AbdulAlhazred
Legend
Yeah, you can do that. Of course the way most DMs seem to consider Dungeoneering to cover anything related to "civil engineering" it doesn't seem like a terribly inappropriate skill to have.
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Expanding Roles - was Dropping Roles
- Thread starter StAlda
- Start date
Yeah, you can do that. Of course the way most DMs seem to consider Dungeoneering to cover anything related to "civil engineering" it doesn't seem like a terribly inappropriate skill to have.
History might also have been a nice fit as well, if the character was of a more scholarly or aristocratic background.
Camelot
Adventurer
The roles are not restrictive, as many people seem to believe. A Fighter is a much different class than a Paladin, and a Swordmage, and a Warden, even though they are all defenders. They have different flavor and mechanical techniques. I liked how they added secondary roles in the PH2; they should have done that from the start, because it defines them much better.
In fact, the roles help the players construct a team that can hold its own against a large variation of opponents. If the team was comprised completely of strikers, they would be great against a single large foe, but when the DM wanted to use a controller behind artillery behind a line of melee, those strikers would be crushed because they can't spread out their damage fast enough. When the team has all four or at least three roles, they are able to face any challenge the DM constructs with a similar level of difficulty, so that the game isn't extremely easy until all of a sudden the PCs face a TPK. The roles make it easier to keep the game fun.
In fact, the roles help the players construct a team that can hold its own against a large variation of opponents. If the team was comprised completely of strikers, they would be great against a single large foe, but when the DM wanted to use a controller behind artillery behind a line of melee, those strikers would be crushed because they can't spread out their damage fast enough. When the team has all four or at least three roles, they are able to face any challenge the DM constructs with a similar level of difficulty, so that the game isn't extremely easy until all of a sudden the PCs face a TPK. The roles make it easier to keep the game fun.
Llamas Notsheep
First Post
My one worry if you do decide to go ahead with the house rule is that it'd really gimp some classes whose role is mostly tied up in their powers (i.e. wizard), and of course the bard, whose massive multiclassing versatility suddenly becomes pointless.
Would you have all paragon classes and EDs open to everyone?
Also, I think this would only be remotely workable where no one in your group is at all interested in optimizing, because it would be incredibly breakable.
Would you have all paragon classes and EDs open to everyone?
Also, I think this would only be remotely workable where no one in your group is at all interested in optimizing, because it would be incredibly breakable.
Is the goal to get rid of roles, or to make all roles available to everyone?
If the goal is to get rid of roles, well, I'm not sure what you should do because no matter what rules you set your players will choose to specialize. In my experience, "no roles" usually means "everyone is a striker."
If the goal is to make all roles available to everyone, the first thing you should ask is if there's some actual concept that one of your players wants to use that isn't presently available. If there isn't one, don't mess with things. If there is, ask yourself why its not available, and what the minimal intervention necessary to make it available would be.
If, for example, the issue is that you have a player who wants to play an archer but doesn't want to be woodsy like a Ranger, would he be happy using the Ranger class and just altering the mandatory Nature or Dungeoneering skill to some other knowledge skill?
Or if the problem is that someone wants to play a Rogue who wields a Greatsword, figure out what it is that says "Rogue" to him, and see if its obtainable through some other class combination. For example, a fighter who uses heavy blades gets a lot of benefits from a high dexterity, there's no armor check penalty in scale armor, and it only takes one feat to train a character in Thievery or Stealth. Would he be happy with a strong, agile fighter with a greatsword who can hide and pick pockets? Or is the objection more mechanical- that he wants to stack sneak attack and a greatsword's damage dice together? If its the latter, should you let him do it?
Anyways, consider why you're considering a change, exactly. And then consider whether some smaller change wouldn't accomplish the same thing and get you back to the game table as quickly as possible.
If the goal is to get rid of roles, well, I'm not sure what you should do because no matter what rules you set your players will choose to specialize. In my experience, "no roles" usually means "everyone is a striker."
If the goal is to make all roles available to everyone, the first thing you should ask is if there's some actual concept that one of your players wants to use that isn't presently available. If there isn't one, don't mess with things. If there is, ask yourself why its not available, and what the minimal intervention necessary to make it available would be.
If, for example, the issue is that you have a player who wants to play an archer but doesn't want to be woodsy like a Ranger, would he be happy using the Ranger class and just altering the mandatory Nature or Dungeoneering skill to some other knowledge skill?
Or if the problem is that someone wants to play a Rogue who wields a Greatsword, figure out what it is that says "Rogue" to him, and see if its obtainable through some other class combination. For example, a fighter who uses heavy blades gets a lot of benefits from a high dexterity, there's no armor check penalty in scale armor, and it only takes one feat to train a character in Thievery or Stealth. Would he be happy with a strong, agile fighter with a greatsword who can hide and pick pockets? Or is the objection more mechanical- that he wants to stack sneak attack and a greatsword's damage dice together? If its the latter, should you let him do it?
Anyways, consider why you're considering a change, exactly. And then consider whether some smaller change wouldn't accomplish the same thing and get you back to the game table as quickly as possible.
AbdulAlhazred
Legend
What other skill covers things like knowing about walls, structures, etc? Dungeoneering is pretty much THE choice for that. Want to know what knocking that pillar down is going to do to the building? Yeah, it isn't a dungeon but Dungeoneering by gosh is the closest thing to a skill that covers it. So I guess I'm not sure what else you COULD be using for that sort of thing, and it seems like a skill that would be of use to an urban adventurer (at least potentially). Besides, who's ever heard of a city worth adventuring in that doesn't have some dungeons?
I'm not saying streetwise isn't a skill your urban ranger would want either. But you can easily pick it up with a background and I'd pretty much assume any character being described as urban can come up with a background element that plausibly adds Streetwise to their skill list.
keterys
First Post
What skill is the best one for knitting, cooking, astronomy, knotting ropes, navigating a ship?
Not every action is covered by a skill.
'You have picked up knowledge and skills related to dungeoneering, including finding your way through dungeon complexes, navigating winding caverns, recognizing dungeon hazards, and foraging for food in the Underdark.'
Knowing that mind flayers eat brains, and rot fungus is purple doesn't let you know how to setup a keystone arch or figure out the necessary wall supports for a building. It might help you navigate a sewer system and recognize whether something is Otyugh or Crocodile spore though.
That said, people do all kinds of crazy things with skills. Apparently there are groups where you can use Religion for _everything_ because you pray to a god to help you out, or Insight because you use your intuition and guess. Dungeoneering as civil engineering is _way_ better than that. I've just never encountered it except in an 'under the city' type function. That's actually the general rule I've seen. Underground? Dungeoneer away. Above ground? Useless.
Amusingly it's pretty easy to end up navigating a ship being based on Arcana or Religion, by starting with 'Well, astronomy is (Arcana or Religion)' and then extrapolating to navigating by the stars.
Not every action is covered by a skill.
'You have picked up knowledge and skills related to dungeoneering, including finding your way through dungeon complexes, navigating winding caverns, recognizing dungeon hazards, and foraging for food in the Underdark.'
Knowing that mind flayers eat brains, and rot fungus is purple doesn't let you know how to setup a keystone arch or figure out the necessary wall supports for a building. It might help you navigate a sewer system and recognize whether something is Otyugh or Crocodile spore though.
That said, people do all kinds of crazy things with skills. Apparently there are groups where you can use Religion for _everything_ because you pray to a god to help you out, or Insight because you use your intuition and guess. Dungeoneering as civil engineering is _way_ better than that. I've just never encountered it except in an 'under the city' type function. That's actually the general rule I've seen. Underground? Dungeoneer away. Above ground? Useless.
Amusingly it's pretty easy to end up navigating a ship being based on Arcana or Religion, by starting with 'Well, astronomy is (Arcana or Religion)' and then extrapolating to navigating by the stars.
AbdulAlhazred
Legend
Well, maybe its used differently in Boston. Let me tell ya feller, up here in Vermon' we dun use it for anything to do with indoors or buildings at all. In fact I'd almost rather that Nature covered animals period, though its not really a big deal (both wisdom skills, anyone good at one is probably decent at the other).
The question does arise though, what would roll if a players says "My character is going to examine the building to see what happens if I knock this pillar over." Underground you'd strongly think that Dungeoneering would cover that. Why would the same character not be able to use that skill to do the same thing just because its above ground? No other skill covers it. Saying it isn't covered by a skill at all means no character can excel at doing this except by raising their WIS (or whatever ability score you would have to use for checks, INT maybe). Seems kind of weird. Ability checks are fine, but some level of knowledge of buildings and such seems like something potentially useful enough to PCs to be covered by one of the skills.
