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

[Argyle King]

Absolutely, and I am a bit surprised to hear that this is a problem for some gaming groups. A professional guard or soldier is not by default neither experienced nor trained for adventuring. How can a city guard or even an army veteran know how to handle traps, weird monsters, underground hazards and maze navigation?

I thought I had responded to this already, but my post seems to have vanished.

I understand the idea that a town guard might not have a skill set suited for dungeon crawling. However, that assumes most adventures take place in dungeons. While many do, that is certainly not always the case. Even if it were, then I'd have to question how you answer that when considering the town guards of dwarven settlements.

Anyway... as I said, I agree that the two skills sets may not overlap. However, what gives me pause is when I consider that the higher level town guards can quite obviously take more damage (by virtue of how HP scales with level) than the lower level PCs can. Likewise, the higher level town guards can quite obvious dish out more damage (by virtue of how powers and other things scale with level.) So -even considering that a guard may have no experience at all at dungeon crawling- it still seems odd to me for a king/mayor/whomever to hire lower level PCs (who probably don't have much experience dungeon crawling either) and pay them large sums of money (which are more than what he's paying the guards) to perform a task when they are more poorly suited to it. I agree with the idea, but I don't think the idea is really portrayed in the way D&D levels tend to work.

If I can use a video game example, I think Skyrim does a fairly good job of having the guards level, but not seem overpowered compared to the rest of the world; however, it's quite jarring when you realize that the children in the game cannot die. There I am, a heroic legend struggling to undertake this quest which is wracking the world. Meanwhile, I look over and see one of the kids in town punching a dragon to death, and he's not fazed at all by the dragon's breath weapon. Overall, I love the game, but that minor detail bothers me.

On the other end of the spectrum, I also agree with the idea that NPCs don't necessarily need stats. Town guard #4 doesn't need a full character sheet. In some instances, I even agree with the idea that a faceless NPC should probably just lie down and die when attacked by a PC (or other important character of the story.) However, that can run into the opposite problem. I've been involved in more than a few games where the PCs ran roughshod over the rest of the world because they were higher level than the kings and other important characters; thus they could simply impose their will through violence and mow down NPCs with relative impunity. This feeds back into what the OP mentioned about PCs so easily killing gods.

I do my best not to think about it. If I do think about it, I find that I'm lead toward viewing the game as game first and story second. I can certainly have fun with that approach, but it's not what I prefer out of a rpg experience.


edit: and now my other post is back... weird; some of the thread was invisible to me for a moment.

The impact of common undead and such.... well, to some extent I can ignore things. Personally, I don't like undead and magic and wizards to be so common that they are everywhere. I'm not a fan of the approach where PCs are assumed to be magic item Christmas trees. I accept it simply because that's just the way the game works, but I prefer games in which those things being all over the place isn't the default assumption.

Still, I can ignore some things. However, level is one of those things that I have a hard time ignoring because it impacts the world overall -regardless of whether I'm a fighter, a wizard; regardless of whether I have a ton of magic items or few; regardless of whether I'm living, dead, undead, or something else. I preferred the less steep power curve of 4th Edition to that of 3rd for that very reason (as well as a few others.)

I do my best to ignore the things that bother me because rpgs are a group game, and -as such- I compromise my preferences so as to better match those of the people I game with. All things being equal in a vacuum, I'd vastly prefer a world without D&D style levels; without D&D style magic item shops, and without powerful wizards and undead being all over the place. I'm not opposed to wizards, undead, or any of that stuff being there; I just don't like it being everywhere.

Earlier today, I watched the movie Dragonslayer. In the beginning of the movie, the characters portrayed needed to travel "300 leagues" to find the old wizard in the tower. Through conversation, it is implied that magicians and witches exist elsewhere in the setting, but they sought him out in particular because he was viewed as being powerful enough to help with a dragon problem. That is the style I would prefer; I'm not against magic, I just prefer that overwhelmingly powerful magic (and some of the other D&D tropes) be place a little more sparingly. I don't think it's too much to ask for a little bit more consistency in how the world is portrayed. I don't need it to be perfect; I'd just like it to be better than it has been portrayed to me over the past two editions of the game.

 

[S'mon]

Town guards - I grew up on AD&D, where town guards were routinely level 0 and completely unable to handle even the 2 hit dice ruffians on the town encounter table, never mind the PCs!

My preference is that city guards are normally experienced professionals, as they were IRL (free cities especially only hired the best and most reliable veterans, no bravos). I use the 4e Soldier-3 town guard as a baseline; he's comparable to a 1st level PC in killing power, but a more limited skill set. Elite guards are Soldier-5 or higher, but usually only used to guard important locations. If encountered by Paragon PCs I use Minion stats 8 levels higher, so minion 11-13; knights are typically Soldier-7 (MM2 Cavalier) or Minion-15, but elite human mooks such as Shadovar Shadow Knights or Cormyrean Purple Dragon Knights (both FR) can go up to around Soldier-15 or Minion-23, with Soldier 16-20/Minion 24-28 for leaders, champions, and ultra-elite strike teams. Eg the Shadow Knights guarding Claribunus Tanthul, Prince of Shade (level 22 elite) are level 22 minion Shadovar Shadow Knights, whereas the Royal Guard of Telamont Tanthul, High Prince of Shade (level 30 elite) are level 28 minion Shade Knights. King Foril of Cormyr's Royal Guard would likely be level 15 Soldier or level 23 minion Purple Dragon Knights.

 

[Neonchameleon]

That is what balances it in my opinion a fighter still only gets two so he really does not step on the rogue's toes.

Neither the fighter nor the rogue gets anything like enough class skills in 3.X. In fact at 8+Int skills, the rogue is the least skilled of any edition- the reason for that 8 skills is that there are 8 classic rogue skills. But rogues were skilled in older editions beyond the mere domain of rogue skills (in 2e they have NWPs like everyone else).

 

[Elf Witch]

Neither the fighter nor the rogue gets anything like enough class skills in 3.X. In fact at 8+Int skills, the rogue is the least skilled of any edition- the reason for that 8 skills is that there are 8 classic rogue skills. But rogues were skilled in older editions beyond the mere domain of rogue skills (in 2e they have NWPs like everyone else).

Every player who likes to do more than their class abilities have complained that they don't get enough skill points. It does become a matter of carefully picking and choosing. But I don't agree the rogue gets that shafted on skills a non human rouge with no intelligent bonus gets 32 skill points at first level more than enough to max out those critical 8 skills. That is a lot of skill points.

I also combined listen, search and spot into one skill called perception, for bards I went back to one skill like in 3.0 instead of the way they have done it in 3.5 but I only allow it to work based on the bard charisma bonus so if it is a +3 they pick three performing things they are good at if they want more they need to take the skill again.

Other things I have changed is that local knowledge only works on an area that you spend time in or grew up in. Everyone starts the game with a 4 skill points in local knowledge of their area for free. And I give out free local knowledge if they spend anytime in an area and make an effort to learn things about it.

Clerics start the game with two free ranks in knowledge religion pertaining to their religion only if they want to know more about others they have to put ranks into it.

Sorcerers and wizards get a choice two free ranks in either knowledge Arcana or spellcraft.

I often give out bonus skill points for good roleplaying.

One of my biggest disconnects in gaming is the idea that only a wizard would be good at knowledge history why not a sorcerer who does not have to spend as much time learning magic. The way they do skills in 3.0 really leans to making characters of each class cookie cutters. Opening up skills helps give each character some individuality.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Double post.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

One of my biggest disconnects in gaming is the idea that only a wizard would be good at knowledge history why not a sorcerer who does not have to spend as much time learning magic.

Because the Wizard is like a grad student who is always reading, reading, reading to find clues about magic- how it works, where it may be found, who created what spell, etc., while a sorcerer channels magic as easily as he breathes. Why bother researching?

Its a question of the mental discipline involved. There were classes I took in school that I simply got. I just went to class- I didn't read or study for them- and still got As. In contrast, some of my classmates who had to work for it were able to tell you what page of what chapter of what book a given piece of information would be found.

Clerics, OTOH, should probably have more knowledge skills...

 

[Stormonu]

Clerics start the game with two free ranks in knowledge religion pertaining to their religion only if they want to know more about others they have to put ranks into it.

Sorcerers and wizards get a choice two free ranks in either knowledge Arcana or spellcraft.

Devil's Advocate question: If Clerics basically have a skill of Religion (Deity), shouldn't wizards/sorcerers have a skill of Arcana (School)?

 

[Elf Witch]

Because the Wizard is like a grad student who is always reading, reading, reading to find clues about magic- how it works, where it may be found, who created what spell, etc., while a sorcerer channels magic as easily as he breathes. Why bother researching?

Its a question of the mental discipline involved. There were classes I took in school that I simply got. I just went to class- I didn't read or study for them- and still got As. In contrast, some of my classmates who had to work for it were able to tell you what page of what chapter of what book a given piece of information would be found.

Clerics, OTOH, should probably have more knowledge skills...

I am going to say bull hockey on the wizard being like a grad student who studies all the time that may be true about things magical but what about the other knowledge skills. Whose to say that the sorcerer or the monk or even a fighter does not spend their downtime reading everything they can about history or dungeons or religion. I know people in real life who have never really had former education beyond high school who are self educated just because they like learning. One of my family members is a deputy sheriff he has a two year degree in law enforcement his hobby is the civil war he does reenactments. He has read hundreds of books on that time in American history he has actually been invited in to give talks at the local university on the subject of the civil war.

I have seen people choose not to play their wizard with a lot of knowledge skills which is fine like I said PCs should not be cookie cutters that is so boring. And even if the sorcerer chooses to be a history buff they are stepping on the wizard toes since skills and wizard magic come from intelligence they usually have a bigger intelligent stat than the sorcerer so that means extra skill points and bigger ability bonus.

Like I said it bothers me that skills are based on class abilities it is like these PCs never had a life before they became adventurers.

 

[Elf Witch]

Devil's Advocate question: If Clerics basically have a skill of Religion (Deity), shouldn't wizards/sorcerers have a skill of Arcana (School)?

I don't see the point Arcana is knowledge of magic so I don't see any reason to break it down though I might consider it if the wizard was a specialist. The entire reason I limited the skills to deity is that it does not make sense that a cleric who can channel magic through his god does not know the simplest tenets of his faith.

My house rules are not perfect but they make the game less gamest for me. For example if your background is one of nobility and you are playing a fighter the only way you can have any knowledge in heraldry or royalty is if you put ranks in a cross class skill. Which means a wizard with a peasant background has the ability to know more about the subject at first level than someone raised in it.

 

[Argyle King]

I agree with a lot of what Elf Witch is saying.

I think skills should be (mostly) detached from class. While there are going to be skills which are iconic for certain classes (stealth for a rogue; perform for a bard; etc,) I don't like how skill sets are handled in D&D.