D20 'philosophy' cramping my style

[Felonius]

actually the conjurer is dead, because he made a mistake while attempting to bind the imp, and it got away and killed him, and then went on to massacre the villagers.

IMHO, you should use a quasit. What you describe above is more like D&D demon behavior rather than a devil. An imp would more likely corrupt someone to kill for him. YMMV, of course.

When armed investigators show up, the Imp, which isn't a really big thinker, and has been winging it up to this point, decides to return to the manse.

Both imp and quasit have INT 10, so you might want to lower it by a point or two and perhaps increase the CHA?

My advice is:
1) use a quasit
2) lower INT by 2, raise CHA by 2

If you don't use a quasit, change the imp's diplomacy skill ranks into bluff and do the INT/CHA switch.

Note that the imp/quasit cannot use it's skill on PCs in any case, so figure out who's the smartest NPC it has bluffed so far and work backwards to get the Bluff score you need.

With all this said, the easiest solution is the use circumstance bonuses, as has been said already and that's what I would do. Especially in a bought module where the writer forgot that an imp does not have a bluff skill.

In the end I'd be a tiny bit annoyed for the oversight on the writers part, as I did pay him to get these things right when I bought the module...

- F

 

[Cergorach]

Ok, the fact that too many people are obsessed with game mechanics is a problem, not with the game, but with the people obsessed.

Example:
I program on ocassion, i choose a programming language that i think best fits my requirement for the end result (the program) and i am familiar enough with to achieve that end result. I use the programming language to get an end result (the program), how i get to the end result isn't that important, just that i get there. But i have to use the programming 'rules' for that language to make the program work. If the language doesn't do exactly work like i want it to, i have a few options, i can work around the problem, i can add to the language, i can choose another language, or i can drop the whole idea.

The same goes for RPGs, we chose D&D3E as our rpg rules, so we should stick to those rules. We want an end result (an encounter in this situation), we have the option to write a new game mechanic, use the rules as they are, use a different rules set, or drop the whole idea altogether.

I'm guessing that dropping the idea and going for another rules system aren't an option, so we're stuck with writing a new rules mechanic or using the rules.

Writing a new rules mechanic: Is way to much work in this instance imho.

Using the rules: You have a couple of options (in order of easyness):
1.) Bluff states that you can get situational modifiers depending on how much the recepient wants to believe you (-5 on sense motive). "Hello mister, i lost my puppy *pouting eyes* could you help me look for it?"
2.) Get a situational modifier of +x. The girl knows things about the village that the pcs don't, even if those details are made up. "But mister phisher said, that's the man that bakes bread, that if i was a good girl and hid in the closet i would get a treat. And now everyone's gone! *starts to cry*"
3.) Redistribute some skill points to give the imp some ranks in bluff.
4.) Give the Imp an Int of 12 instead of 10, obviously this isn't your average imp. This would result in 6 extra skill points, that's either Bluff 6 (class skill) or Bluff 3 (not class skill), depending on whether you decide if Bluff is an Imp class skill (going with non class skill would be most save).
5.) Give the imp an extra HD, results in extra skill points.
6.) Give the imp a class level, rogue would be best.
There are a few more options, such as changing the feat selection of the imp, giving it a magical item, or combining any of the above.

The point is to be creative with the rules and not only with the story line. If you still feel that the D&D3E rules limit you to much, maybe writing your adventure for D&D3E wasn't a good idea. You might want to consider writing it for a different, more open game system.

Imho, being a good storyteller isn't enough as a game-writer or DM, you also need to understand the rules set your writing/DMing for and be creative in it's use. If you can't maybe you should consider another line of work. No offense intended, but it's just how i see things, i for one am just not cut out to be a professional programmer because i don't (yet) fully grasp the full extend of the programming languages i work with.

 

[Numion]

The point of this whole thread is that this mentality, which I think is encouraged by the rules set, is tending to push storytellers away from writing material for the game, and people who are rules lawyers into it.

I don't think that the opposite of storytelling is rules lawyering. Gamist approach would be a better term, and with that I mean playing the game like it's, well, "just" a game. Rules lawyering is to gamist what railroading is for storytelling. Both are related hinderances to the game and having fun.

As for you original question, I just don't see what the big deal is. Tweaking skill points is similar to rolling for the Imps hit points instead of using average.

incidentally, the entire campaign is not reccomended for paladins, or barbarians for that matter. Another horrible cheat!

Why would you have trouble with an Imps skill points if you have no trouble excluding Pallys and Barbs from the campaign? Surely that would be a bigger problem for any publishers.

 

[Aaron L]

I will never understand people complaining about consistent rules and having to follow them. If you don't want to follow the rules, play make believe with rock, paper, scissors settling conflicts.

 

[mmadsen]

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.

Most other systems that allow you to arbitrarily change an existing monster or character are point-based (or something like it), so adding a few ranks of Bluff to the Imp would be a matter of bumping up his point cost -- analogous to bumping up his CR from 3 to 3.1.

I will never understand people complaining about consistent rules and having to follow them. If you don't want to follow the rules, play make believe with rock, paper, scissors settling conflicts.

The problem here is that the rules have too many unnecessary interdependencies. The DM clearly wants an Imp with a few ranks of Bluff -- but there's no good way for him to just add those skill ranks.

The rules set up hoops for him to jump through. Some people enjoy mastering the rules as a challenge in itself -- at EN World, many of us fit that description (or used to) -- but if the goal of the rules is to help the DM and players play the game, then the rules should be flexible enough that adding a feat or a skill doesn't break anything.

 

[Aaron L]

The rules set up hoops for him to jump through. Some people enjoy mastering the rules as a challenge in itself -- at EN World, many of us fit that description (or used to) -- but if the goal of the rules is to help the DM and players play the game, then the rules should be flexible enough that adding a feat or a skill doesn't break anything.

Using the rules to give a creature an abiliy that it doesn't posses normally in order specifically for it to dupe chracters into thinking it is something that it is not isn't "jumping through hoops", but is exactly what the ability to add class levels to creatures is for. Want to make anything good at lieing? Give it 1 or 2 levels of rogue. Not hard to do at all. Swapping skills around is even simpler. Flat out adding things increases the abilities and difficulty of a creature while ignoring an increase of the Challenge Rating.

If you view CR as a hindrance then give creatures whatever abilities you want, but don't complain when these creatures defeat PCs of seemingly appropriate level because of arbitrary ability additions.

 

[Dogbrain]

The point is though, this isn't a card game or even an xbox game. It's basically a story.

The point obviously is that you're writing a railroad session, exactly the sort of thing that I would never buy and would discourage everyone else from buying, as well.

The point of this whole thread is that this mentality, which I think is encouraged by the rules set, is tending to push storytellers away from writing material for the game, and people who are rules lawyers into it.

Sounds to me more like you've got a massive chip on your shoulder and expect the entire world to drop to their knees and BEG to be told what to do by the infallable "storyteller". If you want to tell a story, get an agent and get some novels published. Games are to be PLAYED, not merely to be used as a vehicle to drag along passive players for the egobo of GMs and/or "authors".

 

[Dogbrain]

The problem here is that the rules have too many unnecessary interdependencies. The DM clearly wants an Imp with a few ranks of Bluff -- but there's no good way for him to just add those skill ranks.

This proves, beyond the shadow of any doubt, that you have NEVER read the rules. Consult Rule Zero.

 

[Darrin Drader]

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.

That's not actually true. All the imp needs is a misdirection spell cast upon it or a magic item that reproduces the spell when worn, and anyone in the party attempting to discern the imp's alignment could very well end up reading the paladin's alignment instead.

Aside from that, there would be nothing wrong with giving the imp rogue levels if it makes sense for the creature to have them. If I were designing the encounter, I would consider that as one of the options available to me. One of the factors I would weigh is whether or not the group will have to fight the imp later in the adventure, and if it would be helpful for the imp to have sneak attack during that encounter. If so, rogue levels would be a completely viable solution. Add the fact that the imp is disguised and I might very well also add a circumstance modifier to Bluff anyway, just in case an overly cautious party decides to question its motives.

 

[Drifter Bob]

Using the rules to give a creature an abiliy that it doesn't posses normally in order specifically for it to dupe chracters into thinking it is something that it is not isn't "jumping through hoops", but is exactly what the ability to add class levels to creatures is for. Want to make anything good at lieing?

So you are telling me that a Devil shouldn't have the ability to lie? Or that 4 ranks of bluff are likely to tip the scales against a party?

DB