Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Edena_of_Neith" data-source="post: 4736888" data-attributes="member: 2020">I've heard of Castles and Crusades (C&D) and apparently it's a really good game.  I've heard a lot of people talk about what a good game it is.  In Pathfinder, apparently though, they are following in the footsteps of 3rd Edition Dungeons and Dragons, and taking this particular approach (as opposed to C&C, which seems to favor an approach more similar to 1E and 2E D&D.)  Now, you have said that anyone can try anything, in C&C.  And others have said that anyone can try anything, in 4E D&D.  And a poster above points out that, if you had enough skill points in 3E D&D or in Pathfinder, you could try anything.  Or, in other words, Player Characters have the Jack of All Trades quality about them in these systems, right?  Isn't that about right?  Now, you point out that characters could not try things in 3rd Edition D&D (and by extrapolation, Pathfinder) because of the limitations of feats.    -  I favor the idea of characters being closer to Jack of All Trades, and further from Specialists who can only do a couple of things, and literally cannot try anything else.  That is my particular philosophy of what makes for a fun character (it is not necessarily anyone else's idea of fun, nor should it be ... it is merely mine.)  So I would support rulessets that encourage this.  I would lean towards the D&D 1E and 2E, the C&C, and yes, a lot of skill points.  However, I *do not* think every character should, quite literally, be a Jack of All Trades.  I said I *leaned towards* this, but that is not the same as saying *I'm solidly behind this.*  A character should have a wide range of abilities, but *not* be able to do everything, much less do everything well.  (Just my opinion, of course.)  If an elven character has spent 5 decades trying to learn different skills, practicing intensively every single day, then that character (if she was a genius and a prodigy in numerous fields, with trainers in numerous fields) might be at a professional level in many fields ... and this would be very extraordinary, far beyond the normal limit (even the theoretical limit) of what a human could do (short of spending 50 years adventuring and/or learning.)  In short, the elven girl in question is going to be the exception (I hope.)  Instead, characters - special as they are - are going to be professional level in only one or two things, and have a smattering of skills elsewhere, to varying degrees.  For example, nobody is going to be a concert pianist AND a concert violinist AND a concert flutist AND a professional violin craftsman AND a professional piano builder (not even that elven girl.)  You're going to need more than a few Wish spells, before a character can pull this kind of stunt.  But the character may be able to fiddle, passably play the flute, play a bit on the piano, know a little about violin and piano construction, and the like ... assuming that the character has spent years practicing these things (in other words, spent a lot of skill points on them:  10 ranks in profession:  violin (passable, but not professional), 8 ranks in flautist, 4 ranks in piano, 4 ranks in profession:  violin craftsman, 2 ranks in profession:  piano craftsman ... a total of 28 skill points spent (or 56, in 3E, perhaps) to obtain 2 passable skills and a smattering of other skills here.  (This assumes these musical instruments existed in the campaign, of course.)  A character might be a passable cobbler (10 ranks, or 10 skill points spent), know some tailoring (5 ranks, 5 skill points spent), know beginner's leatherworking (2 ranks, 2 points), know a degree of metallurgy (knowledge:  metallurgy, 5 ranks, 5 points), and even know a bit about blacksmithing (5 ranks, 5 skill points spent.)  Total points spent?  28.  A lot of skill points, but by no means a game breaker.  Could come in useful during adventuring, when the character's clothing and equipment gets damaged in combat.  These are the kind of things I would advocate as being good for Pathfinder characters.  They'd have some of that C&C and 1E flexibility, but not be total Jack of All Trade characters (that's the province of the Rogue, in my opinion ... the Rogue really *needs* to be such a character ... poor rogues!)  They wouldn't be stuck unable to do much of anything outside a few narrow fields, but on the other hand they couldn't Do Everything.  Max out on their class abilities?  Yeah, they could choose that option.  But who says that their class abilities are everything they need?  Tailoring, cobbling, blacksmithing, armorsmithing, weaponsmithing, knowledge of metallurgy ... these are all things a character could use, but they are not generally considered class abilities (much less, violinist, pianist, flautist, or (pick your medieval musical instruments of choice.))  If I were creating a character, I'd put some of those extra skill points into skills like these.  I would never rely on the notion that I could 'return to town' and have it all done for me.  I'd want my character to be self sufficient, especially if he relied on armor, weapons, thieves' tools, wizard's robes (for spell components) and other specialized equipment and apparel of that sort.  Thus, the extra skill points.  Max out on the class abilities?  Not if it means my character is going to end up walking in his bare feet for 100 miles across rocky terrain, simply because he had no skill points in cobbler!  And I mean that.   Yeah, that's how I'd approach Pathfinder.  Very much that approach.  Can you see where I'm coming from?</blockquote>

Verification