Help me nail down this 'take 10, take 20' nonsense

[Scion]

I just get really bored by having characters who are defined by skills

If we dont care about what the character knows and instead rely on what the player knows then I'll have to ask the player how to cast a spell or demonstrate climbing up the mountain side.

Skills are there for a very good reason, they demonstrate what one can do and how well.

Without them we are just playing cops and robbers, 'I shot you!' 'no you didnt! i am invincible to your weapon, I zap you!' 'nuh uh' 'yes huh' 'nuh uh'.. on and on..

I much prefer the d&d way

 

[knifespeaks]

Thats actually a good post Saev.

I believe more strongly in magic over skills. In fact, its exactly why magicians are feared imo - because they can do things with a certainty that others cannot.

I like skills, don't get me wrong. But limiting the development of them to prevent automatic success is crucial. It's yet another reason to value casters.

There's just some aspects of the whole 3.x mechanic which I think are just too open to abuse. I have read other threads on powergamers vs roleplayers (I feel like I am back in EQ ) and read a good comment by someone who feels that 3.x turns into an arms race.

Well, that's what I think when I read through the character ideas of expansions and builds about characters with +15 here and +10 there - it just sounds really silly to me! Then adding on the whole taking 20 cannot fail ruling....and you know what I come to?

That the game rewards players who want to 'win' and makes DM's produce ever more ridiculously difficult and outlandish foes/traps etc to keep the game in balance. I would prefer to not let it get so far out of balance to start with. And that means keeping failure an ever-present reality for everyone in the world, from Farmer Joe to King Ivid the 20/20 Fighter/Wizard.

 

[knifespeaks]

Characters are defined by their class!

You know...fighters fight, mages cast spells etc. There is enough customisation in the classes as presented in the class section!

I like skills, honest! But you just cannot have characters who can do EVERYTHING. How many of you have characters with 2 or 3 classes? I would think its the norm....but I see the classes as professions in and of themselves. That's why I see no reason to not have 0 level people who are skilled. Yes, I am aware 'it isn't in the rules'. That's not the point.

I read with awe the rules for NPC classes in the DMG...level 20 commoners??? I couldn't believe it. Now peasants have levels too??

Like I said, I come from an earlier gaming era, where it was enough to be a level 10 fighter with 80 hps and attack 2/round - that to me is enough. I don't need all the other stuff on top - I can make the world an interesting place with finding secret doors 1 in 6, hearing noise 2 in 20 and missing on a 1.

3.x has some good ideas - and those ideas I will take. But everything else on top just removes most of the imagination from the game. It makes it less fun, not more fun. And I don't expect many of you to agree - but then I am not trying to change your minds, I am merely giving my point of view.

If 3.5, as written, works for you, then that's great. But not me - it makes things less colourful and more confined.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Also, remember that you can't Take 10 *or* Take 20 if you're being hassled. (Yes, I know it's been mentioned, but it bears repeating.)

Is there really any reason that someone who has trained for years to climb mountains (with, say, 4 ranks in Climb and a +2 Strength bonus, for a total of +6) would fail when taking his time to shimmy up a pretty easy-to-climb tree?

Nah, he's good - not the best, but good. So he Takes 10 on his climb, and makes it up the tree (DC 10). After all, he can think about where to place his hands and his feet, he's in no particular hurry, etc.

How about when combat's started, and arrows might be flying past him, axes are thrown his way, a slavering worg is barking at the base of the tree, waiting for him to fall?

This, of course, is a different situation, and so Taking 10 is not allowed. Now, there's a 20% chance *each round* that, because of the distractions going on around him, he'll slip and fall.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Characters are defined by their class!

And classes define what skills you are good at, and how many.

You know...fighters fight, mages cast spells etc. There is enough customisation in the classes as presented in the class section!

Yes, all that great customization of characters that was present in 1E. Where every fighter was exactly the same.

 

[knifespeaks]

I like talking with some of you - thats a good point too Patryn re: the tree climber.

And thats fine - nothing you have written there I disagree with.

Where I have a problem is the assigning of DC's to the mundane - I choose not to do it. I guess you do to, but for the purposes of our discussion you did.

So, yeah - climbing the tree, no problem. Staying in the tree under pressure is a different situation, agreed. And if someone has a 'plus or 2' in climb, then it becomes interesting.

I guess it's about how 'hardcore' you want to go. I would really prefer players to appraoch situations with a positive outlook, not one which was dominated by 'how many ranks in skill xx have I got?' Thats what I mean by narrowing the game down - need something forund? get a character with ranks is search...need something climbed? get a character with ranks in climb....that kind of thing.

 

[Scion]

Characters are defined by their class!

Guess what tells you which skills you can choose from?

Also, if a human rogue with 18 int wants nearly every skill out there he can do it, and good for him!

 

[Scion]

I would really prefer players to appraoch situations with a positive outlook, not one which was dominated by 'how many ranks in skill xx have I got?' Thats what I mean by narrowing the game down - need something forund? get a character with ranks is search...need something climbed? get a character with ranks in climb....that kind of thing.

There is a problem with having the people who are best at doing something be the ones to be the best at it? Especially when compared with untrained people?

How about I roleplay knowing every language without spending points in it?

 

[knifespeaks]

And as far as every fighter being exactly the same in first edition, I propose that exists even now!

How many people have fighters with ranks in knowledge arcana over jump? How many take weapon focus with dagger?

It is simply that in first edition, if I wanted to give a background for the fighter with knowledge arcana, I could! It doesn't cost me precious skill points to do so - which is why players don't put ranks into knowledge arcana as a fighter!

This is what I mean by narrowing the game down - because there are points to spend on skills, people gravitate to those which are most efficient....but remove the skill points and say "write me a background' and you open up a whole world of options for the fighter to be a little knowledgeable about matters arcane.

Its just a different perspective on skills - which I say again, I like....they allow customisation, if they are handled with care.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Actually, I've got a couple characters of "non-standard" stripe - like town guardsmen and thieves - who do take ranks in skills like Spellcraft and Knowledge (Arcana) or Knowledge (Religion) or (Local) or what have you. Generally, they're also the types who take the Educated feat - meaning that they've spent a great deal of time, as a child, in actual schooling.

In other words, yeah, skills and feats allow customization, and an "ex-apprentice" warrior-type is a pretty common fantasy stereotype.