-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
D&D 3E/3.5 3.5 Perform, Diplomacy
- Thread starter The Spectrum Rider
- Start date
Hypersmurf
Moderatarrrrh...
* except Ride.
-Hyp.
You still are arguing the wrong points. You admitted that the arguement for splitting up those skills was weak, and then you compared perform to them again. Compare Perform to Craft, Knowledge, and Profession.
Should you get an extra knowledge for every rank you put into Arcana?
Should you become a better sailor when you put a rank in "Inkeeping"?
Should your ability to craft arrows improve as you improve Alchemy?
Should your dancing ability improve as you learn to play a harp?
No.
Technik
Should you get an extra knowledge for every rank you put into Arcana?
Should you become a better sailor when you put a rank in "Inkeeping"?
Should your ability to craft arrows improve as you improve Alchemy?
Should your dancing ability improve as you learn to play a harp?
No.
Technik
drnuncheon
Explorer
Technik4 said:
OK, I will.
Craft: Weaponsmith: This isn't split up into 'use hammer', 'use tongs', 'pump bellows', and 'temper blades'. It contains all of the separate subskills that one needs to be a weaponsmith.
Profession: fisher: This isn't split up into 'repair nets', 'fly-tying', 'bait-digging', 'knowledge: fish' and 'beer consumption'. It contains all of the separate subskills that one needs to be a fisherman.
So. Why then shouldn't 'Perform' be treated the same way? Something like Profession (performer)? That way the minstrel can sing, play his lute, and recite heroic epics...the jester can dance, juggle, and tell jokes...the actor can act in comedies or dramas or musicals...
J
>>"quote:Ride...ride should be a different skill for each kind of mount, don't you agree? Riding a giant eagle is nothing like riding a horse!"
>"It already is."
WRONG. Go back and read what it says. "If the character uses THE skill with a different mount" the characters RANK is reduced. It says nothing about taking the skill multiple times for different mounts. If a character sticks with the new, unfamiliar mount long enough the DM should stop imposing the reduction after a time, as the character will be familiar with it. Ride is actually the closest skill to Perform in 3.0. The additional perform types that you receive with every rank are "familiar" perform types. Things the bard was praticing to master during the time period from one skill rank to the next.
----------------------
From the 3.0 SRD:
Ride (DEX)
When the character selects this skill, choose the type of mount the character is familiar with. For this purpose, "horses" includes mules, donkeys, and ponies. If the character uses the skill with a different mount (such as riding a giant lizard when the character is used to riding horses), the character's rank is reduced by 2 (but not below 0). If the character uses this skill with a very different mount (such as riding a griffon when the character is used to riding horses), the character's rank is reduced by 5 (but not below 0).
>"It already is."
WRONG. Go back and read what it says. "If the character uses THE skill with a different mount" the characters RANK is reduced. It says nothing about taking the skill multiple times for different mounts. If a character sticks with the new, unfamiliar mount long enough the DM should stop imposing the reduction after a time, as the character will be familiar with it. Ride is actually the closest skill to Perform in 3.0. The additional perform types that you receive with every rank are "familiar" perform types. Things the bard was praticing to master during the time period from one skill rank to the next.
----------------------
From the 3.0 SRD:
Ride (DEX)
When the character selects this skill, choose the type of mount the character is familiar with. For this purpose, "horses" includes mules, donkeys, and ponies. If the character uses the skill with a different mount (such as riding a giant lizard when the character is used to riding horses), the character's rank is reduced by 2 (but not below 0). If the character uses this skill with a very different mount (such as riding a griffon when the character is used to riding horses), the character's rank is reduced by 5 (but not below 0).
RigaMortus
Explorer
IanB said:
Kinda like they can pick a level of Fighter and "suddenly" be proficient in ALL Martial Weapons? Or they "suddenly" get tougher (ie more hit points)? Or they "suddenly" get Stronger/Dextrous/Intelligent/Wise/Charismatic (ie ability point increase)? Or they "suddenly" can cast more spells or better spells?
I think we are to assume that the character has been developing these skills for awhile now. So putting the 1 point in Perform and "suddenly" becoming an expert dancer is just another way of saying, "You've been practicing your dancing for awhile now and finally you have become very good at it." I mean really, it's not like a person with no Ranks in Perform can't dance. Even a Barbarian can shake their booty
Shard O'Glase
First Post
Michael Tree said:
This is bang on. In all other subskill sets each subskill provdes a totally different function. Having 10 ranks in dance and 10 ranks in lute mechanically gets you two things over just having 10 ranks in lute, jack and well you know.
This is yet another situation where a styalistic change happened desptire the mechanical flaws of the change. Sorry in a rules set I want changes for sound mechanical reasons not styalistic ones.
No perform is not being split as you suggest. For instance in order to sing it is not split into "Read Music", "Vocal Theory", and "Pitch". Forgive me if I am not a singer, Im not sure what goes into it, but I'm sure its equivelent to learning a trade as a fisherman, learning how to craft (just) weapons, etc.
As far as stylistically useful vs mechanically useful, I dont think so. For instance, a player may want a singing bard - it seems useful, you don't need an instrument. Later he finds that in many of the stealth missions this particular group likes to engage in, singing is not so useful, so he picks up ranks in a soft musical instrument that won't make much noise. In a fully-pitched battle he may tend to use his voice as he has more ranks in it, but for skillfull raids/ambushes it is handy having a low-playing musical instrument.
Had 3e been like this from the outset, there would be no complaints.
Technik
Again, similar but not quite. A wizard can wield a longsword, at a -4 penalty. If a wizard takes a level of fighter, he can wield the longsword without that penalty. A bard who has 18 ranks in various performances, lets say instruments mostly, picks up another rank of perform. Suddenly he can dance just as well as he can do everything else.
While characters are working "behind the scenes" on various things, it seems ridiculous to go from a +5 (from Charisma) to a dance check to +24 (ranks+charisma). You cant show me an example like that with picking up 1 level (much less 1 rank) anywhere else in the game. As skill bonuses in general are more expensive, the perform change makes perfect mechanical sense.
Technik
Speaks With Stone
First Post
As a longtime Rolemaster player who escaped into 3rd Edition to avoid overmuch emphasis on "reality," I can only shake my head at this whole discussion.
I refer everyone to www.theguildcompanion.com or any other Rolemaster web site where you can discover long standing arguments as to what makes sense and how to more realistically capture some minor detail of combat or skills in that game. Sure, there's a good reason for saying the perform skill is not the same for everything (we've all seen singers in bad movies, and actors sing bad songs), but the overdivision of skills is not a good thing.
Trust me, general categories suffice very well even for the heavy RP crowd. It took me a long time to realize that the more you divide a character into the skills the less you focus on the personality involved. Maybe splitting perform into 2 or 3 skills would be okay or use the penalities suggested for the Ride skill in some manner. I find it hard to believe that a small subset could not be derived for the various perform to keep it in line with the other skills - and even for the heavy RP crowd - perform is not a primary skill. I say this in relation to the rare occurence or need of this skill to solve problems typical for an adventure. It's neat and cool and can be used, but it is rarely that central to a plan or course of action.
My only point is that the overdivision of skills is a nasty slope of vastly slippery composition. Rolemaster had/has the following skills that all fit within heal: first aid, second aid, surgery, diagnostics, use prepared herb, remove poison, and others were possible. There are many such examples all based on the idea that it's possible to know one subset without the other even if that would be rare. If you need this for RP reasons, then just impose the limit on yourself.
Come on now, skills are good and cool, but don't get carried away.
I refer everyone to www.theguildcompanion.com or any other Rolemaster web site where you can discover long standing arguments as to what makes sense and how to more realistically capture some minor detail of combat or skills in that game. Sure, there's a good reason for saying the perform skill is not the same for everything (we've all seen singers in bad movies, and actors sing bad songs), but the overdivision of skills is not a good thing.
Trust me, general categories suffice very well even for the heavy RP crowd. It took me a long time to realize that the more you divide a character into the skills the less you focus on the personality involved. Maybe splitting perform into 2 or 3 skills would be okay or use the penalities suggested for the Ride skill in some manner. I find it hard to believe that a small subset could not be derived for the various perform to keep it in line with the other skills - and even for the heavy RP crowd - perform is not a primary skill. I say this in relation to the rare occurence or need of this skill to solve problems typical for an adventure. It's neat and cool and can be used, but it is rarely that central to a plan or course of action.
My only point is that the overdivision of skills is a nasty slope of vastly slippery composition. Rolemaster had/has the following skills that all fit within heal: first aid, second aid, surgery, diagnostics, use prepared herb, remove poison, and others were possible. There are many such examples all based on the idea that it's possible to know one subset without the other even if that would be rare. If you need this for RP reasons, then just impose the limit on yourself.
Come on now, skills are good and cool, but don't get carried away.
Last edited:
