D20 'philosophy' cramping my style

[Drifter Bob]

Ok, a few days or weeks ago we were discussing the issue of how the rules, and the obsession with rules balance and technical canonical rules interpretation, affect the game, by influencing game play toward munchkinism and in favor of rules lawyering, and away from role playing.

I chimed in on this because as a writer I think it does effect the way you approach writing material for d20, and tends to push you toward making it more 'dumbed down' and mechanical. Well, I've run into a fairly classic example. It's a minor thing but it's something of a stumbling block for me.

I'm working on a campaign that I had originally written and run last year, which is now being converted for a game company that shall remain nameless.

Part of this campaign involves an Imp which is using it's alter form ability to appear to be something entirely different (this paritcular imp manifests as a little girl and as a wild boar. At the start of the adventure, it appears to be an innocent little girl, the sole survivor of a massacre that the Imp itself actually perpetrated)

So the adventure hinges on the fact that the players do not necessarily know the "little girl" is an Imp right away. They can of course attempt a sense motive roll, if they get suspcious, but here comes the problem. As listed in the SRD, the Imp has no bluff skill. Seems to be that, being a Devil, and of a type which would interract with mortals a great deal, and with it's suggestion ability, an Imp would be a natural to have a few ranks of bluff. I bet if they thought about it they would have put it in. I would like to give it a few ranks, and in my own campaign, when I ran my players through it last year, I did just that. Seemed natural, no reason why it shouldn't have any number of abilities... who knows what lurks in hell, why shouldn't one Imp have different skills than another? Why shouldn't there be variant Imps?

But this is for an official publication. If I put in a skill which isn't listed in the SRD for that particular monster, I just KNOW I'm going to get somebody raving on and on in a hostile review all about how I didn't even read the rule book and I don't know anything about D&D, and how giving the Imp this skill is unfair and unbalances the game and changes the CR and EL, and the players should be given 4 ranks in a skill of their choice to make it fair, and bla bla bla bla bla.

or the publisher, fearing just such a reaction, might take me to task for it.

So normally, in this situation, rather than rock the boat by annoying my publisher, or risk this kind of problem from certain elements of the D20 audience, I'd probably rewrite the encounter without the drama. Easier to make it a strait up encounter with an Imp, hack and slash, just like in a video game.

This is the sort of thing I mean.

I have two questions.

First, explain to me why I am stupid and this is NOT an example of anything being wrong anywhere except in my head (since I know nobody will agree with me) and second, tell me technically if I can give this thing a few bluff skill ranks (and no, using it as an unranked skill isn't going to cut it)

DB

 

[Corinth]

Because you can get the same effect by reassigning skill points. There is nothing that says that you can't do this: "As SRD, but substitute Knowledge (blah) +6 for Bluff +8." The skill point expenditures are the same, so it's still a legal stat block.

 

[Arnwyn]

If I put in a skill which isn't listed in the SRD for that particular monster, I just KNOW I'm going to get somebody raving on and on in a hostile review all about how I didn't even read the rule book and I don't know anything about D&D, and how giving the Imp this skill is unfair and unbalances the game and changes the CR and EL, and the players should be given 4 ranks in a skill of their choice to make it fair, and bla bla bla bla bla.

First, explain to me why I am stupid and this is NOT an example of anything being wrong anywhere except in my head (since I know nobody will agree with me) and second, tell me technically if I can give this thing a few bluff skill ranks (and no, using it as an unranked skill isn't going to cut it)

1) There will always be some nut ranting and raving about something in/not in the rules. I would be surprised if anyone worried about one internet review from a wacko.

Generally, though - I don't think you know what you're talking about (or you're talking a few threads on some messageboard quite a bit too seriously). For all the reviews I've read, the worst thing a pedantic reviewer does is calculate the number of skill points the monster/NPC is supposed to have - not concentrate on which skills are actually there.


2) Yes, of course there is no problem in doing so. There's a reason why there are rules in how to calculate a monsters skill points. Adding a few skill ranks in Bluff while removing a couple of skill ranks from a skill you don't believe this imp requires is just fine and dandy.

 

[Macbeth]

I'm not sure about d20 "dumbing down" roleplaying, but as to your specific Imp problem, why not just make a note, as part of the encounter saying "This is not a standar Imp. It has bluff."

Or, if you're really set in staying within the rules, give him an extra HD or 2, and use the added skill points for bluff. Just make a note that this is an "advanced imp" in the encounter notes.

 

[jgbrowning]

Give 'em a rogue level.

joe b.

 

[Knight Otu]

and second, tell me technically if I can give this thing a few bluff skill ranks (and no, using it as an unranked skill isn't going to cut it)

Not only technical, you really can give the imp ranks in the bluff skill in a number of ways, since the imp in the SRD is "only" the typical imp. Many imps can eb different.

The easiest would be to juggle with the existing skill ranks. By my count, it should have 48 skill points. You can drop 6 ranks from the existing skills to free up those points for bluff (it would be 3 ranks, since bluff is "cross-class" for the imp. You can also drop one of the feats for Skill Focus or Persuasive.

You can give it an ability array other than average (elite or non-elite, increasing its intelligence bonus by one or two, and thus give it 12 or 6 additional skill points.

You can add a single level of rogue or other class with Bluff as a class skill, and use up to 7 skill points to get the 7 ranks in Bluff.

You could perhaps give it a magic item to grant a bonus to Bluff.

You might find a template that increases the intelligence or grants bonuses to bluff, as above.

 

[billd91]

I have two questions.

First, explain to me why I am stupid and this is NOT an example of anything being wrong anywhere except in my head (since I know nobody will agree with me) and second, tell me technically if I can give this thing a few bluff skill ranks (and no, using it as an unranked skill isn't going to cut it)

DB

I think you're not seeing the forest for the trees. Yes, there's a standard imp stat block just as there were standard monster blocks in earlier editions. And you can change them in 3E and nobody should complain as long as you follow the rules for doing so. Either give the imp a couple of levels in a class for a bunch of skill points or rearrange the ones in the stat block. Preface it with a little description of how you've customized the imp as you would any other NPC and you're golden. Heck, replace one of his standard feats with Skill Focus: Bluff if you want to.
There's nothing wrong with this at all. It's in your head.

 

[Creamsteak]

But this is for an official publication. If I put in a skill which isn't listed in the SRD for that particular monster, I just KNOW I'm going to get somebody raving on and on in a hostile review all about how I didn't even read the rule book and I don't know anything about D&D, and how giving the Imp this skill is unfair and unbalances the game and changes the CR and EL, and the players should be given 4 ranks in a skill of their choice to make it fair, and bla bla bla bla bla.

I might be bothered if you just "give" the imp extra skill points. As stated above, you can swap skill points around, or add hit dice. Either one will accomplish your goal. Failing either, a single level in rogue provides enough skills to give a huge bonus to bluff.

My complaint would be that you could have accomplished your goal (adding bluff ranks) within the rules with a minimal adjustment instead of just ad-hock.

 

[cdsaint]

I think you're not seeing the forest for the trees. Yes, there's a standard imp stat block just as there were standard monster blocks in earlier editions. And you can change them in 3E and nobody should complain as long as you follow the rules for doing so. Either give the imp a couple of levels in a class for a bunch of skill points or rearrange the ones in the stat block. Preface it with a little description of how you've customized the imp as you would any other NPC and you're golden. Heck, replace one of his standard feats with Skill Focus: Bluff if you want to.
There's nothing wrong with this at all. It's in your head.

Hear Hear! I almost never use monsters straight out of the MM. I'll give them the elite array, advance them, slap atemplate on them, give them class levels, or any combination of the above. Tomorrow I teach my 8th level party to fear the humble Dire rat.

Chris

 

[Gargoyle]

Adding a rogue level or swapping some skills around seems like the one good way to go in this case, but if you don't want to raise the challenge rating, you may just want to modify the encounter a bit instead of the imp's stats.

Just state in the encounter description that due to the cirumstances the imp receives a +4 circumstance bonus to Bluff the party regarding his identity. If you feel that this raises the difficulty of the encounter beyond the challenge rating of the imp, raise the encounter level. That's why an encounter level can be higher than a challenge rating. If you feel that it doesn't make the encounter that much more challenging, leave the EL the same as the CR.

It's your call, and someone somewhere will probably disagree, but that's the nature of it, so don't let these things bother you.

On the question of whether roleplaying is dumbed down in d20 because of the rules, I think there is some truth to that. Over the last few years, the focus on D&D has shifted in the direction of wargaming rather than roleplaying. However, I think the pendulum is beginning to swing back in the other direction. For instance, the last year or so has seen the release of many great campaign settings rather than the class books we saw before that. (Kudos to WOTC for the campaign setting search). I think after players and DMs play for a while, they get over their extreme powergaming phase and want a little fluff with their crunch. So players who were new a year or four ago are starting to roleplay more.

Even so, I think the d20 rules are flexible enough to support just about any type of encounter you want to create. Saying that you can't create the encounter you want without breaking the rules seems like you're giving up too soon, or are just being a bit of a perfectionist, even if it is for publication.