Things that just bother me when it comes to D&D.

[Dannyalcatraz]

There's a simple answer to that: he wouldn't.

Sure he might!

There is plenty to be said for hiring people off the official books.

1) If nothing else, its a win-win: if they succeed, the government can claim credit, if they fail, they are easily disavowed.

2) By being irregulars, they may not be under the same strictures as members of the watch, such as prohibitions against certain kinds of warrantless searches...

3) Freelancers are sometimes cheaper, especially if they fail- no obligations to the widows & children

Etc.

 

[Elf Witch]

Your argument is flawed: not all rogues are trained in delivering threats. Only those who allocate skill points are...just like anyone else who allocated skill points to that skill.

It is just that members of the rogue class- as defined in D&D- are more likely than members of most other classes to have been given an opportunity to train in that skill.

This is part and parcel of all archetype/class-based systems: they generalize and genericize concepts.

Why, to return to your last post, would a swashbuckling ladies man rogue (which i think of more as a bard anyway, but it doesnt really matter) need to know basic anatomy as well as a hired killer type so that they are equally good at backstabbing? The answer is that there is no reason, but for the class system.



Having time to study and having opportunity to study are 2 different things. Schools of wizardry have libraries. Religions and governments have archives.

All of them control access to the documents within. Unless you pay tuition or teach there, you're unlikely to have access to a wizard school's library.* Clergymen and a precious few others will be allowed to see a church's prized documents. And governments are just as jealous about access as those two are, if not moreso.

Don't get me wrong- I don't think the 3.5Ed version of the sorcerer is the best out there. I actually agree with you that sorcerers should have had a d6 HD...and actually prefer the Stalwart Sorcerer and Battle Sorcerer to the PHB one.

And I think that Pathfinder's inclusion of "bloodline" features- similar to the feats introduced in Dragon- was a good refinement.

Overall, for class skills, I probably would have made the sorcerer's selection into a "Pick 4", reflecting the amorphous nature of the class. In a way, they're the ultimate tabula rasa class.








* and if we look at the apprentice or independently taught wizard, the problem is still access. No teaching Mage will let just anyone see his tomes. People who spend hundreds of GP teaching themselves are also unlikely to share books & scrolls.

My argument is only flawed if you approach it from niche protection which is gamest in nature not simulation in nature. That only rogues who put points in skills are intimidating rogues that don't are not and you said any character can do this that is my argument if it is a cross class skill they are handicapped in being able to do it as well as a class that gets it as a class skill and that right there is my problem with it. And it is a huge flaw in the way DnD is designed and it looks like they are going to continue with it in next. Any class can have a background in learning techniques in which to intimidate people. Just like appraise what if my background is being raised and trained by a master jeweler but I can't deny the magic flowing in my blood. So I will never be as good as a rogue simply because I don't steal jewels?

We can go around and around on this and we will never agree. I will always be in the camp of making characters more able to be customized not less and to depend less on archetypes as the norm. You should be able to build a archetype but it should not be hard to build a character that is not.

Archetypes get boring after awhile because again they are basically the same and have an artificial imposed limitation on abilities.

I know I bring Shadowrun up a lot ,maybe because it is my favorite system, but I like how they do skills they are not limited by class but by how many points you want to put into something. So my hermetic mage elf also has a better than average ability with handguns, has an edge when it comes to learning languages, has a vast knowledge of music especially jazz and Elvis Presley and is a master when it comes to motorcycle repair and motorcycle racing. And this could be true if she was street sam, decker, rigger or a shaman.

I want the same ability to customize a character in DnD. I think it makes for more interesting and varied characters.

I agree with what you are saying about having to pay or have some other access to libraries but the way the game is set up it does not allow for say a magic guild that accepts other classes besides wizards as members. In my roommates game the Blue Star Guild accepts sorcerers, and certain warlocks who get their eldritch power either from the celestial plane or from nature. She tweaked the warlock class and it is not all demonic and the color of your energy blast tell from where they come from. Silvery for celestial, greenish gold from nature and reddish black from a demonic source. A character who plays a warlock or sorcerer who has the background educated at the guild can start the game with any knowledge skill and if they stay a member of the guild which means giving up 10% of all treasure gets other benefits as well.

In my campaign the wizard guilds and colleges are powerful and they don'rt want to share that so they discriminate against sorcerers and out and out burn at the stake warlocks and psionist. So if I had a player playing a sorcerer who had knowledge skills which I allow I would ask how to learned them. Part of my house rule on open class skills is you have to justify in your background certain ones.

Most of the DMs I have played with have allowed sorcerers a D6 and changed the skill list to lie you said pick 4 or have gotten rid of cross class skills. I like a lot of what Pathfinder did with the sorcerer with the bloodlines. When I play a sorcerer I like to pick a school that is the main influence and the bulk of spells come from there.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

My argument is only flawed if you approach it from niche protection...

No, your argument is flawed for the precise reason I cited: not all rogues are trained in Intimidation- which was your assertion- nor are others prohibited from taking ranks in it. Any PC who places skill points in Intimidation is trained in the skill.

Class skills vs cross-class skills is just an artifact of the class sysem. D&D classes, by their nature, bundle class skills within a class by the increased probability that a member of that class would have more opportunities to be trained in such skills.

Its not niche protection, its bundling.

 

[Elf Witch]

No, your argument is flawed for the precise reason I cited: not all rogues are trained in Intimidation- which was your assertion- nor are others prohibited from taking ranks in it. Any PC who places skill points in Intimidation is trained in the skill.

Class skills vs cross-class skills is just an artifact of the class sysem. D&D classes, by their nature, bundle class skills within a class by the increased probability that a member of that class would have more opportunities to be trained in such skills.

Its not niche protection, its bundling.

I remember reading Skip Williams saying way back in 2002 that they were done for niche protection other wise the rogue would be screwed over by other classes in skills like spot, listen, search and other important skills. So if that is not true then there is no real reason to bundle them the way they are.

They don't have to be an artifact of the class system Pathfinder is a class system and they don't do it like DnD.

BTW my assertion is not that all players who play rogues have intimidation but that it is unfair to penalize a player who designs a character concept that makes sense to have it or any other skill and the classes that get that skill can take it and be better at it with no background at all just because it is a class skill. It is the gamest approach to skills that I don't like. Skills should be based on backgrounds and what the players have the characters actually doing not based on class. This thread is about things that bother me when it comes to DnD and this is a big one.

Skills seem to be something that a lot of people seem to be unhappy with judging from how many houserules I have encountered over the years and how many threads I have read here since I joined. Some people think there are to many some to few some dislike how powerful a few get with very little cost.

I have several issue with skills besides the whole class cross class thing I also think they get to the point that failure becomes almost impossible which is why for years we have been playing with the roll a one on a skill check it is a -10 roll a twenty it adds a +10.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I remember reading Skip Williams saying way back in 2002 that they were done for niche protection other wise the rogue would be screwed over by other classes in skills like spot, listen, search and other important skills. So if that is not true then there is no real reason to bundle them the way they are.

Never read that myself. But so what? Does that even matter?

If they hadn't given Fighters a good BAB, other classes would be better at melee than they are. (Shut up Dandu, etc., we all know about what spellcasters can do in combat... ) If they'd given Fighters the ability to cast spells in armor, they'd be poaching on wizards...

All that "niche protection" means is that if they'd designed the game differently, it would be different.

They don't have to be an artifact of the class system Pathfinder is a class system and they don't do it like DnD.

True. But all class/archetype RPG systems will bundle things, just not necessarily the same things. Look at any of them.

Skills should be based on backgrounds and what the players have the characters actually doing not based on class.

In a very real sense, class & archetype RPG systems use class & archetypes as at least a partial if not wholesale mechanical stand-in for "background." By choosing one, you are necessarily saying something about the life your PC led before becoming an adventurer.

The strength of this design is that it speeds up the creation process. The weakness is that it neccessarily means that there will be incongruities- some quite major- between the mechanics of the character on the sheet and the concept in your head.

Personally, I prefer HERO for reasons along those lines. Gotta love infinite customization. It means that the gap between concept and character is smaller.

 

[Elf Witch]

Never read that myself. But so what? Does that even matter?

If they hadn't given Fighters a good BAB, other classes would be better at melee than they are. (Shut up Dandu, etc., we all know about what spellcasters can do in combat... ) If they'd given Fighters the ability to cast spells in armor, they'd be poaching on wizards...

All that "niche protection" means is that if they'd designed the game differently, it would be different.



True. But all class/archetype RPG systems will bundle things, just not necessarily the same things. Look at any of them.



In a very real sense, class & archetype RPG systems use class & archetypes as at least a partial if not wholesale mechanical stand-in for "background." By choosing one, you are necessarily saying something about the life your PC led before becoming an adventurer.

The strength of this design is that it speeds up the creation process. The weakness is that it neccessarily means that there will be incongruities- some quite major- between the mechanics of the character on the sheet and the concept in your head.

Personally, I prefer HERO for reasons along those lines. Gotta love infinite customization. It means that the gap between concept and character is smaller.

It does not matter unless you care about niche protection which I do to a certain extent not as much as some others do. I do think the major abilities of the class should be some what protected. I am just saying that I have heard many people including game designers use the class skill system as a form of niche protection. I have found that opening it up has not caused any kind of issues like that, that keeping the limits of how many skill points you get controls it.

I guess that is another yucky thing about the way some game designers look at it archetypes that I don't like. I do think that showing a basic archetype is not a bad idea but when it is done like it is in DnD I think it hinders creativity. I guess it comes down do you want a simple very little thought character creation which by necessarily means limited choices or do you want to truly be able to customize your character which adds time to character creation and complexity.

Personally as you can tell I prefer a more choice even if it means more complexity in the game.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Personally as you can tell I prefer a more choice even if it means more complexity in the game.

Like I said, HERO is my personal fave, bar none.

(3.5Ed is my D&D of choice, though, and my #3 RPG system)