D&D 5E What's the rush? Has the "here and now" been replaced by the "next level" attitude?

[Mallus]

Here's the thing: Most of the skill checks are opposed checks. And a fighter has intimidate, which they would be alright at (but not great, unless they took skill focus in it, or otherwise burned a feat). A fighter should be able to browbeat buccaneers of lower level.

You're right. A typical pirate crew of warriors/low-level fighters is the Social Encounter Special Olympics, where a captain with a +7 or +8 Intimidate check by 4th level could run a pretty tight ship!

They'd still fail those checks on a regular basis though, given the probability curve of a single d20.

In a typical D20 game, 3'rd level is pretty scrub.

Which was kinda my point.

So you could do it.

Sure. For players, it could be a lot a fun.

 

[Mallus]

Because?

It was a handy example, one I was familiar with?

A adventure part is scaled to a specific level range and of course the antagonists would be the indicated level to engage the PCs in fair combat.

I see you missed the part about "and no pirate captain was below 8th/9th level". If the module was scaled as you're implying, the PCs would have fought a like-level captain at the end of the first adventure. That wasn't the case.

It would also help if you would define what, in your mind, a "pirate lord" actually is.

If I had to hang a definition on it, I'd say a "pirate lord" is a pirate who commands more than a single ship, ie a small fleet or squadron. Akin to the land-based "warlord".

I'd further say, in the context of D&D --especially later editions -- it also strongly implies a leader with access to magic, ie spell-casting allies and/or subordinates.

 

[Derren]

It was a handy example, one I was familiar with?

Hardly a good basis for making this the minimum level you accept as it is pretty much arbitrary.

I see you missed the part about "and no pirate captain was below 8th/9th level". If the module was scaled as you're implying, the PCs would have fought a like-level captain at the end of the first adventure. That wasn't the case.

And?
If the Adventure was scaled to PCs from 1st to 10th level you would have Captains at 4th level. There is no reason why the levels of pirate captains in one adventure path would define the minimum level of pirate captains for all games.

If I had to hang a definition on it, I'd say a "pirate lord" is a pirate who commands more than a single ship, ie a small fleet or squadron. Akin to the land-based "warlord".

I'd further say, in the context of D&D --especially later editions -- it also strongly implies a leader with access to magic, ie spell-casting allies and/or subordinates.

You are the one constantly using this title and dismissing my examples as "too low" because of arbitrary and not communicated reasons. So you better define it.
And now please explain what in the definition you gave requires a certain level or skill rank.

 

[Mallus]

Hardly a good basis for making this the minimum level you accept as it is pretty much arbitrary.

I said it was an example. One that happens to be congruent with the levels for pirate-leader type people found in older editions.

If the Adventure was scaled to PCs from 1st to 10th level you would have Captains at 4th level.

No, you misunderstand. The entire AP runs from 1st to 18th level. In part one, meant for PCs level 1-3, there are still no 4th level captains. Captaincy seems to require higher level.

There is no reason why the levels of pirate captains in one adventure path would define the minimum level of pirate captains for all games.

Again, it's an example. Just for kicks, can you find me any examples from published materials which back up your argument? Can you show me some low-level pirate lords in 3e/Pathfinder? -- I mean, other than ones you invent yourself.

And now please explain what in the definition you gave requires a certain level or skill rank.

Are you seriously asking this in the context of a D&D campaign? It's like asking why your 4th level character can't have an 8th level henchman (would you like me to cite the SRD).

Because character level represents/embodies all the different skills a character needs to acquire and maintain valuable allies like spellcasters and positions of command over the likes of many pirates?

I mean, I suppose you could run a scenario where the 4th level pirate lord is never asked to make more than a DC: 15 skill check in the course of their command and deployment of 100 or more pirates, doing all manner of piratical things, all the while maintain the good graces and more important, use of, their capable spellcaster henchmen.

No DM worth their salt I know off would do this. But hey, it takes all kinds...

 

[Derren]

I said it was an example.

So basically you continue to throw around arbitrary numbers because you have seen them in an adventure and make nebulous comments about how pirate lords must be higher levels without providing any reasoning or explanation what skill levels they would in your eyes require (and why) and why they need such high level subordinates (and why they need to be higher level than them), coupled with your very strange ideas about pirates and an unwillingness to explain them.

There is no point in continuing this discussion then as you will keep hiding your goalpost and even if you are pressured to reveal them move them at will without explanation. You might have your unshakable believes on what a pirate lord needs to be, but that hardly makes them the benchmark to measure a systems leveling speed and required level for concepts, especially when you fail to provide any tangible explanation except it "feeling right" for you.

 

[Mallus]

So basically you continue to throw around arbitrary numbers because you have seen them in an adventure and make nebulous comments about how pirate lords must be higher levels without providing any reasoning or explanation what skill levels they would in your eyes require (and why) and why they need such high level subordinates (and why they need to be higher level than them), coupled with your very strange ideas about pirates and an unwillingness to explain them.

I've no longer got any idea what you're on about.

What I've been doing is pointing out the obvious. To wit, over the course of the history of D&D, commanders have been depicted as being higher level than their subordinates. Sometimes by 6-7 levels, or more. I've cited examples. Which you have not, I'll note.

I also have this crazy notion that the word "lord" implies something (when used non-ironically) and that D&D has a long tradition of related personal power (ie class levels) with societal power (ie command & followers).

I didn't expect anyone to find those controversial. Once again, I've underestimated my fellow gamer.

So yes, we're at an impasse. We conceptualize the game very differently. Which is cool. Good gaming!

 

[Derren]

I also have this crazy notion that the word "lord" implies something

And when asked about this something your only answer was "multiple ships and spellcaster henchman", nothing which implies personal power. Again, you are hiding and then moving goalposts.

I ask you, is in your games the king always the highest level character in the entire kingdom and the mayor the highest level character in a city? I am pretty sure they are not. So why must the captain be the highest level character on the ship/fleet and why must the character be 8th level or higher? What does he gain by being such a high level which is required by his position apart from satisfying your arbitrary limitations? What feat can he take and what skill DC can he beat that is absolutely essential for him being a pirate lord?

I really try to understand your fixation on minimum levels for social titles, but considering you so far could not offer any explanation my only guess is that you do not know yourself why you insist on them and only do so because "it has always been that way".

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Aeral Flynn Rogie 2 / Fighter 2 Chaotic Neutral Human

Str: 13
Dex: 16
Con: 10
Int: 14
Wis: 12
Cha: 12

HP: 32
AC: 18 (Chain Shirt & Amulet) 19 (Dodge)
Fort: + 4 Ref: + 7 Will: + 3

Rapier + 1: + 10 to hit, 1d6 + 2 (+ 1d6 if caught flat footed)

Feats: Weapon Finesse (Rapier), Dodge, Weapon Focus (Rapier), Persuasive, Iron Will

Skills: Balance: + 5, Bluff: + 10, Climb:+ 3 , Diplomacy: + 8, Gather Information:+ 3, Intimidate: + 10, Listen:+ 4, Profession (Sailor): + 8, Search: + 6, Spot:+ 5, Sense Motive:+ 5, Swim: + 3, Use Rope: + 5,

Abilities: Sneak Attack + 1d6, Evasion, Trapfinding

Items: Cloak of Resistance + 1, Amulet of Nat Armor + 1

Here is a quick pirate lord I threw together just using the 3.5 PHB.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Profession (Sailor): + 8

Just a quick note on this. Per the 3.5 PHB:

Check: You can practice your trade and make a decent living, earning about half your check result in gold pieces per week of dedicated work. You know how to use the tools of your trade, how to perform the profession's daily tasks, how to supervise helpers, and how to handle common problems. For example, a sailor knows how to tie several basic knots, how to tend and repair sails, and how to stand a deck watch at sea. The DM sets DCs for specialized tasks.

Per RAW, you can actually use Profession to roll for things that your Profession covers (to some degree). According to the rules "Difficulty Class Examples" on page 64, DC 10 tasks are Average, and DC 15 are Tough. If the character that ForeverSlayer made swapped a feat (say, Persuasion for Skill Focus: Profession), then he'd be able to take a 10 and get a 21, hitting the DC 20 Challenging tasks (when not threatened or distracted).

Now, my RPG uses the Profession skill differently, but I wanted to make a note of the explicit RAW of Profession (as of 3.5). It's not just about getting money (though he can do that with it). The PC can also use the tools of his trade (using a compass, or the tying knot example), perform daily tasks (help run the ship, or the stand watch at deck example), supervise helpers (order henchmen around), and handle common problems (balance on the ship, or the repair sails example).

Per RAW, a character with 4 ranks, Skill Focus (+3), and a 16 Wisdom (+3) can take a 10 and hit the DC 20 check (everything from Very Easy to Challenging) without rolling, provided they're not threatened or distracted. That goes a long way towards giving the PC the skills necessary to sail proficiently.

I know most DMs allowed things like Profession (Guard). If you can take Profession (Guard), why not Profession (Pirate)? Seems like a DM call (as Profession lists a non-exhaustive list of examples that represent "an aptitude in a vocation requiring a broader range of less specific knowledge.")

 

[herrozerro]

Aeral Flynn Rogie 2 / Fighter 2 Chaotic Neutral Human

Str: 13
Dex: 16
Con: 10
Int: 14
Wis: 12
Cha: 12

HP: 32
AC: 18 (Chain Shirt & Amulet) 19 (Dodge)
Fort: + 4 Ref: + 7 Will: + 3

Rapier + 1: + 10 to hit, 1d6 + 2 (+ 1d6 if caught flat footed)

Feats: Weapon Finesse (Rapier), Dodge, Weapon Focus (Rapier), Persuasive, Iron Will

Skills: Balance: + 5, Bluff: + 10, Climb:+ 3 , Diplomacy: + 8, Gather Information:+ 3, Intimidate: + 10, Listen:+ 4, Profession (Sailor): + 8, Search: + 6, Spot:+ 5, Sense Motive:+ 5, Swim: + 3, Use Rope: + 5,

Abilities: Sneak Attack + 1d6, Evasion, Trapfinding

Items: Cloak of Resistance + 1, Amulet of Nat Armor + 1

Here is a quick pirate lord I threw together just using the 3.5 PHB.

What makes him a pirate lord though? No followers, no ship, just a half rogue half fighter with profession sailor.

Sounds like just a sailor.