Trading age for skill ranks?

[willpax]

I've been toying around with the following idea: I'm not sure if its a good one.

The gist: allow players to add years to starting age in exchange for skill ranks to flesh out background. For example, Bob the fighter spent years working it his father's forge before he mastered the martial arts and set out to seek his fortune. Instead of a starting age of 16, he chooses to start at age 26 and begins with four ranks in craft (armor).

The details: I think I would establish the following restrictions:

1. One year for one skill rank, two years for the second (total of three), three more for the third (total of 6) and four years for the fourth (total of 10). As this is designed for background, no skill can have ranks past those allowed for first level (4).

2. Skill choices will be limited by background (cultural), not by class, but will mainly consist of craft, profession, and knowledge skills (possibly languages). No restricted skills can be improved using this system. For example, dwaves may be allowed to add to starting age to increase mining and smithing skills, while elves may be allowed to increase various knowledges. Someone who grew up in a water-centered community may be allowed to increase swimming, but I would try to otherwise limit the number of skills that are useful for adventuring (rationale: these are the kinds of skills that don't carry a significant element of danger, so are more open to a "repeat it over and over until you slowly improve" approach).
'
3. This is for skill ranks only; BAB, saves, hit die and overall level (plus anything like this that I've forgotten to mention) are not changed through this rule.

Pros: this kind of house rule would allow for more flexibility in having a background reflected in the capabilities of the characters; it would also create a situation where the longer-lived races might have a significant number of "acquired knowledges" more in keeping with their lifespans. It also could allow for commoners to be generally skilled without becoming combat machines (the "old gaffer" problem, as it were).

Cons: May unbalance things in favor of longer-lived races. Requires tight control over which skills are open to improvement in this way. Potentially open to abuse.

Watcha think?

 

[Tonguez]

I give skill bonuses based on character backgrounds already. Genrally a good background wherein the player details the characters life as the son of a poor fisherman will give him bonus skill ranks in boathandling and Prof: Fisherman.

I can see where your idea of Age-based bonuses could work but then again if my Fighter is 28 yrs old and spent 26 years as a Merchant (thus gaining bonus Merchant skills) then surely I should be less skilled as a Fighter compared to the 22 yr old Fighter who has been going on inter-clan raids and killing things since he was 13.

ergo the system as is evens out and bonus skills should be given to everyone (just different skills for different backgrounds)

 

[SylverFlame]

Since class dependent benefits (saves, BAB, etc.) aren't altered, and the cost is high (ten years for 4 ranks) I don't think it's all that bad.

However, I would be VERY specific in what is allowed for advancement in this way. Otherwise, you'll have Elves with four ranks in search, listen and spot (only 30 years of their life) and then they take rogue. They can end up with A LOT of skills maxed at first level.

To balance I'd say they should buy all their points before declaring what skills to put them in. This would mean a character with 3 skills maxed would have a cost of 78 years. Also, I wouldn't let a character apply this ability to anymore than three or four different skills. It would just get too nasty.

 

[Arienys]

If you want a quick and easy solution, let an older character take one level of Commoner for free -- (2+Int mod)x4 skill points, d4 hit points (but not the level one feat), 5d4 gp -- to reflect the skills and hardiness a slightly older character may have. This free level would not apply to the character's overall character level, nor would it take any experience points or anything... but it would cost a general Feat.

No, this is not entirely balanced in terms of this character versus other standard level-one characters... but giving any sort of bonus to a character due to his or her age being above the minimum range introduces a degree of imbalance.

 

[Spatzimaus]

There's no need to give extras. If he spent 10 years working in a forge instead of adventuring, he should have a couple levels of Expert. NPC classes are not always a bad thing, you know; they're just not meant for adventurers as much, since they're not combat-based.
But that doesn't always make them totally inferior. As strange as it sounds, my favorite character is an Aristocrat/Psion. I took Aristocrat because I wanted the armor/weapon proficiencies, Knowledge skills, and Speak Languages. That class is only slightly less powerful than the PHB classes, and I was willing to take the hit.

Giving freebies for anything is a balance headache unless you give it to everyone automatically. Starting at age 26 might be a drawback for a Human, but to an Elf it's nothing to start a bit later. Old Age is rarely a problem in a D&D campaign, especially when Reincarnate is always an option.

What you CAN do, though, is use something like d20Modern's background system (go read their SRD, it's in .pdf format). Everyone picks one, and it adds a few small bonuses (including a couple extra class skills).

 

[Silver Griffon]

There's no need to give extras. If he spent 10 years working in a forge instead of adventuring, he should have a couple levels of Expert. NPC classes are not always a bad thing, you know; they're just not meant for adventurers as much, since they're not combat-based.
But that doesn't always make them totally inferior. As strange as it sounds, my favorite character is an Aristocrat/Psion. I took Aristocrat because I wanted the armor/weapon proficiencies, Knowledge skills, and Speak Languages. That class is only slightly less powerful than the PHB classes, and I was willing to take the hit.

Giving freebies for anything is a balance headache unless you give it to everyone automatically. Starting at age 26 might be a drawback for a Human, but to an Elf it's nothing to start a bit later. Old Age is rarely a problem in a D&D campaign, especially when Reincarnate is always an option.

What you CAN do, though, is use something like d20Modern's background system (go read their SRD, it's in .pdf format). Everyone picks one, and it adds a few small bonuses (including a couple extra class skills).

I agree. Experts rock. A first level expert starts off with almost as many skill points as a first level rogue and gets to pick his own class skills. Adepts have a nice little spell list and they get a familiar at second level. Even if you only take 1 level, it adds to any sorceror or wizard levels when determining the special abilities of your familiar. Remember, that spell list is a list of spell-trigger items like wands that you can add to your repertoire. In fact, I'm thinking of running a campaign where the players start out at 4th level, but they can only have 1 level in a PC class.
Another way to handle extra skills for age is to use the existing age rules. Your starting age is up to you. A 53 year old human suffers -3 to Str, Dex, and Con; but he gets +2 Int, Wis, and Cha. More Int means more skill points. Alot of wizards and druids are "old dudes" in long robes...

 

[willpax]

I share the joy of the NPC classes, and don't see this variation (if I ever actually use it) as a substitute for that.

My primary focus was to provide a bit more depth for some of the longer-lived races. I've always wondered what elves have been doing for 90 years that makes them the equal of a 16 year old. To that extent, I'm not as interested in balance so much as I am some campaign-specific flavor (being non-human in my campaign carries with it much other baggage).

I've also been thinking about ways to increase everyday skills without increasing combat ability--this would be more useful for NPCs, obviously.

Personally, spot, listen, and other useful "pressure" skills would never be on my list of skills that could be chosen. I think anything outside of craft, profession, and knowledge would be an exception (I probably would also not allow people to learn specialized knowledges such as magic because it isn't an "everyday" sort of thing). With those limitations (combined with the four rank limit), I don't see this as something that would enable someone to min-max.

As far as taking a few levels of expert: I find that to be much more acceptable if you start the characters at greater than first level. If someone wants to be a dwarf warrior, I think it would limit the fun to have to slog through the first 14 encounters with an expert BAB all in the name of "most dwarves know something about mining or smithing."

 

[Grendel]

I think adding ranks is not a good idea, rather add a competency bonus based on age, otherwise you are circumventing the maximum skill rank limitations (which could be abused especially in cross classed skills).

 

[Silver Griffon]

I think adding ranks is not a good idea, rather add a competency bonus based on age, otherwise you are circumventing the maximum skill rank limitations (which could be abused especially in cross classed skills).

Exactly. I don't even agree with a competency bonus as a freebie. I think that prior experience in skills is represented by taking the skill focus feat or other skill-boosting feats. That's why I support the idea of increasing your starting age and suffering the physical stat minuses too if you really want the benefits. Alternately, if the DM allows it you can add two levels of an NPC class at an ECL of +1 if you are starting at higher than first level. That's because an NPC class is a CR of level-1. I know that CR and ECL are not equal, but in this case it would be a suitable solution for simulating alot of prior experience outside of adventuring and an NPC class has none of the extra goodies that usually push up an ECL beyond CR. I would limit it to 2 levels at +1 ECL or possibly 4 levels at ECL +3. Of course, in that case you have the option of taking extra PC class levels. But if you use this "ECL=CR for NPC classes" house rule, there is a reason to do it.
Any thoughts?

 

[Spatzimaus]

Better yet, ask the DM to make a version of the Expert that is more balanced with the PHB core classes, as a straight-ECL option. For example, give them a couple fixed class skills (Craft, Profession, etc.; the stuff everyone gets), and THEN let them pick 10 more. And a few more weapons. And maybe a bonus Feat or two.

We've been trying to do the same with Aristocrat, giving them a few extra perks (a Leadership bonus, a "motivation" ability similar to a toned-down Bardic Music, etc) to make a viable, nonmagical alternative to combat classes.

But, IMO you should never just say "Elves live longer, so they should get 4 extra skill points", because that takes away part of the Human's racial advantages. Forget "realism" in a fantasy setting, game balance is important too.