D20 'philosophy' cramping my style

[Ourph]

Just state in the encounter description that due to the cirumstances the imp receives a +4 circumstance bonus to Bluff the party regarding his identity.

Exactly!!! Gargoyle typed exactly what I was thinking. Just include in the notes for the encounter that the Imp gets a +X circumstance bonus to any Bluff checks due to his disguise and having "practiced" playing a little girl.

However, the fact that this suggestion was preceeded by at least 4 people suggesting you give the Imp levels of Rogue ( ) does tend to prove your point.

Rearranging the skill points is viable, but unnecessarily complicated IMO.

 

[Spatula]

So your example is one that's entirely in your own head. You're dumbing down your own work in order to avoid a perceived backlash that doesn't actually exist. Not much of an example IMO.

MM stats are for 'typical' members of a race, just as they were back in 2E and 1E. If you want something different or stronger or whatever, the system itself is not stopping you. The system is incredibly flexible. WOTC have published things similar to what you suggest in their own products (that is, monsters that are not straight out of the book, not your specific idea).

 

[JeffB]

However, the fact that this suggestion was preceeded by at least 4 people suggesting you give the Imp levels of Rogue ( ) does tend to prove your point.

Exactly..and this...

My complaint would be that you could have accomplished your goal (adding bluff ranks) within the rules with a minimal adjustment instead of just ad-hock.

Nothing personal CS, but that's exactly what he's talking about.

If the Imp has bluff, and (god forbid )that requires too many Skill Points, so what!.The encounter will be much more interesting with the fudging of the rules.

 

[Vraille Darkfang]

First, explain to me why I am stupid and this is NOT an example of anything being wrong anywhere except in my head (since I know nobody will agree with me) and second, tell me technically if I can give this thing a few bluff skill ranks (and no, using it as an unranked skill isn't going to cut it)

DB

1. Giving an Imp FREE skill ranks is a problem, becasue when I DO buy a game product I expect it to be rules correct. When I write something with the intent of sharing it with the D20 community I make sure its rules-right. Simply because that what SHOULD be done, what your're being paid for/trying to do. People PAY to have a book technically correct, not some writer's INTERPRETATION of the rules, since the DM who bought it's probably going to re-interpret the product for his own game (a analogy of a copy of a copy of a copy belongs here). That said...

I'd have no problem with the story you set out. It sounds really cool. But lets look closer.

First, I can pull off the "Help! Where's my MOMMIE" line so well my players won't even think to make sense motive rolls, so the Imp's lack of a Bluff ain't a problem. Now, if I had a Rules-Lawyer (I don't let them in my game)....

The various Alter Self/Alternate Form Spells give a +10 (?) bonus to disguise checks. Combined with the Imp's Cha, he might be able to make the check anyway. Sense Motive is an under-utilized skill that many characters ignore. You can give it Rogue Levels (or Bard), or up its hit dice/Int any number of things. Bluff vs Sense Motive ain't the achille's heel of your idea. The use the IMP encounter as the Keystone of the module is.

What if there is a Paladin in the party (or anyone with a Detect Evil spell). That'd cut the encounter shorter than any Sense Motive roll, harder to prevent too.

What you've designed is a one-trick pony. A really cool pony, but a pony. There's no way I'd run that in a party with a Paladin. I'd have to analize my particular party's Strengths and Weaknesses & see what the chance of my party seeing through the deception/attacking the imp/ or even caring about the girl are.

In the end, the d20 system, combined with the creativity of gamers, provides an infinite combonation of possibilites. In your example, an evil party might just kill the girl and loot the bodies (thus adventure ended), the cleric could try a Heal check on the girl (umm, that's not right, adventure ended). The Bard could Charm Person the girl to calm her nerves (imp immune, adventure ended), Paladin does Detect Evil to see if the foes are nearby (adventure ended). Cleric does Protection from Evil on the girl to keep her safe (adventure ended). Cleric gives her some water to drink, all he's got is Holy Water (adventure ended). Crazed Sorecer just decide to Magic Missle it, just to be safe (adventure ended). Heck the party wizard might be looking for an Improved Familiar and just give it a better deal. I could sit here all day and give way after way this adventure could fail without resorting to a Sense Motive check.

Your adventure is designed for a certain segment of the gaming population, the greatest service you can give your potential customers is to point out all the weak points that came up in play-test or spells/items that could kill the adventure before it began.

Off-hand I'd say about 50% of the parties I've DM'd for would be a good fit for your adventure. The rest might take the bait, or kill the imp.

However, I wish you luck on your endevor, post when it does come out, I'll take a look at it.

Vraille Darkfang

 

[trancejeremy]

Personally, I think rules like this add to the game.

For instance, in this case, a lot of players would be awfully suspicious. I mean, no offense, but it's not all that original. Half the people rescued in modules/adventures seem to be monsters in disguise. So players would be tempted to just off the kid, to be sure, or at least, not trust it at all

You could force the players to not be suspicious, but that's rail-roading.

However, the sense motive skill offers a way around this. If the player is suspicious, but fails his roll, the whole premise works. If the player is suspicious, and makes his roll then, the player should be rewarded for not being gullible.

Also, bear in mind, an Imp is not the most powerful of fiends. I doubt they should be terribly good at anything, including lying. They are more irritants, not con-artists. I would use a more suitable fiend, like some sort of lawyer.

 

[Sejs]

Part of this campaign involves an Imp which is using it's alter form ability to appear to be something entirely different (this paritcular imp manifests as a little girl and as a wild boar)

The skill point thing has been mentioned above already, but can I make one suggestion?


Don't make the Imp's alternate form be a little girl - the "innocent 8-10 year old girl is actually evil incarnate" ploy has been so throughly burned into the collective adventurer unconscious that players will automatically be suspiscious of any plot pertinent little girls that show up. Make her a teenage girl (14-16), or a (very) young woman (17-20). Those would set off less alarm bells in the minds of your standard party.

I'm just sayin', is all.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

I agree with what some others have said:

the beauty of d20 is that you can make a non-standard imp by reassigning skill points, adding levels, adding stats, or through a wide variety of other manuevers. That's already miles ahead of any system that supports completely ad-hoc monsters which means that you either A. make it up from scratch which is more work and less likely to be balanced or B. arbitrarily change an existing monster under a regime that gives no guidance as to what might be an appropriate amount or what other changes would be justified by adding the skill bonus.

For that reason, I would seriously counsel against just arbitrarily saying "the imp gets a +4 bonus to bluff because he's practiced and he's that cool." I've seen mods that have said things like "the bears are so enraged that calm animals spells won't work on them." Generally, the reaction of other gamers I know (and my reaction) is: "Great, my barbarian would like to get so angry hold person won't work on him, can he do that? He should be able to. After all, he gets angry enough to be stronger (the bears aren't that angry)." Similarly, to "these elementals are immune to dismissal because of their special connection to the temple" prompts the reaction "well cool, I'm summoning some elementals, what kind of special connection do they need to have to be immune to dismissal?" So, if the imp gets a +4 circumstance bonus to bluff for being "practiced", I'm going to want to know how my rogue can get a +4 circumstance bonus to his bluff if he practices telling the same lie.

Now with bluff, it's what's going on probably won't be visible from the players' end (and, what with Detect Evil, sense motive will be the least of your worries). Even so, as a DM, I roll my eyes when I see that kind of thing (or arbitrary extra skills and feats) written in modules. I like to have my NPCs play by the same rules as the PCs and that kind of thing annoys me.

 

[Celtavian]

re

Read adventures. Adventure designers for alot of companies take great liberties with encounter and creature design. Even WotC generally allows adventure designers to put in new monsters, items, and strange situations require alternate rules into modules. They probably cleave closest to the core ruleset.

I think companies that sell adventures like unique encounters and wouldn't worry if you gave an Imp some ranks in Bluff or a few rogue class levels. For example, Necromancer games always includes strange monsters, items and encounters in their modules. NG adventures are some of the most popular published 3rd edition modules.

I wouldn't in any way worry about creating an adventure with an Imp with the Bluff skill. That is a rather tame change compared to things like the Dung Monster and the Madness Domain, both created specifically for modules as far as I know.

 

[Mishihari Lord II]

DB: When I read your initial post, I thought you were way off base. After reading the rest of the thread, I stand corrected. While using a circumstance bonus or adding a level of rogue would work, I see no real reason to make the extra effort. As a DM, if I want a nonstandard monster, I simply shange its characteristics. If this were a wargame, me against my players, this would be cheating. Since it's a roleplaying game, and I am just facilitating everyone's enjoyment by using something a little different than what they've seen before, I am not cheating. I see no reason why a module could not use the same tactic. The argument could be made that this will unfairly throw off the players' tactics since they have a right to expect some consitency between the imps they encounter. However, in this case they don't know they're facing an imp, and more tellingly, adding class levels or switching skill points would also change the imp unexpectedly and is allowed by the rules. The rules should serve the game, not vice-versa.

 

[Camarath]

Would a Quasit work as well as an Imp because it has the Alternate Form ability as well as the Bluff skill [+6] (but no Diplomacy)?