Compiled 3.5 Revisions

[hong]

Re the Knowledge skill revision:

Wow: Hallelujah anyone?

That is how they should have been done in the first place. The synergy bonuses are appropriate. They mean that you might actually get real use out of your knowledge skills.

I have already used Knowledge (geography) to give a synergy +2 to Wilderness Lore to avoiding getting lost - and now it's official!
Also already use the knowledge skills in a similar way to identify creatures.

IMO, this is Knowledge skills done right. Yee hah!

Oy. Next thing you know, you'll be saying stuff like "Survival defaults to Knowledge (geography) -2".


Hong "the horror, the horror" Ooi

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

Oy. Next thing you know, you'll be saying stuff like "Survival defaults to Knowledge (geography) -2".


Hong "the horror, the horror" Ooi

Or you can be like our GURPS game: Everything defaults to Brawling.

 

[Storminator]

I mostly agree with what you said, just thought this was funny. How many western world geeks do you think would be adventurers? I was always bugged by the "we're geeks and we know what will kill vampires, so of course any self-respecting adventurer would!" theory. If I was a vampire I would spend at least a good hundred years spreading lies about vampire vulnerabilities. Sure, its not gonna fool the seasoned vets, but it will at least throw some of the population off the trail.

Good point about commonality vs fame though.

Technik

I think this makes geeks the sages, doesn't it?

I imagine sitting in my FLGS, playing some D&D, and having a pack of high-school jocks come in and start asking my group how to kill various monsters.

PS

 

[DM_Matt]

Re: Knowledge skills writeup

Here is the writeup of the knowledge skill section from my 3.5E PH. Lots of tasty bits... Their use is much more clearly defined now and there are some nifty synergy bonuses.

There's also a sidebar below about player knowledge vs. character knowledge, and how the usage of both in the game can differ from campaign to campaign.

Sounds cool, but where's my Knowledge (War). There STILL isn't a skill that fighters et al can take to identify/know about weapons, fighting styles, tactics, etc.

 

[Tellerve]

DM_Matt, it says if you want you can create new areas of knowledge. If you so wanted you could create war.

Tellerve

 

[Ketjak]

Unless you're an NPC, right? Seriously, who takes the time to assign skill points to their NPCs level by level, based upon the presumed Int of the NPC at every given level?

Good thing my players aren't checking my math...

I do. Otherwise it's called "cheating."

 

[Pielorinho]

I do. Otherwise it's called "cheating."

Freaky. In my circles, the DM *cannot* cheat. The DM can run a better or worse game, of course -- but for us, the DM isn't relegated to a referee role, an interpreter of the rules. The DM *makes* the rules.

I'd much rather my DM put time into coming up with character motivations, plot twists, and spectacular scenes than into making sure every skill point is spent, every combat modifier taken into consideration. For myself, that's how I handle it: I use an NPC generator and then play very fast and very loose with the results, creating somebody with a fun amount of stats.

Daniel

 

[Ketjak]

Freaky. In my circles, the DM *cannot* cheat. The DM can run a better or worse game, of course -- but for us, the DM isn't relegated to a referee role, an interpreter of the rules. The DM *makes* the rules.

I'd much rather my DM put time into coming up with character motivations, plot twists, and spectacular scenes than into making sure every skill point is spent, every combat modifier taken into consideration. For myself, that's how I handle it: I use an NPC generator and then play very fast and very loose with the results, creating somebody with a fun amount of stats.

Daniel

Smarmy answer: I put a lot of effort into motivating my NPCs! This one is motivated to kill for vengeance, another for greed, and still another because he wants to stand on a mountain of the dead!

More serious: Motivations and spectacular scenery is a matter of description. Whether or not you can make your players laugh, cheer, groan, or weep is a testament to your oratory skill and the type of campaign you're running. Doing so using the same rules your players use (acknowledging the need for Rule Zero's occasional use as a club) is a mark of skill.

Some skills like Tumble, Jump, and Climb are very important in the right circumstances. Skill definition also reflects your character's depth, too - a fighter renowned for playing the lute better have Perform (stringed instruments 3.5, alas) or you're doing something strange. Of course, how those affect his other skills (like the Jump he'll need to take an assassin unaware) is more important when he's in combat, but throwing skills at him willy-nilly or ignoring level caps on skills is not the way to deal with those trade-offs.

That's cheating.

I can't say I haven't done it, but I try not to. The players can't bend the rules to their advantage; why should GMs?

And that's not on-topic, unless you count the reference to the stupid Perform skill changes.

- Ket

 

[Fenes 2]

I try to build my NPCs within the rules (and even make a bit of a sport out of building a "monk" with just fighter and rogue levels), if I bother with building them at all. More often I improvise some stats.

I don't consider it cheating - as long as the NPC is not breaking the game rules in a major way, like hurling both high-level arcane and divine spells as a low-level fighter I don't see a problem with it. A few more skill points than normal does not result in cheating - even more since the DM could have just raised the NPC's int anyway. (I think the DM can raise a stat just for some purposes, and not for others, to have a more skilled NPCs that is not hyper-intelligent, since you always can do less than you are allowed to.)

 

[snarfoogle]

e. Halflings aren't innately proficient with slings, though they will get a +1 bonus to attacks with slings and thrown weapons.

What!? Halflings... slings... but... I... NOOOOOO!!!