@Kho There is one. I found it digging through the reference link info.

There is only one for the most skilled individuals. We have to figure it out ourselves for our less skilled characters.

@Kho There is one. I found it digging through the reference link info.

Yup, saw that one already xP as @ZB1996 says though, that's only for the most skilled people - and unfortunately for me, I doubt Aulus (talented though he is!) is anywhere near that.

Maybe a '10-Tier' System that goes from -10 up to 10 would work? The tiers in the reference sheet can be incorporated by placing them from Tier 5 to Tier 10 respectively (Tier 10 being the highest).

I would obviously opt for not having any kind of fixed tier-system, but as it's already in place, might as well build on it properly ^^'

<Snipped quote by Wraithblade6>

Yup, saw that one already xP as @ZB1996 says though, that's only for the most skilled people - and unfortunately for me, I doubt Aulus (talented though he is!) is anywhere near that.

Maybe a '10-Tier' System that goes from -10 up to 10 would work? The tiers in the reference sheet can be incorporated by placing them from Tier 5 to Tier 10 respectively (Tier 10 being the highest).

I would obviously opt for not having any kind of fixed tier-system, but as it's already in place, might as well build on it properly ^^'

To be honest, and this is me putting in my arena experience and understanding mind you, a tier isn't always going to determine who wins. One thing you need to recall and keep in mind is that power and skill is only one part of the whole fight. There's numerous other factors you need to consider from scenery around you, the condition of your foe, and how well the chess match of blades or whatever actually goes story wise. Mastery doesn't mean you can't learn from a novice a new trick after all.

Oh... To be honest, I didn't know the tiers were only for godlike-level characters. I assumed they were applicable to all "skilled" characters as a way to relate ability to each other. Should I change my character sheet? Should we get a more widely encompassing rating scale first?

no system is perfect. besides, if you want to have a full tier system that always determines winners, the simplest solution is to implement a complete tabletop system. But everyone here knows that this isn't a stat-based RP.

In here, a tier system that covers all general levels (and not just best-of-best) would be a rough idea. A skilled (or lucky) weakling can still kill one of the best given the right situation. For example, even the most powerful mage tends to leak out in all the wrong ways if someone sinks a blade or arrow into their heart or brain or somesuch. Or for a more martial example, a man (or woman) dressed in a perfect suit of full plate mail—which is the medieval equivalent of a tank (as someone here coined it)—will still die they get an arrow through the eyeslot of their helmet or simply get thrown into a river or lake deep enough not to stand on the bottom of while keeping head above surface.

I'm personally a proponent of 'RPing stuff out' with as little interference from stats and whatnot - but I think a tier-system may help since each player seems to already have developed their own. This would just be a matter of unifying everything and making it more streamlined. It would simply be a reference of base 'skill' rather than something that would decide battles and duels in future.

For instance: Aulus, being young and inexperienced but well-trained, may be a Tier 1 in the -10 to 10 system
A veteran soldier, being experienced and trained, may be a Tier 2

But Aulus killed two of the above in the last post using trickery xP it would simply act as a measure of 'pure' skill stripped of context. I believe the Tier 1-5 in the reference sheet is likewise stripped of context.

The tier ranking in the reference sheet is only for the top swordsmen in Formaroth. While we are on this subject if anyone thinks their characters should be on the list somewhere let me know (that also includes the magic list as well). I have also decided to put Duncan's swordsman skills from adept to apprentice as it seems more realistic that Duncan's combat skills would be lacking.

My own personal system is like this:

Master: Among the best in Formaroth
Expert: Better than near everyone
Adept: Skilled
Apprentice: Knows the basics
Novice: Still in training

If this were to translate to skill in combat/magic

Master: Legenary swordmen/High Magisters
Expert: Generals/Magisters
Adept: Professional soldier/Circle Mage
Apprentice: Trained Militia/New mage
Novice: Untrained Militia/Circle Student

And right at the top is Claus ;)

@Kho Well I could add in a additional tier list and place people accordingly based on how I interpret it. Though as Reaper mentioned it doesn't necessarily mean someone in a higher tier will always come out on top. If you like I wouldn't mind making this list.

Personality I see both points of view. On one side it is a nice indicator to see how skilled certain individuals are compared to others, though it is important to note that players should not determine the outcome of battles purely based on the ranking of character in tiers.

@TheDuncanMorgan It all depends on what the majority of players is comfortable with.
I personally wouldn't mind seeing it so long as its made clear that the Tier system wouldn't be the be-all and end-all of battles. It is merely pure skill bereft of context (e.g. Aulus using trickery to defeat those who are more skilled)

@Kho Out of interest how would you rank Aulus on my own personal list, simply based off skill.

Master: Legenary swordmen/High Magisters
Expert: Generals/Magisters
Adept: Professional soldier/Circle Mage
Apprentice: Trained Militia/New mage
Novice: Untrained Militia/Circle Student

5 ranks, 5 tiers. 1 = best, 5 = lowest.

@Wraithblade6 I suppose that works just as well, though I suppose like to add a bit of theatricality to it.

And right at the top is Claus ;)

Well, technically it's "the Old man" who's the best fighter.
Claus is just the best one after that. And probably the one who will take first spot when the old man hits the dirt.

I like the System Duncan put up.
I wonder if i should change my sheet to better follow it?

If a system with numbers is what people want however, i suggest a system my friend created for a freeform-esque rpg system.
With a ranking between -to 6 determines the skill of a person.

- = Unable.
0 = Untrained.
1 = Some basic training. Can do the task but might miss a few points.
2 = Trained, knows all the basic things needed to perform the task without any problems.
3 = Professional, the character can make a living on the skill. Warriors have 3 in their primary fighting skill.
4 = Elite, superior knowledge and skill. The fighting prowess of a knight is 4.
5 = One of the best in the world, few can reach this level of skill and only training every day and honing of one's skill can keep a character at this level.
6 = The best in the world. Only one may hold this number.

Claus would be 5 in close combat. Perhaps 6 in greatsword seeing it's his preferred weapon.
He would be Strategy 3, probably archery 2 and farming 1.

However when making my character, i sorta guessed what Duncan meant with Adept, Master and all that. So it seems Claus might be better at some things than i intended.
Oh well.

Do note in the system mentioned above, the steps are kinda big when it comes to skills that is not fighting. The system actually has a combat system and there those with higher skill get bonuses against people with lower skill.
Olympic athletes would be 5, competing on who is 6.
Technically, 6 changes on a day to day basis. But that's annoying to keep track of.

I'd say regardless of what we go with, i'm kinda chill. But it would be useful to have an agreed upon naming so people have a better view on the capabilities of the different characters.
It's not a competition, sure. But it is fun to compare and imagine scenarios after all :P

Could Claus defeat The Snake in close combat? Would he be able to outlast Lana in a drinking contest?
Who knows?

@Kho Out of interest how would you rank Aulus on my own personal list, simply based off skill.

In your system Aulus would be an Apprentice. In Klomster's system he would be a Tier 2

(I think maybe Klomster's better reflects his level as Aulus is definitely better than your average militiaman, but not quite on the level of a professional, experienced soldier. So if anything, in your system Aulus would be above Apprentice but below Adept.)

@Klomster Claus needed a 6. lol

Are we goign with this number system then? If so, my numbers are in reverse and I need to change them.

We have a saying in my line of work... There is alwayd someone better and faster. The whole tier thing sounds good but in the end no one is good enough to survive a couple of good archers trying to kill them. Just throwing that out there.

I would support the whole "RP things ouy". We only have to look at Jamie Lanister to see how far being "the best" can get you.

@The Wyrm I have no doubt that every fight will be rp'd out. The ranks are only a gist to work with when writing.

@The Wyrm I have no doubt that every fight will be rp'd out. The ranks are only a gist to work with when writing.

It looks more like a Roleplayerguild version of a dick measuring contest ;-)

But if it makes folks happy I'll wotk on it for Rhaetia.

My two cents were said, which honestly... my PCs don't have very much, if any combat skill. :P I'm happy to go with a number skill as long as we all are in agreement story>numbers. If it has a story reason for say Aulus to beat Claus, used due to their differences in that area, then allow it and the numbers be ignored.