NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="N'raac" data-source="post: 6243390" data-attributes="member: 6681948">I’m not sure how much these variant scenarios bring to the discussion.  The “Reluctant Chamberlain” as originally presented was a challenge which had to be resolved by diplomatic means – murdering the Chamberlain to obtain an audience with the King was simply not a viable option, he had to be persuaded to grant access, or somehow circumvented in a means which would not result in the players’ appeals being summarily dismissed. While the scenario presented here is an interesting one (and could certainly be designed for play in an indie or a non-indie model – nothing here requires indie play), it’s not the “persuade your way past the Chamberlain to an audience with the King” challenge which was presented, nor does it address balance between spellcasters and non-spellcasters in a 3.5 environment. We’ve moved away from spellcasting to use of a very high skill roll.  Would a PC with Diplomacy at a level, absolute and relative, comparable to Quinn’s Arcana have been less successful in a similarly framed 3.5e scene, whether or not a spellcaster?    Apparently, Quinn is well  nigh unstoppable by the resources most challenges can be expected to bring to bear against him in his chosen field.  We’ve removed any ability to detect his use of magic, so his illusions and enchantments seem largely unbeatable.   I fail to see how that demonstrates a balance between spellcasters and nonspellcasters.   Perhaps it illustrates that, if the PC’s all tower above their foes in terms of power, then the difference in their own relative power becomes less relevant.  If we envision 15[SUP]th[/SUP] – 20[SUP]th[/SUP] level characters opposed by a war party of goblins or orcs, then any character can dispatch them with ease, so they seem balanced against one another. Finally, I would note that I am not among those who argue that the spellcaster would be some unparalleled facilitator of the resolution of negotiations with the Reluctant Chamberlain as initially envisioned and played out in 3e either.It seems like a lot of this revolves around "you can use pretty much any skill to succeed in a skill challenge".  If we decide the Chamberlain is highly impressed by whatever activity the PC's may take, then the half orc can ingratiate himself with a stunning display of his Perform:  Belch the Alphabet skill.  If we allow the players to gain access to the King by dueling the King's Champion, the martial character becomes the source of success.  Maybe we just have to pick the Chamberlain's pocket to impress him with skill and legerdemain.  In other words, it seems like a lot of this comes back to designing challenges to be solved  by the skills of any or all PC's, whatever they may be.  Why is that somehow less possible in a 3.5 game?  For me, I prefer that there be situations that require the right skills, and you can't substitute negotiating and diplomatic skill with expertise in belching the alphabet, picking pockets or archery.</blockquote>

Verification