D&D 3E/3.5 3.5 Perform, Diplomacy

[Hypersmurf]

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.

I disagree. It says nothing about gaining familiarity with new types.

You choose the type of mount you are familiar with when you take the first rank. Ride [Horse, Pony, Donkey].

That means at 5th level you have a Max Rank of 8 in Ride [Horse, Pony, Donkey], which gives you an effective rank of 3 to ride a griffon.

If you want to ride a Griffon better than that, I don't see anything to prohibit taking 9 ranks in Ride [Griffon] next time you level... and indeed, there's certainly no way listed to "improve" or "convert" your ranks of Ride [Horse, Pony, Donkey] into Ride [Griffon] ranks.

If someone with four ranks of Perform [Play Flute, Play Harp, Play Drum, Play Xylophone] told me that every day, they were practising dancing... that doesn't mean they pick up a free dancing "Perform slot". They need to spend a skill point on it next time they level.

In the same way, just because someone practises riding a Griffon, until they spend the skill points on it, it doesn't change the fact that their ranks in Ride Horse are only partially applicable.

-Hyp.

 

[coyote6]

Had 3e been like this from the outset, there would be no complaints.

Incorrect. I would have complained in August 2000.

(PS: I'm not really satisfied with how Ride works, either; I'd like there to be some method of gaining additional "familiarities" without having to buy a whole new skill. Maybe spend one skill rank per familiarity, or at the least, allow skills to be bought up from "default". E.g., you have 20 ranks in Ride (Horse), which gives you 15 ranks in Ride (Griffon); either spend one point to get Ride (Griffon) up to your general Ride level, or spend ranks to buy (Griffon) up from the 15 ranks you effectively have now.)

Actually, I wouldn't be bothered if Perform was done that way. E.g., you take Perform (Singing); then spend one point per other category you want (using the 3.5e categories). Thus, if you want to be good at it all, you'd have to spend an extra 9 skill points.

I might go with that (if I remember it in 3 weeks ), or just keep using 3.0e Perform.

 

[Henry]

I myself prefer breaking down perform in SOME fashion, though not necessarily in the way that 3.5 does it.

In all of the arguments I have seen so far, posters who are against the breaking down of Perform have made comparisons to either fighters and multiple weapons, or the craft skills, and have brought up known celebrities who are multi-talented.

Yes, Bo Jackson could be a star American Football player and Baseball player - but he was very likely better at one than the other, albeit marginally. There are musicians who can play multiple instruments very well - but still have a favored one that they excel at.

Fighters can pick up many weapons with equal facility - but they are still better at one or two weapons than all of them.

A Weaponsmith (only) cannot craft a suit of armor as well, nor can a Sage of the Undead (alone) determine the number of prime material planes accessed by Lolth's Demonweb.

The breakdown in Perform is more like the Craft or Knowledge breakdowns; the debate is hinged upon whether one thinks 10 categories are too many - I think it might be too many by about 4 (meaning I would have liked for it to be no more than 6 categories max). In truth, I would much have preferred something like ride, where you have the categories, but a penalty to use another category without obviating all the ranks entirely.

 

[Henry]

(PS: I'm not really satisfied with how Ride works, either; I'd like there to be some method of gaining additional "familiarities" without having to buy a whole new skill. Maybe spend one skill rank per familiarity, or at the least, allow skills to be bought up from "default". E.g., you have 20 ranks in Ride (Horse), which gives you 15 ranks in Ride (Griffon); either spend one point to get Ride (Griffon) up to your general Ride level, or spend ranks to buy (Griffon) up from the 15 ranks you effectively have now.)

On the other hand, this alternative is so much like GURPS that it would send me screaming into the night; trying to figure out the cost of basing one skill of of another, and the cost to buy it from default to current levels, used to drive me crazy back when I played it.

 

[coyote6]

On the other hand, this alternative is so much like GURPS that it would send me screaming into the night; trying to figure out the cost of basing one skill of of another, and the cost to buy it from default to current levels, used to drive me crazy back when I played it.

Heh.

(Bob plays GURPS, a lot. Well, not so much lately, alas. Too many games, too little time...)

But anyways, it's not really comparable complexity; GURPS has varying levels of difficulty for skills, and the cost to increase a skill increases as one becomes more skilled. In D&D, one ranks is one rank is one rank.

Still, I'd prefer a simpler method. That it also happens to be cheaper is not, IMO, a defect.

As for me -- if they'd broke it down to three or four categories, I think I'd be more appreciative. As it is, I think ten skills is too expensive in terms of its importance. Being a sailor takes one skill, and covers everything sailory. I'm happy with Perform functioning as Profession (Entertainer).

 

[Al]

Hmm...well, the Ride skill gives me an idea. Why non divide Perform into the separate subskills, but give a relationship between them. So, subskills which are Related operate at a -2 ranks to each other. Subskills which are Partially Related operate at a -5 to each other. Subskills which are Unrelated use 0 ranks. For example, Acting and Comedy could be Related. An all-round actor has enough of a comic repertoire to do most comedy fairly well. A 7th level bard with 10 ranks in acting has effectively 8 ranks in Comedy. Acting and Oratory are Partially Related. He doesn't have the clever rhetorical tricks that a fully trained orator would have, but he can project his voice effectively and clearly, make the hand movements necessary to carry a particular emotion and change his tone of voice to emphasise a particular point. Acting and String Instruments are Unrelated- sure, he has his stage presence (charisma) but doesn't know how to play a violin better than Joe Commoner.

Now, here's a brief run-down of how I would eyeball the approximations:
Act- Related to Comedy, Partially Related to Oratory, Unrelated to all others.
Comedy- Related to Act, Partially Related to Oratory, Unrelated to all others
Dance- Partially Related to Sing (since many singers dance and vice versa), Unrelated to all others
Keyboard instruments- Partially Related to Percussion, String and Wind Instruments (basic understanding of music theory etc.)
Oratory- Partially Related to Act and Comedy, Unrelated to all others
Percussion Instruments- Partially Related to Keyboard, String and Wind, Unrelated to all others
String Instruments- Partially Related to Keyboard, Percussion and Wind, Unrelated to all others
Wind Instruments- Partially Related to Keyboard, Percussion and String, Sing (due to diaphragm control etc.), Unrelated to all others
Sing- Partially Related to Dance, Wind, Unrelated to all others

Now, some of these may be criticised individually, but what about the system overall? Comments? Criticisms?

As an additional, well, addition, you could use 'virtual ranks' that are increased by skill points (a la GURPS default skills). So a bard with 10 ranks in Act would have 8 virtual ranks in Comedy. If he spends 1 point in Comedy, he has 9 total ranks (8 virtual + 1 point). If he spends another five points, he has a total of 14, and his Act skill increases (he gains two virtual ranks). It's potentially a lot of bookkeeping though, so this could be scrapped.

What do you think?

 

[Shard O'Glase]

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

Who gives a crap if one is quieter, and oh look with singing I can do this with my hands tied behind my back.

Perform sing and perfom lute accomplish the same thing, there may be some small situational benefits to various styles but unlike craft, knowledge etc. The end result is the same dang thing. Splitting a skill into subskills where each subskill performs the same exact function is a poor design choice based in styalistic theories and not mechanical ones.

 

[Olive]

That's it, I'm not buying 3.5. I've seen so many horrid changes, but this is the straw that broke the camel's back.

You people make me laugh... you're not buying a rules system because of the way that perform works? really? the one change (that I'd already made in my game when it started) that will take you 0.05 seconds to house rule is stopping you from buying it? you have odd priorities my friend.

 

[Michael Tree]

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?

Similarities between knowing about Arcana and knowing about Nobility and Royalty: None. They're entirely different.

Similarities between sailing and inkeeping: None. They're entirely different.

Similarities between crafting arrows and magical alchemy: Almost none. There may be some common metallurgy, but nothing else.

Similaries between playing a keyboard and playing a flute: Enormous. Both rely on music theory, knowledge of repetoire, skill at improvising, playing with harmony, rhythym, knowing how to read a crowd, knowing how to please a crowd, and knowing how to inflect your playing with emotion so it's musical and emotional, not just mechanical. Knowing how to finger a particular instrument or control your voice is only a minor part of being a good musician.

Your analogy holds up better for dance vs. sing, but at most that argument will seperate perform into three skils: Music, Acting, and Dance.

 

[Michael Tree]

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.

I didn't realize D&D characters were incapable of singing quietly. But even if that wasn't the case, it's still a miniscule benefit. It hardly compares to learning how to craft an entirely different category of items, or learning about an entirely different body of knowledge.

Had 3e been like this from the outset, there would still have been complaints. Granted, they would have been drowned out amid bigger complaints, but many people still wouldn't have liked it. But nice try with attempting to change our arguments from "this rule has bad implications and is no more or less realistic than other rule in the game" to "waaaaa! they made a change! waaaa!"