Do published modules have to follow the d20 rules strictly?

[chatdemon]

I tend to agree with Eric, as long as you explain your deviancy, it's not much of a problem.

As for referring to another book, well, that depends.
If I buy a generic D20 book from say, Mongoose, and it expects me to have access to some book that Sword & Sorcery put out, I'd get annoyed. If, otoh, I go out and buy Sovereign Press' Codex Mysterium (a Sovereign Stone accessory) and it refers to material in the Sovereign Stone Campaign Setting book, I can understand that.

As for your 12 ranks in craft giant, if you dont want to class/level him, but give him the craft skill ranks, just take away something roughly equal. Perhaps he has 12 ranks in Craft: basketweaving, but he has neglected his martial training and has a -4 penalty to his BAB, or his AC, whatever.

The D20 system is ideal for introducing new rules and ideas, all you have to do is do it logically, and explain the hows and whys of your changes.

 

[Erekose]

I think almost by definition anything used which isn't in the core rules (even if it is in one of the WotC non-core books) needs to be repeated in full if it's used in an adventure.

However, the example given of the Stone Giant wouldn't cause me any problems although I would like it explicitly stated rather than the change made with no comment. (chatdemon's solution is the most elegant for this.)

 

[drnuncheon]

the example given of the Stone Giant wouldn't cause me any problems although I would like it explicitly stated rather than the change made with no comment. (chatdemon's solution is the most elegant for this.)

Eh. Monsters have skill points for a reason. I wouldn't let a PC get a +12 on a craft skill for free, so it's a bit arbitrary to let a monster do it.

I'd prefer to see the stone giant buy the craft skill with some of his monster skill points. If he does take a level or two of expert, remember that his hit dice are like levels, so he can probably get that skill pretty high before he hits the level+3 cap.

J

 

[Bryan Vining]

Yeah, I don't see any reason why strict compliance to the rules is necessary or even desirable. However, it would be nice if the exception is pointed out and explained. That way we don't all go hmmm... hey, here's this author getting published who can't add!

 

[chatdemon]

Well then, we could create a new feat, for example, to explain this Giant's idiosyncracy.

Feat: Devoted Prodigy
(General)
You are extremely advanced in your study of one skill, but at the expense of your other abilities.
Effect: You gain 3 bonus ranks in the selected skill, which may exceed your normal rank limit in the skill as determined by your level, however, your focus on this skill has led you to neglect your other abilties, and you must take a permanent -1 penalty to your BAB, AC, or an Ability Score of your choice, pending DM approval.
Special: This feat may be taken multiple times, with its benefits stacking, but may not be applied to more than one skill. Ex: You take this feat 3 times and gain 9 bonus ranks of Craft: basketweaving in exchange for a -3 penalty to your BAB, but may not take the feat once for Craft: Basketweaving and then again for Craft: Underwater Basketweaving.

Ok, so it's not the coolest feat ever, but it satisfies the point of the discussion here, that you could bend the rules of d20 if you are willing to do a bit of work (I mean, come on, that feat took me all of 3 minutes to concieve and write) to explain why you have done so.

 

[Psion]

However, if the module said up front "This module doesn't follow the d20 rules precisely. Some of the skills bonuses aren't possible using the core system, but have been set that way to create an unique feel for this module" would it be so bad?

If you are creating rules to simulate specific effect, that might not be so bad. However, the problem is that people use published adventures for their own games and their own groups; creating inconsistant rules sticks out like a sore thumb in the course of the campaigns.

Monkey God released a adventure called the sword of justice. It introduced a new race and new magic rules, which did, as you say, create a feel for the module and some underpinning for the adventure. However, those changes (more the magic rules than the race) make it not fit in an ongoing campaign, which automatically limits its appeal.

I know that I and several others tore into Rob Kuntz's Maze modules for not following the d20 rules precisely (especially in the monster stats & pregen characters), but the question is this: would we have minded so much if he'd given an explanation for the divergences beforehand?

It would have helped if he put "this adventure is intended for the pregenerated characters from 'Prisoners of the Maze.'" This adventure is, again, one that even if you put down your whys and wherefores would have limited utility to someone running an ongoing campaign.

 

[Kwalish Kid]

Well, you can easily give a stone giant many more skill points simply by raising its intelligence ability by 2 points. (And assuming that it has been smarter since early in it's life, but I digress.)

The 3E rules are very flexible. Given that, creating scenarios according to the rules allows DMs, as Eric said, to better judge the strength of encounters. Even if you are running a game that is set entirely in Greyhawk and you're using only WOTC products, you will want to alter some encounters in the published adventures that you are using.

That being said, of course you may wish to run a looser game. However, looser games are handled more on the DM's end than the author's end.

The people that read an adventure or supplement must have some way of correctly interpreting the content of that work. The language of d20 is the rules laid out, either in the SRD or in some specific product. If you are not specifically developing a new D20 variant, you must follow some ruleset, or else you run the risk of not communicating with your readers, and failing in the publishing project.

 

[MerricB]

If you raise a Stone Giant's Intelligence by 2, it gains... 1 skill point!

No, seriously. Check page 11 of the MM.

If that giant has class levels, it gains many more.

Cheers!

 

[Psion]

If you raise a Stone Giant's Intelligence by 2, it gains... 1 skill point!

No, seriously. Check page 11 of the MM.

If that giant has class levels, it gains many more.

So why not give it class levels? It drives me batty when d20 products (any, not just adventures) create new rules for doing stuff that you can do with existing rules.

 

[MerricB]

The main reason was I didn't want it to be too powerful.

Because it's not really a combatant (only if the PCs are stupid), I eventually made it an 8th level Expert.

Cheers!