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

[Saeviomagy]

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?

Having not yet played a fighter - nope. Don't. I have, however, played a bard with track and survival. I've played a wizard with a proficiency in whip. I played a barbarian who forsook metal weapons for a while. It's not like having more mechanics reduces options.

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!

It also didn't actually do anything. The DM was perfectly free to ignore your background and say that you didn't know squat about magic.

In fact, many DM's did that to wizards.

Beyond that - you're saying that if I wrote out a background for a fighter that did everything and knew everything, you'd let it fly?

Or would you say "if you want to know a little about everything, fine. But I won't let you be an expert in everything". Wouldn't that be basically proxying skill points anyway?

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.

Didn't you just say that you preferred classes to be just that, combat ability and nothing extra?

 

[knifespeaks]

Fair enough - nevertheless, my limited experience has been much to the contrary, and reading through the boards here has reinforced that perception.

I think skills have a place - as do feats. But they need to be learnt.

Feel free to check out this campaign forum
http://www.tehbomb.com/BB/viewforum.php?f=11

Thats a campaign I have starting on the weekend. I am putting some of my ideas into practice.

Now then.....
all I need to do is figure out the whole take 20 thing

 

[Staffan]

Take 10 on heal just plain makes sense. I really don't want to see characters bleeding to death outside of combat, and I'd prefer it if my players DON'T have to spend all their zero level spells on cure minor wounds.

This is one area where I disagree with you. Take 10 is used when you can take things easy and stuff, and having your buddy spray you with the blood from his arteries would generally make things stressful. Though you usually have time for multiple tries (one per round).

 

[knifespeaks]

What I prefer Saev is people not looking at skills with a cookie cutter mentality. Yes, first edition suffered from this massively - but so does 3.x.

What I am alluding to is that in first, since there were no skills, then it was easy to see everyone as the same. In third, whilst less prevalent, it still happens - having skills doesn't necessarily remove the 'efficiency gene' from taking over. I think it makes it a little worse because skill levels = big bonuses = more difficult things can be achieved easier. You know...the rogue with +12 search and DC 30 secret doors?

So, YES, skills add the potential for customisation....but I don't subscribe that they automatically make a better game.

Where first had the edge on this specific front was that because they didn't exist (pre-1984 or so), players and DM's could add stuff in - house rule it into existence.

As far as the fighter who 'knows everything' goes...well, I don't really need to answer that, surely?

 

[FireLance]

There is a secret door, on the first level of a dungeon. It leads to the treasure room on the lowest level of the dungeon. How do you make it POSSIBLE that a player of skill 0 to find, yet prevent them from taking 20?

My solution is perhaps the exact opposite of Saeviomagy's. You need the 4th-level spell, illusory wall:

Illusory Wall
Illusion (Figment)
Level: Sor/Wiz 4
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Effect: Image 1 ft. by 10 ft. by 10 ft.
Duration: Permanent
Saving Throw: Will disbelief (if interacted with)
Spell Resistance: No
This spell creates the illusion of a wall, floor, ceiling, or similar surface. It appears absolutely real when viewed, but physical objects can pass through it without difficulty. When the spell is used to hide pits, traps, or normal doors, any detection abilities that do not require sight work normally. Touch or a probing search reveals the true nature of the surface, though such measures do not cause the illusion to disappear.

Although the spell is worded vaguely, I would rule that the PC is unable to find a secret door with Search unless he succeeds at a Will save.

 

[Sebastian Francis]

Just a thought, and I don't mean to turn this into a flamewar or anything but Knifespeaks, it seems to be that, in a nutshell, you're arguing that D&D is better without skills.

It's interesting to note, however, that TSR themselves disagreed with you. In AD&D 1e, we had "proficiencies" (i.e. skills) introduced in Wilderness & Dungeoneer Survival Guide, and Unearthed Arcana. Then in 2nd edition AD&D a full-scale proficiency system.

In many ways I agree with you about the complexity of 3e and how the skill system contributes to that (see my post on "Sense Motive"). I often long for the simpler days of AD&D 2e, which is still, in some ways, my favorite edition of the game. :\

 

[Hypersmurf]

Just a thought, and I don't mean to turn this into a flamewar or anything but Knifespeaks, it seems to be that, in a nutshell, you're arguing that D&D is better without skills.

Or, rather, D&D is better without skills in the core rules, because then every individual DM can make up his own home-brewed skill system and teach it to his own players: "Where first had the edge on this specific front was that because they didn't exist (pre-1984 or so), players and DM's could add stuff in - house rule it into existence."

But at what point do we say "No, that should be in the core rules"? Why have classes in the books at all? Let DMs house rule them in. Why have races? Let DMs house rule them in.

As far as the fighter who 'knows everything' goes...well, I don't really need to answer that, surely?

Sure you do. If 'knows everything' is too much, how much is he allowed to know based on his background? Is he allowed to know more when he goes up a level? If he's spent all his time in his background studying in libraries, how come his fighter is just as good in combat as my fighter, whose background talks about his years of one-on-one tutelage with the finest weapon master on the continent?

-Hyp.

 

[Saeviomagy]

This is one area where I disagree with you. Take 10 is used when you can take things easy and stuff, and having your buddy spray you with the blood from his arteries would generally make things stressful. Though you usually have time for multiple tries (one per round).

Well, in that case why allow take 10 on anything? After all, if it wasn't easy, you wouldn't need to make a test in the first place.

What I prefer Saev is people not looking at skills with a cookie cutter mentality. Yes, first edition suffered from this massively - but so does 3.x.

What I am alluding to is that in first, since there were no skills, then it was easy to see everyone as the same.

That's not what you alluded to at all. You said "in first, rules didn't exist, so background was easier to formulate, because you didn't need to care about the mechanics".

In third, whilst less prevalent, it still happens - having skills doesn't necessarily remove the 'efficiency gene' from taking over. I think it makes it a little worse because skill levels = big bonuses = more difficult things can be achieved easier. You know...the rogue with +12 search and DC 30 secret doors?

I've yet to see someone look at the skill list and choose based on efficiency. So far everyone has gone "here's my character concept - here's the skills and abilities that match that, and here's the class that fits those". I've seen rogues with minimal search. I've seen wizards without knowledge arcana or spellcraft. I've seen any number of blends that sat right next to characters which fit the stereotype mould and performed just as well.

I think you're perceiving a problem which doesn't exist.

So, YES, skills add the potential for customisation....but I don't subscribe that they automatically make a better game.

Well, removing them from the game is far, far easier than adding them in...

Where first had the edge on this specific front was that because they didn't exist (pre-1984 or so), players and DM's could add stuff in - house rule it into existence.

See - in my book, every rule I have to write or rewrite is basically a black mark against the system.

The system that I paid good money for.

If I just have to write the entire thing myself, why didn't I do so instead of paying money?

As far as the fighter who 'knows everything' goes...well, I don't really need to answer that, surely?

No, but you need to think about it. That's why I asked the question.

What ARE you going to say to me when I give you that backstory? No? On what grounds? That I know too much? How much is too much? etc etc.

 

[knifespeaks]

What will I say to you when you come proffering the background of a character who knows everything?

I don't know! Never had a character who wanted to know everything - we should get together sometime

Give me the rationale for it, and I may let you have it Players have to convince the DM, not vice versa

Anyway, this has gotten WAY off-topic.

It's been a good discussion

 

[NPC]

knifespeaks, you might just want to bite the bullet and play 5-10 sessions using the rules as written and see how things shape up.

I'll venture to say that you all will have a great time playing by the RAW.

And if the RAW isn't working out, then you'll *know* what parts aren't working out, and you can "fix" them. If you start with, "this is broken . . ." then you really haven't determined if it is broken. You're assuming that it's broken.

I would also stop comparing the 3e with 1e and embrace the new rules. IMO, they are completely different systems, with completely different feels. I don't think one can ever get that 1e feel with 3e.

For example, you said:

What I am alluding to is that in first, since there were no skills, then it was easy to see everyone as the same.

That's the complete opposite of 3e, where customization is king. If you really want your PCs to be as similar as they were in 1e, then 3e is definitely not the system for you. And that's cool.