Banishing "Sacred Cows"

The fighter's skill list is criminally small and the fighter also has too few points to even thing about cross-classing. Apparently a decision was made somewhere in game design that all fighters should do is fight because they have neither the skills nor the points to do anything else.

Knowledge (War) would be nice, too. For the Fighters who advance high enough in level and end up as military commanders. Hell, even low-level Fighters who're in command of elite squads could use such a skill.

I also agree on Sense Motive. Especially after Sword & Fist, in which the new uses for Sense Motive are Combat Prediction and Decipher Strategy.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Green Knight said:


Knowledge (War) would be nice, too. For the Fighters who advance high enough in level and end up as military commanders. Hell, even low-level Fighters who're in command of elite squads could use such a skill.

I also agree on Sense Motive. Especially after Sword & Fist, in which the new uses for Sense Motive are Combat Prediction and Decipher Strategy.

I use the Battle skill from Rokugan to allow fighters to counter Bluff feints in combat. Basically Battle is the fighter version of Spellcraft.

Tzarevitch
 

Tzarevitch said:
My $.02.

1) Separate the item creation feats a bit better.

Yes, but by function rather than form. Wand and staff are good (single spell/multiple related spells) as is. Arms and Armor is fine for a single feat. I agree that ointments, dusts, etc. should fall under Brew Potion. The really sticky ones are Forge Ring and Craft Wonder--and why are magical gauntlets wondrous items and not armor?

First of all, anything that grants bonuses to abilities or skills, and any use-activated magical powers, fall into the category of wondrous item. If you want to make a magic sword that also gives you +2 to Str, you have to have both Craft arms and armor and craft wonder. Rings could be to wondrous items as staffs are to wands, allowing cheaper stacking of related powers.

As for Craft rod, it can certainly go bye-bye.


2) The skills system is too weak. It is a great idea but doesn't go far enough.

I don't really have a problem with DC's, but if every class got two more skill points per level they'd still be balanced with each other. I think 4 should be the minimum, and the lists of class skills should be broadened for everyone a bit.

I would also allow every character to choose one additional class skill at level 1.

Opposed non-combat rolls should be based on 2d10 rather than a d20, or on a "best of 3" mechanic so that novices (no ranks) beat masters (10 ranks) much less often.


Fighters who are supposed to be skilled in combat manouvers can't Tumble and apparently have no sense of Balance. They also apparently too stupid to figure out when someone is feinting them in combat (no Sense Motive in class) despite the fact that they should be the best at spotting feints in a fight. Combat is what they do (and based on both a lack of skills AND skill points fighting is all they CAN do) so they should at least be good at it. Oh! Did I forget to mention that the big, burly fighter who can cleave you in twain apparently isn't very Intimidating either.

Our house rule is simple: to oppose a feint, you may use your BAB instead of Sense Motive on the opposed roll.


2d)Lastly, the ability to make skill items with unbounded skill bonuses makes the skill system useless at mid to high levels (mainly due to the problem of so many low, static DCs.)

Yes, skill items are undervalued.

My own additions would be few:

1) Make spells less user-friendly. The risks of fireball backlash and falling to your death from a Fly spell added savor to the wizard class, and made arcane magic more flavorful. Everything has been given a safety belt... even dispelling a fly spell only turns it into a feather fall. (WTF?)

2) Minor tweaks to front-loaded classes to make them more attractive at higher levels.

3) Explicit rules for customizing classes, or at least a couple of examples for each. Something like "Paladins who come from societies where mounted combat is very uncommon may exchange their sacred mount class ability for an additional Smite every 3 levels." and "Druids are less common among dwarves and other subterranean societies, but they do exist. Underground druids have a modified spell list as follows:" (delete a dozen or so plant-based spells, replace with earth-based spells). I know it's not hard for DMs to do on a case-by-case basis, but more examples would make the relative value of different class abilities clearer.

That's about it, really. I wouldn't change armor/hp at all--it's easy and gives a nicely cinematic feel, and the critical hit system works really well. I would add a couple of new core feats to make certain weapons/fighting styles more viable--like a feat that lets you fight with a polearm at close range, and Improved grapple.

--Ben
 
Last edited:

Irda Ranger said:
First off, if any readers haven't read Monty Cook's essay on the sacred cows of D&D (or D&D-isms, as he calls them), please do. I think it should get the thoughts flushing. If the link doesn't work, its archived under "Line of Sight".

I find that essay woefully uninsightful.

Frex, yes, levels serve a useful purpose. So what? He doesn't seem to consider there may be other "carrots" that achieve the exact same goal. Nor I have noticed people having trouble pidgeon-holing their classless characters in four or five words.

Just because a mechanic serves a useful purpose does not automatically make it a good mechanic. Most bad mechanics serve useful purposes, too.
 

Sulimo said:
One HP related problem I've always had is that character fight at 100% effectiveness untill they pass out.

That is probably my biggest gripe with 3e.

I find systems where being wounded degrades your effectiveness are actually much more dramatic.

Many combats in D&D feel more like "hit point resource management" events than dramatic stories. A CR n creature up against a fresh nth level party is going to do no permenant damage 99% of the time against competent play. All there is left to wonder is how much of your resources are expended.
 

Ridley's Cohort said:


I find that essay woefully uninsightful.

Frex, yes, levels serve a useful purpose. So what? He doesn't seem to consider there may be other "carrots" that achieve the exact same goal. Nor I have noticed people having trouble pidgeon-holing their classless characters in four or five words.

Just because a mechanic serves a useful purpose does not automatically make it a good mechanic. Most bad mechanics serve useful purposes, too.

We're talking about mechanics that have survived almost thirty years now. 30 years of field testing. They can't be bad. You may not like them, but obviously a lot of people do.

Getting rid of elements like levels changes the game so fundamentally that it wouldn't be D&D anymore. Thus, there would be a lot of extremely unhappy D&D fans - even more than the 1e/2e/OD&D diehards who eschew 3e. All this for little gain - most of the people who wanted classless/levelless/whateverless RPGs probably have another game of choice, one they've played for years.

Now, I don't mind variants being presented. But changing the game at such a fundamental level, when there are so many other games that do precisely what is being called for, and which have been played for years (and therefore gotten the bugs worked out), seems not only innecessary, but ultimately damaging to D&D.
 

Hail to the Colonel!

That was exactly what I was trying to say, only you put it more eloquently.

It all boils down to:

Are these radical changes better?

Or just DIFFERENT?
 

Ridley's Cohort said:
Many combats in D&D feel more like "hit point resource management" events than dramatic stories.

I think that is largely a matter of perspective. I think the HP system, if anything, AIDS in a dramatic feel.

Think of movies like Die Hard or your typical Jackie Chan or Van Damme movie. What gets your blood pumping when you see a fight scene in one of those movie. Typically, we see the hero all beat up and bloodied, knowing that the next blow from the big bad guy could be the one to put him under.

Now compare the HP system. Normally, HP afford you a level of security. You know when you face a typical nuissance encounter, you will probably come out of it fine.

But then you get into the big fight. You get in a few scrapes, and the enemy hits you with a blow that leaves you with less HP than you took in the blow. You realize that one more like that, and you are done for. The tension is instantly heightened, and you know your character's life is on the line. This can have a big emotional impact on the player... and adds drama to the combat.

Now if you take a game in which any hit can kill you, the players get a little jaded, and the emotional response drains out of the game.
 

A lot of it seems like this: a person says "Hey! I like this type of game! I want to change D&D into that type of game!" Well, why not just, as I said above, play one of those other games? A lot of them are really good games. Why is it necessary to change D&D into another kind of game? Streamlining is good, which 3e did. There are still some bugs to be worked out, but not at the level of, well, levels. Or classes. Or hit points. These things have survived, and apparently lots of people like them. They work - again, maybe not for you, but for many others. I know that when I first heard about a 3rd edition of D&D, I wrote to WotC/TSR to tell them not to change some of the most "D&D-ish" elements, like those I just mentioned. If I want to play a game without those elements, I'll play a different game.

Again, variants are good. We've seen some good variants in games like Call of Cthulhu d20 or the Polyhedron minigames.
 

Ridley's Cohort said:
That is probably my biggest gripe with 3e.

Mine too. Which is one reason why I sort of like the VP/WP system.

For D&D, I like the character continuity provided by the HP system, but I have a system whereby characters can acquire penalties from large wounds.


I find systems where being wounded degrades your effectiveness are actually much more dramatic.

You have to be careful though. You go to deep into this territory, you get what game designers refer to as the "death spiral" effect, which makes it so that the first person to score a hit has a major advantage. At that point, it becomes a crapshoot and anything BUT dramatic.
 

Remove ads

Top