I should say that, even by the standards of gamers, I know nothing about kung-fu or martial arts.

So, if this is hideously off base. Well... there you go.

---

The characters, all of whom are martial artists, get together for a big martial arts tournament. They'll fight each other, they'll fight NPCs. There are big personalities.

• The aging grandmaster and his Cabinet of Thunder (a powerful group of warrior brethren)
• The secret cult of anonymous mystic warriors engaged in a shadow battle
• Serpent men looking for easy converts
• The emperors spies (he's concerned about the threat of this martial artists on order in the empire
• The aging grandmaster's failed and evil disciple, rumored to have returned to humiliate his master
• delegations from half a dozen major schools, and individuals from a score more

And the game really runs like a tournament. You can hang out and roleplay at inns with other martial artists, masters and wannabes, get your pocket picked, get approached by one or more interested power groups, watch various fights and make checks to see if you can identify weaknesses you could use in later matches, make alliances with other fighters, and even try to cheat.

The whole shebang.

---

In a PbP game I think you'd want 12 - 18 pcs and you'd probably need a second or even third DM to keep the game going (refereeing PC fights and interactions, getting people involved in sub-plots, etc).

There would be an understanding that it would be possible for some members to "advance" to a campaign; so the stakes would be that you could keep playing your (presumably awesome) character if you "did well".

The 'catch' is that the campaign would involve another group that had been watching the game from the sidelines; so it wouldn't be based upon winning the tournament. PCs who showed the proper mindset (discipline, manners, grace in defeat) would be selected, not necessarily the guy who did the most damage.



Due to the tournament laws that only one person may challenge another on a given day no-one else may challenge the "renegade" and he becomes the master of the school.

The campaign?
He picks the PCs, or gets help from the hidden mystic brotherhood to pick the PCs, for a mission.
They are honor bound to accept.

The PCs have to work for this person, who, while being a terrible person on a personal level, wants very much to protect and maintain the school and it's area (now that its finally his or hers).

---

In 4e you'd have to take a few liberties.

The monk is due out at some point, so you'd have a non-striker (hopefully a defender) open-handed-warrior type class.

On top of that "monk base" each character they'd get another class that represents the secret techiniques of their school.
In mechanics terms "free multiclassing".

They'd get an improved version of the multi-class benefit (probably sneak attack/quarry whatever as an encounter instead of a daily) as well as a "free" encounter or a daily power from that class list. And more "free" powers from their secondary class as they advanced in level.

These powers would be reflavored as martial arts powers.

You might need to do some tweaking -- handing out a few more attribution points -- to avoid MAD problems.

Graf

Given the problems with social skill challenges discussed earlier this is the "best" solution I've seen.

It's basically like the sign at amusement park rides that says "You must be this high..."

The DM only lets people roll if their argument is reasonably compelling. Their argument must be "this good" or better before you can roll. ("This good" being a completely arbitrary measure where the DM thinks "is this a reasonable argument, or not?")

It allows people put forth their arguments in advance, and feel as if it's meant something.
It doesn't really reward a great argument but it does weed out the

King: Why should I help you?
Player: Because I said so!
rolls die.... 20!
King: OK. Sure. That makes sense.

type scenario.

---

In fact, for some groups, this will probably work fine. So long as everyone is into arguing and roleplaying it could actually be a fun way to play. People feel like their effort matters, and everyone people who puts forward some sort of effort will be able get a roll.

The arguments that are accepted will all be convincing. And NPCs not accepting a given argument can be chalked up to some sort of personality disagreement.

Problem solved?

---

The problem, from a game design standpoint, is that this punishes people who aren't into arguing and debating.

When I was younger I'd think that was fine. Those people who didn't like arguing, etc. in character "weren't serious" anyway.

Now I recognize that that's just a style of play. My preferred style has a lot of detail oriented arguing and roleplaying.

But other people are there to roll some dice and have fun. It's not a badwrong thing. It's just a style thing.

From that player's standpoint their character isn't even necessarily saying "Because I said so". The player doesn't act out every sword blow, why should they have to say everything their character says?

A system that punishes somebody's style of gameplay isn't a good one. Some people don't want to argue in character for 45 minutes. And they'd be unfairly penalized for playing in a game using this system.

Graf

This is a post about social skill challenges, more than other sorts. Some of the non-social skill challenges I've seen, like the one in the Heathen adventure in Dungeon, seem like they work better to me. But the system doesn't work well for social interactions, nor is it fun.

The problem with social skill challenges is that "the system" that it's replaced what was often a roleplaying system; with all the nuances and fun of arguing with your friends.

The new skill challenge mechanic is almost entirely a roll based system.
vs a flat DC.
and player actions have little effect.

---

There is some evidence that it was developed at the very tail end of the development cycle (it's not really implemented at all in Keep on the Shadowfell... except for one, somewhat forced, encounter).

And that lack of development really shows.

---

Basically, when building a skill challenge, you pick a couple of simple variables and then you roll some dice.

The problem, really, is that this simple system doesn't address what actually happens. There are two, unsatisfactory, choices for groups.

1. People make their arguments in advance, the DM assigns a +2 here or there for particularly good ideas.
And the rolls determine what happens.
The Problem: A terrible idea can get a great roll, and a "duh-nobody-can-possibly-disagree-with-that" argument can get a bad roll and you wind up with an NPC acting, basically, like a moron.

2. Roll first and then roleplay it out. This is, usually, what happens on the PbP boards (because you roll and then complete your post). The advantage of this is that you can roleplay to match the quality of your argument. If you roll a 1, you just have your character say something idiotic.
The Problem: PCs don't have any input.

---

The DMG makes it sound a lot like skill challneges are supposed to be like fights. They compare them several times.

But fighting in DnD is compelling because you get to beat up creatures and take their stuff. because you have a bunch of good choices to make. And the choices you make make a big difference.

Social skill challenges don't include those choices, or those ramifications and that's a big blotch on the system.

Graf

I should probably preface this by saying that I run 4e exclusively. So I'm not a hater. In fact, I find the My system is better than your system posts just a the tiniest bit annnnnoiiiiing.

I thought that 4e was going to replace 3.5. It wasn't a thought out thought. It was just something that I assumed.

I think that, alongside some large percentage of the EnWorld population, I fell into the trap of thinking that history would repeat itself with this edition shift without really thinking about how prior edition shifts were different from this one.

To my mind
3.0 replaced 2nd ed.
3.5 replaced 3.0.

So, in a sense, it's natural to have assumed that there would be some sort of massive wrenching transformation; 3.5 would stop and 4e would begin.

Of course that was never going to happen.

2nd edition was basically dead (along with TSR) when 3.0 came out. I hadn't played the game in years. Nobody I know played it. Even people who did had radically altered the game.

3.0 -> 3.5 also wasn't a no brainer.
Before 3.5 came out I had around 27 house rules for the 3.0 game I ran.

Afterward? Around 7.

Now, I lived on EnWorld, so I was fairly plugged into the consensus. Most of my house rules were related to "known problems"; but that was a feature of the 3.0 -> 3.5 shift. It addressed a lot of known problems. It was, quite litterally, an evolution. Almost like a big patch for WoW.

Unlike 2nd edition 3.5 was alive and kicking when WotC sent out 4e. A -lot- of people are running 3.5 games (or some variation thereof).

And unlike the 3.0 -> 3.5 shift 4e is radically different.

Those changes appeal to me. I'd stopped running 3.5 because I don't have the sort of free time as 30 year old married person than I did as a 20 year old single.

I'd already bought Arkham Horror precisely because it offered something close to an evening of roleplaying without the hours and hours of prep time.
I'd already tried WoW because I wanted to game and couldn't manage to get together with people to do it in real time (and I still can't but that's another problem).

So the evolution of DnD into the 4e space is, in a sense, an evolution into a space that I was already in.

I think I was so happy about 4e because I couldn't run 3.5 anymore and it felt like WotC decided to create a new game for me.

But 3.5 isn't going to go anywhere. I'm not really sure that Pathfinder is going to "replace" it (even more weird little rules and powers?) but maybe that's what the space is looking for...

Graf

I looked at old (3.5) artificer a bit ago in preparation for this article about the new 4e version wizards just released.

The 3.5 design was inspired crazy stuff for the time. It was also tightly integrated into the existing 3.5 systems. But the complexity of those systems meant that the artificer was also an extremely complex class. And unbalanced as heck.

Of course 4e doesn't have a crafting system. Or rather, it does, but it's basically just a "spend gold to acquire item" system.
Gold is carefully doled out by level.
Magical items are -much- more restrained in what they can do: they generally just provide a simple daily power.

So unlike the 3.5 system there is no pre-existing system that the artificer must correspond to/interact with.
So how does the "new artificer" look?

Personally I think it looks fantastic.

• In story (AKA fluff) terms their powers position them much more as "crazy alchemist and tinkerer" than "magic item producer".
  • Healing people by blowing magical vapor at them? Check!
  • Chucking barbed wire and caltrops made of crazy magical energy? Check!
  • Crazy walls of acid made out of a mixture of reagents? Check!
  • Even weirder stuff (magical trampolines...sliding allies around on the battle field by spilling magical goo under them...)? Check!!!
• The new artificer is a leader; which is to say that they heal and buff.
  • They get healing word twice an encounter, just like a cleric
  • Their heals are extra effective vs constructs (i.e. warforged) oops. The article includes a magic item that offers this but it's not a function in the class itself
  • Unlike the (rather poorly conceived) cleric class they do that in the right order, so they buff (or create a buffing artifice) first and then they make an attack roll.
    If you miss? You still get the buff. Say goodbye to wasting round after round of actions without even giving out a +2 to hit.
    RP reasons aside, if the artificer is available I can't imagine anyone playing a cleric.
• The new artificer actually makes things, often on the spot. Freed from the magical item creation rules they make crazy nutso stuff you never saw in 3.5.
  • One sixth level utility power lets you create a temporary stairs or bridge. Just a fantastic idea.
  • Another innovation is "dailies" that take the form of items (that either the artificer or someone else can use). So instead of having a daily that gives someone +5 to one roll they make a luck charm that lets you do that once a day. It's mechanically similar to the dailies in the PhB, but you actually create an item. I love it.

Obviously I haven't played one. So I'm not in a position to comment on the mechanics the way I'd like to.

But the flavor is fantastic.

They seem to have made nods to the old artificer (extra healing to warforged (available from an item but still...); enhancing allies weaponry and/or armor) while heading off in a completely new direction (the healing word* thing was a shock the first time I saw it)

But 4e made no bones about the fact that each class would have a role, and the artificer steps up and delivers the leader/healer role in spades.

Did I mention that their buffs work even if they miss?
I'm never going to play a cleric again.

Graf

We've been building some monsters over at Wolfgang Baur's Open Design for the (now closed) Wrath of the River King project.



And I realized I have a difference -- in some senses a fairly minor one -- with some other people on the importance of monster shticks.

Of course, I should talk about what I mean about monster shticks first, right?

---

Shtick -- noun: A characteristic attribute, talent, or trait that is helpful in securing recognition or attention. [Original]


In retrospect I think I got whole monster shtick thing from the idea that Mike Mearls was hired by WotC to do 4e because of Iron Heroes.

I don't own, nor have I read, Iron Heroes. My impression is the real innovation in Iron Heroes was in monster design; not the "you are strong-like-Conan, Conan no need stupid magic items" stuff.

My understanding is that IH Monsters were built as an encounter. So you might have a big monster with (for instance) an indestructible shell plate, so attacking it didn't directly do anything, but if you made a cinematic leap onto the plate you could get at it's vulnerable weak spot.
It's not just a bunch of stats, it's actually an encounter, like a like a good scene in a monster movie or a boss fight in a video game.

A player who assesses the situation, and makes some good tactical judgments can turn an unwinable fight into a thrilling victory by exploiting the monster's shtick (which may be a weakness or may just be a tactic it uses).

I think the fact that Mike was redesigning 3.5 monsters for WotC (which, in retrospect, looks a -lot- like developing 4.0 monsters) helped cement my opinion on the subject.

And when I look at the monsters in the MM the trend seems clear. (Sure there are orcs, which are boring, but they've been boring in every edition, it's like a tradition). Each monster-type has a sort of trick (=waza) they use.

• goblins shift away when you miss with an attack
• kobolds can shift twice a round
• green dragons poison you and use psychic attacks to pull you out of position
• bugbears will, basically, try to mug you
• and so on

Individual monster examples take this to an even greater extreme:

• Kobold Dragonshields shift even more than regular kobolds
• Ancient green dragons dump psychic attacks on any creature that is taking poison damage
• Bugbear Stranglers mug you and then use your body as a shield

Now, of course, it'd be stupid of me to argue that monsters before 4e didn't have shticks. Most of the favorites (dragons/mindflayers/beholders) did.

But many didn't.

Mechanically the differentiation between gnolls, orcs, hobgoblins and half a dozen other monster races was mostly a matter of a +x to hit and a few hit points here or there.


The 4e baseline assumption is that each monster will have a shtick; something to distinguish it mechanically from other monsters above and beyond the particular combination of attack and defensive stats that the average member of the race has.

So how did this lead to my (honestly fairly minor) difference of opinion with some people on the OD project?

Well, it's got to do with how shticky you think a monster ought to be...

Graf

Last in a four part series about skills in 3.x and 4e.

I'll talk about three 3.x characters I've made in the last year and compare them with my 4e experiences.

---

So I've talked a bit about a few different characters I've built and played in Play by Post 3.x games, and my irritations with how the concepts meshed (or didn't mesh at all with) the 3.x skill system.

• Hudder -- A solid fighting character, I used magic items and ability score choices to keep up his fighting ability; despite 6 levels (out of 8) in diplomatic/skill classes the online version has a diplomacy skill of +5 and a knowledge nobility of +3; he has one stand out skill in search (+14) buttressed by a feat and a magic item.
• Brodi was really a nightmare; a concept that is purely buy the book in story terms (a halfling who rides a dinosaur) that took 4 feats, 4/10ths of my skill ranks ~20% of my gp budget (~55% if you count the collar of healing) and still has a 15% of failing to get his dinosaur to "come".
  I should probably reiterate here that Brodi's fantastically indulgent; the DM was extraordinarily lenient in allowing me to pursue my dino-riding dream, which removed most of the pressure.
• Kason/Kilx a changeling (straight!) rogue with a spectacularly set of thief checks (+8 for spot/listen|+10 for Hide/MS/Search) who couldn't afford to buy disguise.

And each one took hours to put together (and I mean hours just picking their skills -- the hours I spend writing backstories are my own problem ).

---

I'm in a couple fourth edition games.

And I'm pretty thrilled with how its shaking out. I am not getting all the skills I want of course, but I'm not having the same problems (or similarly significant problems).

For instance: Mirna, the tomboy wizard, doesn't have bluff, which is downright weird given that she spends most of her time lying to people.

But being a wizard lets her have Nature (so she can hang out in the woods without starving) and being being human let her pick up another wizard skill (diplomacy - which is close to being bluff) and her two feats let her train Stealth and Perception.

In 3.x?

• To get Stealth she'd need Hide and Move Silently. To have a decent stealth skill she'd need to spend two feats to make them class and then put 4 skill points in. With her low dex she'd be worse than the thief/monk/ranger of course but still decent.
• Perception is even worse. She'd need Spot, Listen and Search again all out of class. And she'd need skill points for everything too.
• Nature is also, as I mentioned above, nice to have. Most of the lower level monsters have a natural keyword, so she can act like the bratty little-know-it-all I imagine her being.
• Diplomacy is also out of class in 3.x. While I wasn't dying to have it in the build it's proven very useful, especially since she doesn't have bluff, but is always getting herself into trouble. With a charisma of 10 she's not a replacement for the party face, but with a few decent rolls she made a contribution to the last skill challenge.

In retrospect I probably should have trained bluff and left perception for later levels. But I like noticing things and I'll be able to train bluff at 2nd level when I get another feat (and with retraining in 4e it's not like I'll be stuck with my feat choices even if I decide to switch later).

And the best part is, to my mind anyway, I haven't given up much to get this degree of proficiency.
The comparision with Brodi (another caster who I wanted to differentiate through his skills) is pretty striking: Brodi's Handle Animal Check for his mount, after 4 feats = +11 VS. Mirna's Nature check after 0 feats = +9.

Especially since Brodi is 6th level.

---

Alternative is difficult to compare to Kason. They're different kinds of rogues.

Kason is probably a more typically well-rounded rogue. He can steal. He can spy. If he has to he can kill. He's higher level (5th), in a more detailed world and has a much deeper back story.

Alternative (warforged rogue 1) is a rogue security officer from a city governed by repressive warforged. He stopped crime and repressed dissent.

Even so, certain things are instructive. Namely their skill ranks:

Leaving aside magic items the 5th level Kason has between +8 and +10 in thief skills (spot/listen/move silently/hide in shadows/search/tumble).

Alternative?
Stealth +9, Acrobatics +9, Thievery +9, Perception +7
Every skill is within one point of Kason's comparable skills.

Now 4e characters advance more slowly... so Alternative at 5th level is only going to have +11 ~ +9. But making Alternative also wasn't painful hours long grind.
The first level 4e rogue is good at things like climbing (I'd imagined Kason having done some "second story" work at some point, but a climb skill of +2 suggests otherwise) and sleight of hand (I imagined Kason passing an employer a document at a crowded watering hole in Thronehold - and spent a good 10 minutes staring at the numbers to get him that +2).
(Spending a feat to give him Insight, reflecting the hundred odd years he's spent spying on the lower cast humans that he oversaw in the construct-dominated city he served?
That's gravy. )

Someone could argue, I suppose, that wanting Kason to be "good at everything" is a sign of weak storytelling (the classic player who wants his alter-ego to be perfect to shore up their own psychological short-comings).

I politely disagree. I want him to be competent at the sorts of things that a thief/spy would be competent at.

If Kason is decent at climbing the DM can put a wall in a game knowing that he'll be able to get over it.
If he can palm things and pick pockets then the DM can write adventures that take advantage of that.

---

The 4e characters don't have every skill in the book, or even every skill I'd want them to have -- I'd like Alternative to have Endurance and Mirna to have Athletics and Bluff -- but I was able to spend a feat or two and get them the "extra competencies" that I felt supported their concepts.

And I'm happy that the 4e system lets me do that with a minimum of fuss and without dinging me too much in terms of combat ability (because, when push comes to shove, DnD involves lots of fighting).

It's not harmful to the story to have a character who can open up new venues of adventure.

Graf

Third of a four part series on skills in 3.x and 4e.

I'll talk about three 3.x characters I've made in the last year and compare them with my 4e experiences.

---

Brodi (the dinosaur riding halfling) made me a bit crazy. Crazy enough that I'd decided to really just hang up my 3.x books (at least the PhB, the 3.5 Eberron books still had a lot of value for me of course).

I'd gotten into a few great PbP 3.x games and made characters and I was done (PbP games progressing at the, slow, rate that they do I'll probably have a second child before I have to level them again)

But there was one adventure I really really wanted to play for 3.5. Eyes of the Lich Queen. The initial line of Eberron adventures was.... lets no say weak.... lets say... they underperformed my expectations.
They were railroady (especially the second one); we gave up mid-way through the third.

EotLQ was supposedly different.

And a weird stroke of luck saw me pathetically lurking on an EotLQ OOC thread (imagine me face pressed up against the glass staring at a toy marked ALREADY SOLD) precisely when they were looking for a player.
A player I happened to know was probably gone (I was STing him in my vampire game).

One enthusiastic post to the DM (who was actually a player in a game I was running, or trying to run anyway) offering to fill the skill monkey role they were missing and I was in.

So Kason's gestation began.

Continuing my trend of recycling old ideas (i'd wanted to play a changeling for a while; and play around with national identities in Eberron) he was going to be a Cyrian (what's more nationalistic than a nation that has an identity but no physical existence). He needed a military history, I love involving the Last War in character's backstories and he got one (that had been my only regret with Hudder).

But, for the first time I had external expectations

• The rogue in an adventuring party needs to be "trap guy" and "scout" (that's six skills).
  And 3.x adventure design presumes you're "on the curve" (at or near the max for your level.
  So we're talking search/disable device/spot/listen/hide/move silently all as high as possible.
• There was also a general request for the group that the character be "a straight rogue would be great in this group for the flanking + sneak attack......" and general discussion like "Is anyone in this party actually good at killing stuff?"
  Flanking means a high Tumble at least.
• If possible I wanted to have a quirky magic weapon -- I knew the DM liked Weapons of Legacy and I loved the idea of being able to RP a magic item instead of it just being a bunch of +s.

I'd come into it open eyed. I knew what the system limits would be and I was determined to get a good character out (and fast, since the group was waiting on me).

One problem is that changelings suck at everything. Change Self is a fantastic power.... if you're playing a spy. But for virtually every adventure it's of little to no utility.
It certainly doesn't help with getting up the "seven key skills" or with my damage output.


Not that I regretted the choice at all. As an RP choice it was just fantastic.

But the mechanics were giving me a headache.

I tried every combination of fighting, mobility and skill monkey I could, monk/rogue, swashbuckler/rogue, ranger/rogue, fighter/rogue.
But, with a spread of good ability scores -- I just couldn't see him blowing everything on one stat... and the fighting+trap guy+scout requirement discouraged it -- any divergence from rogue left him too far off "the curve".

So, to my own amazement, I went straight rogue and dumped everything I could (charisma + wisdom) to get Int up to the point where I could get some skill ranks.

I hit the curve where I needed to, but just barely and at the expense of some serious fighting weakness (32 hit points and an AC of 16?).
And I'm a changeling with no disguise, and a bluff check of +4!
Sneak Attack, of course,

I love Kil'x (that's Kason's real name). Objectively speaking he's probably the "best" DnD character I've ever made. A changeling who doesn't know any other changelings. A staunch Cyrian who pretends to be Brelish (and takes every opportunity to embody their worst stereotypes). A man who tried to trick a woman into loving him, failed, and when she seemed to be attracted to another persona of his ran off into the jungle rather than deal with the situation.

And, again, the concept doesn't require that he be awesome in a fight. So, in that sense the character (and the 3.x skill system) is a success.

But a changeling rogue 6 who bluffs like a 1st level character? With no disguise? It's a bit sad.

And if he gets killed in the first fight he gets into...?
I'm gonna

Next I'll talk a bit about my 4e experience so far.

Graf

Second of a four part series on skills in 3.x and 4e.

I'll talk about three 3.x characters I've made in the last year and compare them with my 4e experiences.

---

So Hudder was a bit annoying, but it was more of a "meta" concern. (How often do you really roll Knowledge nobility or Diplomacy anyway?)


The second character, Brodi, was a hair pulling experience.

4e was on the horizon and he was going to be my last 3.5 character and I wanted to fulfill a dream. A dino-riding halfing (go on, laugh, I loved the whole Talanta Plains shtick, with the masks and the riding around).

I'd wanted to play one since forever, and built a bunch of sample characters but always wound up being frustrated. Were you supposed to buy a mount? It didn't seem like there would be much of a connection really (and they'd probably drop like flies in a fight).

Halfling+Druid=dinorider is popular, but it seemed like cheating. Halflings on the Talenta Plains all ride dinosaurs.
I wanted to play a "regular class" and ride a dinosaur.

I'd also -- ever since reading Wulf's original Story Hour -- liked the idea of halfling arcanists. It seemed like it was a more interesting character than "I'm the halfling thief" (basically a less annoying kender) or the Bilbo/Frodo model.

So I figured Halfing-dinoriding sorcerer.

The DM was supportive (indulgent even).
The rules? Significantly less accommodating.

Ultimately I was satisfied with the character but it took

• articles from dragon
• articles from the web
• two(!) flaws
• a magic item I -probably- wouldn't allow if I was the DM

Of course, I got a pretty tough mount for my troubles (which allows me to move 50) and also managed a reserve feat + a maximum charisma in a full caster build (which is enough to redeem all the feats wasted buying Skill Knowledge (Handle Animal) and Skill Knowledge (Ride)).

But that worked with two "free" feats from the flaws. A less generous DM and I would have had to choose between being at all competent at riding my dinosaur and being a pretty weak mage with no chance of moving into a PrC.

And I there is still a 15% (3/20) chance that my soul-bound-mount, into whom I have dumped three ****ing feats* and 8 skill ranks, will not come when I call him.
[Handle Animal: Come Trick (DC 15)
My check bonus?
+11 ]



Still the character has been a lot of fun to play, so I'm not regretting any choices.

But I shouldn't have to spend hours cranking the system to get a pretty pedestrian concept off the ground.

Needless to say, I was pretty excited about 4e's simplified skill system. But I would wind up making one more character in 3.x.

And a skill monkey at that.

Graf

First of a four part series on skills in 3.x and 4e.

I'll talk about three 3.x characters I've made in the last year and compare them with my 4e experiences.

---

I made three 3.x characters in the last few months. In each case I found myself, to varying degrees, frustrated by the skill system.

None of the characters were supposed to be "optimized" for combat. I just wanted the game reality to match the story I had in my mind. And the story wasn't one of "supreme awesomeness in all areas".
It was usually competence in a reasonably small area.

---

Hudder d'Kundarakwas the second iteration of a character I'd originally played offline; originally he'd been a reaction to playing in a group where (one player in particular) was ladling on 1-level dips and PrCs to create obscenely powerful (an un-roleplay-able in my mind) concoctions.

So I played a dwarven fighter. Of course I also loved the dragonmarked houses so I wound up making him a Dragonmarked Heir, which necessitated a two level dip into rogue to get the skills.

It was a tight fit, but it worked.
Annoyances popped up during the skills section. 7 levels of skill oriented classes (out of 9) and his diplomacy check was +6... Knowledge (nobility)? +4.
He was outshined by the combat monster, but wasn't really adding much in the skills department.

The rebuilt Hudder (a level lower) shows the same flaws (of course knowledge nobility and diplomacy both dropped a point to +3/+5).
If you're a noble scion shouldn't you know a bit about nobility? If you're in a class with a diplomatic function you'd like to see a check of higher than +5 at 8th level.

At least I would.

Of course, with some decent feats from the Dragonmarked book, Hudder stands up reasonably well in combat terms to Lo-Kag the Goliath (from the same game).

Hudder's probably weaker but with DR 5 and two more points of AC you can -sort- of see him as being comparable to the Goliath despite being 3 points behind in to-hit-bonus, lower damage and not having reach.

So maybe I should just have dropped a level of fighter and taken expert. Then people would truly fear my skills.
(Oh wait... multiclassing xp penality...)

Still. It was just an annoyance. Unlike the next character.

Graf