, that would indeed stack. In that case, your character's innate inability with "knowledge tasks" is compounded by the inscrutable nature of the numenera, making for a doubly difficult (doubly hindered) situation.” This makes sense. A typical NPC chef or a messenger, for example, in the Ninth World generally has zero knowledge regarding numenera as you said, it’s just freaky magic to them, inscrutable weirdness, so any task involving numenera would be extra difficult for them whereas a nano, wright, or delve have not only overcome this innate difficulty but are trained or even specialized in it. So does this mean a typical Arkus, Jack, or Glaive have also overcome it due to life experiences but otherwise remain untrained (thus no double dipping in inabilities)?
Good video. I think you did well in prefacing the part where you put skills into categories. It may have meant a bit of kit-bashing terminology (well put), but it was very well done. If you're out in the weeds somewhere on this, I'm right there with you. I thought it was a great description. I have a question regarding a scenario. I know how I rule it, but I'm curious as to how you rule it. I'll use one particular Focus since it fits perfectly. Let's say we have a "Glaive who Explores Yesterday"? Their Focus, "Explores Yesterday" gives training in "Salvaging Numenera". Glaives have an inability. Do you impose the inability? Technically, the Inability should probably stand, but that's not how I rule it. If a character begins play with training such a skill, whether via Descriptor, Type or Focus, I feel that implies they've already put in the work in via prior experience or education to move beyond that Inability. This does mean that you could have, at my table, a Tier 1 "Learned Nano" (gains 3 additional knowledge skills) who is Trained in all three Numenera-based skills without Inabilities, and I'm okay with that. This learned person has focused their learning in a very particular direction, and may be well along the path to becoming an Aeon Priest. Thoughts? Does training at the time character creation allow allow your PCs to ditch the Inability? I say "Yay", though I believe the Rules-as-Written are a "Nay".
It depends on a variety of factors and this definitely is one of the key areas where the book could use a bit more clarity and definitive yes/no. It would seem that the book implies that unless your Type gives you training, you have an inability in the detailed knowledge skills. *My* approach is that as long as something in your character creation sentence gives you training, you have it. So your glaive who explores yesterday, at my table, would have training in salvaging numenera. That may not be RAW, but I think it's fair otherwise they have to wait until the next Tier to gain salvaging. Some might argue that's the trade off of picking a Glaive, so if there was a Delve in the party who was really into salvaging, I might leave the glaive being practiced in salvaging (practiced being another category that could use some more clarification). My perspective is that if they, meaning MCG, wanted the glaive and jack to start with those inabilities, they should be listed in the Type section--especially as crafting and salvaging ARE mentioned in the Skills section. At the end of the day though, if a character has an extra level of training sooner than they should otherwise, that's just one level of difficulty they're getting for free in a very specialized area. Not the worst thing in the world, especially if it helps players realize their concept better. 1 level of difficulty/+3 on the die isn't going to break the game
Very interesting video, as always, but it did raise some questions for me. When you talk about the path from inability to specialization, you mention that training in something you have an inability on simply raises the character to "untrained", as the bonuses cancel out. This becomes messy however, when you consider that, when it comes to Numenera skills, even though you roll as if you have an inability if you are not trained, a few Types have an explicit inability with Numenera tasks (Glaive, Delve, Wright, Arkus) whereas some don't (Jack, Nano). This has caused much confusion at my table before and ended up with us ruling that these "inherent inabilities" cannot be trained out, which makes individual Types more well defined in their skill set. Is this just the book being inconsistent, or do you think there's something to be interpreted there? When it comes to "skill stacking", you mentioned going beyond what a single skill can ease (paraphrasing). I know that section is less RAW, and has more interpretation behind it, but do you mean allowing skills to be combined for a benefit beyond "specialized"? If yes, how would you balance that so that Assets (including the super important Help Action) and Effort remain relevant? On General vs Specialized skills, in my experience both as a GM and player, when you give players a more generalized version of the same skill vs a more specific version (Social Interactions vs Lying), the player would always pick the general skill (after all, why just become better at one type of interaction when, for the exact same cost, you can get better at ALL of them?). The option makes sense for players that start with specific skills from their Character Statement, and want to branch out, but doesn't it risk concentrating too many benefits in a single advancement? I know not all general skills can "upgrade" specific skills like this, but I'd like to know your thoughts. Again, thank you so much for your insights, they've been an inspiration when running my games, even if me and my players end up with different interpretations of this flexible system.
I am quite sure a character can train, use 4 xp, an inability up to untrained. And for that matter train 8t all the way to specialized. Maybe your Glaive is that rare one that at tier 4 is specialized in understanding numenera.
In "Priests of the Aeons", there is a Long-Term Task "Overcoming an Inability". It requires 1 month, 1XP and a successful Difficulty 4 roll with that skill. While spending 4XP to overcome an Inability is one way to do it, I'm not at all opposed to the less expensive Long-term Task. I really enjoy Long-term Play in RPGs, and I love how Numenera has codified some perks and character growth.
On Discovery page 103, there is a sidebar that reads: "The important thing to remember is that a skill can reduce the difficulty by no more than two steps, and assets can reduce the difficulty by no more than two steps, regardless of the situation. Thus, no task's difficulty will ever be reduced by more than four steps without using Effort." This presents a cap to the benefit from stacking skills. Two Trained skills can achieve two steps of benefit, but one Trained skill and one Specialized skill achieves the same ceiling of two steps.
I'm not certain the skill stacking description here is accurate. The sidebar in Discovery on page 103 would indicate that, without Effort, skills and abilities together can't reduce a difficulty by more than 4 steps, because skills are limited to 2 steps, and assets are limited to 2 as well. What would break that assumption, made around 15:50?
You've got a good point based on that sidebar. If that's the case, then stacking skills should never go above that of 2 steps, but the book does clearly spell out examples of using different skills for the same task, and even uses the "skills" in the plural multiple times. From what I've seen it only ever suggests that a single skill has the two level restriction, not that skills as a category do--and it makes that clear for assets, that there can be a maximum of assets. Then I'd also have to wonder about Assessed Difficulty with the crafting system; you can't lower that with Effort, and I can't imagine that by design the game would restrict you to only being able to lower the assessed difficulty of a crafting task by 2 steps. I feel like if they wanted to put that restriction on skills, they would've made it clear as they do with assets. But you could be right. What I'll often do with indirectly-related skills is sometimes allow players to use them, but have them take up an asset slot OR consider giving them a +1 or a +2 on the roll for the extra skills. So if you want to air on a more conservative reading of the rules but still want to reward players who train in different areas, you could always use that +1 or +2 to the die roll as a sort of extra bonus.
@@THEINFINITECONSTRUCT Hey! I don't wanna be that guy, but you used the word Air where I think you meant the word Err. To err is to be mistaken or incorrect about a thing. A related word is error. Not a big deal, and I feel like anyone familiar with the phrase would know exactly what you meant, but I thought you might want to know. Super helpful video!
My first playthrouh keeps crashing at the second dream it’s nots letting me kill the last black thing and I’m so strong and me team has all they upgrade
skills is a confusing part of cypher, your video helped thanks
9 months late but when I just learned Numenera I wished your videos were around. Definitely going to fill my watch later with your Numenera vids
Glad to see the skill training laid out like this. Most people eventually get that it's a scale from Inability to Specialized with "untrained" not being an official--but still useful--definition. But showing it as an explicit chart definitely helps people just getting into Cypher/Numenera.
Open-ended skill definitions are trickier to work with, but allow for a lot more flexibility than defined skill lists (e.g. D&D 5e/Pathfinder).
I'll say, even though I have been playing Numenera since it's original release, I still always learn something new from watching your videos. Thank you!
This is interesting, I had not noticed the Detailed Knowledge bit in the book until watching this and it makes some majure differances to the game overall. I think that adding some other skills along with the three already in the game is a good idea and I love the concept of specific and general skills as well. Thanks for the video and thanks for helping me find something new about a TTRPG I love.
This video is highly underrated for how much it has helped me. Very explanatory, beautifully edited and perfectly labeled. Thank you very much for your content
Thank you for the great discussion on Skills! Although I'm running a Cypher Ptolus game, I'll be sharing it with my group because the same principles apply. One thing that slipped by us: allowing skills related to a task to stack!
You're welcome! Thanks for watching! As a note, others have pointed out that the rules as written may seem to suggest that you can never stack more than 2 skills. I'm skeptical that the language specifically says this, but there is a section on page 103 of Discovery that does seem to suggest that, like Assets, you can only stack two skills at a given time and they cannot reduce a difficulty, it would seem, by more than 2 steps, again like Assets. That said, there are clear examples in the book of at least stacking two skills two lower a difficulty by 2.
I prefer to reward players who think of interesting applications of their skills, so I don't typically impose limits on how many skills can be used, but sometimes I'll allow a +1 or +2 on a die roll if a player wants to stack a skill that's a bit of a stretch, but still interesting and makes sense.
@@THEINFINITECONSTRUCT Definitely agree with you finding creative ways to stack skills (as long as they 'fit.'). I'm all about creativity in the game - especially using existing Abilities for their Mechanics to reskin them and make new ones. I'm not a big fan of creating +1 and +2 bonuses, but that may be some PTSD from prior editions of other systems, LOL.
i'm playing numenera for the first time soon and your videos are so helpful!
thank you so much for all your work!!
Once again a great choice of topic and handled in a way that makes it completely clear. Most enlightening !
another excellent video Claire! Anthony
Great video, the only thing I have an issue with would be raising "General Skills", I would set them to a maximum of Trained.
If a player wants their character Specialized in "Lying" they could take the advancement twice, where another player could take "Social Interactions" twice and achieve the same result but also benefit when they are not Lying.
That's where the GM may want to address the expectations and create some differences there. Some people like super detailed, well outlined skills with clear and direct functions, others like them a bit more open. If its the former you're after, or somewhere in between, you can always remove the option to take something like "Social Interactions" as a house rule and instead ask for more clear and outlined skills. There's nothing wrong with just using the list of skill names from something like 5e and just going by what those usually mean in that context.
It actually makes a lot of sense, thinking about this from the perspective of "deep knowledge" thing. So, let's say, you are trained in all Social Interactions - ok, this is quite general. Meaning, that you haven't ever had any training in lying/deception, so at some vital situations, general skill may simply not apply.
Let me give you an example:
Imagine a PC, who's trying to act gradually as somewhat of a charlatan, like in a classic stereotype dnd rogue-ask kinda way (...in all negative sense of it).
So pretty much every social interaction initiated by that character will quite likely imply lying or deceiving. In this case, I'd say normal "All Social Interactions" may not apply any longer, as this requires not only "Interaction", but "Remembering all the legend that you've built so far, not to get confused in your own lies".
So in this case, I would say, such action model would require way more specific training, rather than simply "All Social Interations". Like, sure, you know how to lie to people. You can tell a kid that Santa Claus is real - that is certainly a lie. But if you want to build an entire alternative story of Santa Claus and your personal relationships with him, including "Yeah I've met him last week, nice dude" - that would require a lot more than just a social interaction :)
Well, or at least this is how I see it :)
Awesome video, thank you! :) A lot of things to think of
This will be very useful when I find my next group to run Numenera.
Awesome breakdown.
I've never had much trouble with the skill rules. I'm used to classic *Traveller* where high levels of skills are almost unknown, so Numenera feels like a natural fit. The limitations imposed by the Cypher System, to me, make for more interesting situations and conflicts. Skills, Assets and Effort are all useful in achieving a task and, after all, the pools of attribute points are there to be used!
Players should always consider Skills, Assets and Effort. We interpreted the levels of skill fairly literally, with "trained" being quite common, while "specialised" is unusual and ....err, special. Also -- 1st level of Asset, Skill or Effort is automatically granted (if relevant), but the 2nd specialised level requires a solid, narrative justification, or at least a bit of background colour.
PC1: "This headshot is going to be better than the time I brought down a jiraskar with a hand buzzer!"
PC2: "It has to be better, since you've never even seen a jiraskar."
As there are also up to 2 levels of Assets, we're fairly generous with the 1st level of assets or skill, and much more strict on awarding a 2nd level. Another person's skill can be an Asset on your roll -- we never use more than one skill at a time as skills, but rarely a second skill can be an Asset if very (very) relevant.
Thinking of real-world examples is useful and practical: trained soldier vs. specialised reconnaissance trooper, trained painter vs. outstanding landscape artist, trained aircraft pilot vs. Air Force test pilot or new Senator vs. whatever they called Emperor Palpatine before he became a wizened Skywalker-abusing piece of crap.
Another fantastic video, very eye-opening.
That said, I'm a bit hung up on the idea that "all characters are assumed to start off with an inability in understanding, crafting, & salvaging Numenera".
Many descriptors and Foci specifically penalize character builds (as a trade-off for other skills, abilities, or bonuses) with an inability in one or more of these detailed knowledge skills.
If an inability is defined as a one-step increase in difficulty and all characters innately have an inability in these skills, would the penalized builds then not be "innabled" twice, once for the innate and once for their build-specific penalty?
I think a better terminology here might be that all characters are assumed to be "untrained" in any skill not on their build sheet. Untrained would be a zero sum status quo for most denizens of the Ninth World, with no negative or positive effect on the difficulty track whereas an inability means they have an even harder time being effective at it, it doesn't click for them. Like me with advanced mathematics. I will not be solving any groundbreaking equations anytime soon. 😁
So:
Inability - 1
Untrained 0
Trained +1
Specialized +2
Or am I just missing the forest for the trees on this?
I think it's easier to think of it as you would disadvantage in 5e, you can only have an inability of something. Not have an inability with inability on top. Of cause if you want to have your home game work with lower than -1, or higher than +2, I am sure nobody will stop you. It's your game. :)
Edit: I think they choose -1 to 2 as a range to not discourage people too much from trying stuff they aren't on paper specialized at. Effort being another way to lower the difficulty outside skills, helps with this.
You do correctly grasp Inability. Your understanding is correct.
The thing is, characters truly do have an Inability in numenera-based tasks unless explicitly states otherwise. (Nanos get Understanding Numenera, Wrights get Crafting, and Delves get Salvaging.) This was a change made with Destiny & Discovery. It wasn't this way in the original Corebook of 2013. I think The Infinite Construct explained it really well.
@@elementzero3379 So everyone in the Ninth World, by default, is disadvantaged by 1 difficulty level to these Numenera-based skills and certain character builds that specify these as inabilities get an additional difficulty level for a total of difficulty + 2?
Confusing to track but certainly makes sense in the lore of the world.
@@zeuslgn I don't think I was clear, but rather muddied the waters. I'll try again.
Everyone in the Ninth World starts out with an inability in numenera-based tasks because of the inscrutable nature of the numenera. The various Inabilities called out for Glaives, Jacks, Nanos, Arkai, Delves and Wrights DO NOT compound this. There's no double-dipping in this case. If there were, we'd have Nanos worse at crafting and salvaging numenera than your average farmer.
The concept of an over-arching numenera inability is cited in one part of Discovery (probably page 27), and then the situation is explicitly repeated as a reminder under each Type.
I can see how it might cause a bit of confusion. I imagine it was done this way to make sure we had a reminder right there in the character creation process. After all, few will pore over the detailed explanation of skills on page 27 before creating their character, but everyone will read the info for their chosen Type.
@@elementzero3379 No, the explanation you modified to this one was much more clear to me:
“I'm not sure if I've been clear, so I'll try again to be sure. Everyone in the setting starts out bewildered by the numenera. This includes player characters. This initial bewilderment is represented by an inability in the three numenera-based skills. Unless a player character is explicitly stated to be an exception, that character begins with an inability. This initial inability is the one called out in the rules text for types. Glaives, Jacks and Nanos don't begin with a double inability in "crafting numenera". They only begin with the inability cited in the rules text under the Type. Characters who are Nanos begin Trained in "understanding numenera". This means that the Nano character has not only overcome that initial inability by the time they take the stage at Tier 1, but that they've also progressed to Trained. They're effectively two steps ahead of your average Ninth Worlder. Delves are similarly advanced in salvaging, and Wrights in crafting. So, no double-dipping in Inabilities. It's just the single Inability that most player characters will face, at least in terms of the numenera skills. The Type will always lay it out explicitly. I'm sure there is a corner case here or there. If you get an inability in Knowledge skills from your Descriptor, for instance, that would indeed stack. In that case, your character's innate inability with "knowledge tasks" is compounded by the inscrutable nature of the numenera, making for a doubly difficult (doubly hindered) situation.”
This makes sense. A typical NPC chef or a messenger, for example, in the Ninth World generally has zero knowledge regarding numenera as you said, it’s just freaky magic to them, inscrutable weirdness, so any task involving numenera would be extra difficult for them whereas a nano, wright, or delve have not only overcome this innate difficulty but are trained or even specialized in it.
So does this mean a typical Arkus, Jack, or Glaive have also overcome it due to life experiences but otherwise remain untrained (thus no double dipping in inabilities)?
Stuff like this can be confusing, thank you
Good video. I think you did well in prefacing the part where you put skills into categories. It may have meant a bit of kit-bashing terminology (well put), but it was very well done. If you're out in the weeds somewhere on this, I'm right there with you. I thought it was a great description.
I have a question regarding a scenario. I know how I rule it, but I'm curious as to how you rule it. I'll use one particular Focus since it fits perfectly.
Let's say we have a "Glaive who Explores Yesterday"? Their Focus, "Explores Yesterday" gives training in "Salvaging Numenera". Glaives have an inability. Do you impose the inability?
Technically, the Inability should probably stand, but that's not how I rule it. If a character begins play with training such a skill, whether via Descriptor, Type or Focus, I feel that implies they've already put in the work in via prior experience or education to move beyond that Inability.
This does mean that you could have, at my table, a Tier 1 "Learned Nano" (gains 3 additional knowledge skills) who is Trained in all three Numenera-based skills without Inabilities, and I'm okay with that. This learned person has focused their learning in a very particular direction, and may be well along the path to becoming an Aeon Priest.
Thoughts? Does training at the time character creation allow allow your PCs to ditch the Inability? I say "Yay", though I believe the Rules-as-Written are a "Nay".
It depends on a variety of factors and this definitely is one of the key areas where the book could use a bit more clarity and definitive yes/no.
It would seem that the book implies that unless your Type gives you training, you have an inability in the detailed knowledge skills.
*My* approach is that as long as something in your character creation sentence gives you training, you have it. So your glaive who explores yesterday, at my table, would have training in salvaging numenera. That may not be RAW, but I think it's fair otherwise they have to wait until the next Tier to gain salvaging. Some might argue that's the trade off of picking a Glaive, so if there was a Delve in the party who was really into salvaging, I might leave the glaive being practiced in salvaging (practiced being another category that could use some more clarification).
My perspective is that if they, meaning MCG, wanted the glaive and jack to start with those inabilities, they should be listed in the Type section--especially as crafting and salvaging ARE mentioned in the Skills section.
At the end of the day though, if a character has an extra level of training sooner than they should otherwise, that's just one level of difficulty they're getting for free in a very specialized area. Not the worst thing in the world, especially if it helps players realize their concept better. 1 level of difficulty/+3 on the die isn't going to break the game
Very interesting video, as always, but it did raise some questions for me.
When you talk about the path from inability to specialization, you mention that training in something you have an inability on simply raises the character to "untrained", as the bonuses cancel out. This becomes messy however, when you consider that, when it comes to Numenera skills, even though you roll as if you have an inability if you are not trained, a few Types have an explicit inability with Numenera tasks (Glaive, Delve, Wright, Arkus) whereas some don't (Jack, Nano). This has caused much confusion at my table before and ended up with us ruling that these "inherent inabilities" cannot be trained out, which makes individual Types more well defined in their skill set. Is this just the book being inconsistent, or do you think there's something to be interpreted there?
When it comes to "skill stacking", you mentioned going beyond what a single skill can ease (paraphrasing). I know that section is less RAW, and has more interpretation behind it, but do you mean allowing skills to be combined for a benefit beyond "specialized"? If yes, how would you balance that so that Assets (including the super important Help Action) and Effort remain relevant?
On General vs Specialized skills, in my experience both as a GM and player, when you give players a more generalized version of the same skill vs a more specific version (Social Interactions vs Lying), the player would always pick the general skill (after all, why just become better at one type of interaction when, for the exact same cost, you can get better at ALL of them?). The option makes sense for players that start with specific skills from their Character Statement, and want to branch out, but doesn't it risk concentrating too many benefits in a single advancement? I know not all general skills can "upgrade" specific skills like this, but I'd like to know your thoughts.
Again, thank you so much for your insights, they've been an inspiration when running my games, even if me and my players end up with different interpretations of this flexible system.
I am quite sure a character can train, use 4 xp, an inability up to untrained. And for that matter train 8t all the way to specialized. Maybe your Glaive is that rare one that at tier 4 is specialized in understanding numenera.
In "Priests of the Aeons", there is a Long-Term Task "Overcoming an Inability". It requires 1 month, 1XP and a successful Difficulty 4 roll with that skill.
While spending 4XP to overcome an Inability is one way to do it, I'm not at all opposed to the less expensive Long-term Task. I really enjoy Long-term Play in RPGs, and I love how Numenera has codified some perks and character growth.
On Discovery page 103, there is a sidebar that reads: "The important thing to remember is that a skill can reduce the difficulty by no more than two steps, and assets can reduce the difficulty by no more than two steps, regardless of the situation. Thus, no task's difficulty will ever be reduced by more than four steps without using Effort."
This presents a cap to the benefit from stacking skills. Two Trained skills can achieve two steps of benefit, but one Trained skill and one Specialized skill achieves the same ceiling of two steps.
Great content thank u
I'm not certain the skill stacking description here is accurate. The sidebar in Discovery on page 103 would indicate that, without Effort, skills and abilities together can't reduce a difficulty by more than 4 steps, because skills are limited to 2 steps, and assets are limited to 2 as well. What would break that assumption, made around 15:50?
You've got a good point based on that sidebar. If that's the case, then stacking skills should never go above that of 2 steps, but the book does clearly spell out examples of using different skills for the same task, and even uses the "skills" in the plural multiple times. From what I've seen it only ever suggests that a single skill has the two level restriction, not that skills as a category do--and it makes that clear for assets, that there can be a maximum of assets.
Then I'd also have to wonder about Assessed Difficulty with the crafting system; you can't lower that with Effort, and I can't imagine that by design the game would restrict you to only being able to lower the assessed difficulty of a crafting task by 2 steps.
I feel like if they wanted to put that restriction on skills, they would've made it clear as they do with assets. But you could be right.
What I'll often do with indirectly-related skills is sometimes allow players to use them, but have them take up an asset slot OR consider giving them a +1 or a +2 on the roll for the extra skills. So if you want to air on a more conservative reading of the rules but still want to reward players who train in different areas, you could always use that +1 or +2 to the die roll as a sort of extra bonus.
@@THEINFINITECONSTRUCT Hey!
I don't wanna be that guy, but you used the word Air where I think you meant the word Err. To err is to be mistaken or incorrect about a thing. A related word is error.
Not a big deal, and I feel like anyone familiar with the phrase would know exactly what you meant, but I thought you might want to know.
Super helpful video!
My first playthrouh keeps crashing at the second dream it’s nots letting me kill the last black thing and I’m so strong and me team has all they upgrade