Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mike Eagling" data-source="post: 6150725" data-attributes="member: 6703609">To take the conscription idea, which was mentioned somewhere upthread, it was suggested that this would normally be role-played out. I'd assume that would include some kind of diplomacy or intimidate roll so a "Conscript Militia" feat would presumably provide a bonus to that roll. The "Hue and Cry" feat would likely work in a similar way.Well, we're on opposite sides of the fence when it comes to the disparity between casters and non-casters and I'm loath to enter the discussion in any depth in an attempt to keep the discussion on topic. Suffice it to say that in my experience of 1e AD&D I have found opportunities for non-casters to influence the world they inhabit <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />I've not played ACKS but picked up the PDF a few months ago out of interest. It's essentially BECMI with an assumed endgame similar to 1e's campaign infrastructure--i.e. stronghold building for fighters, magical research for wizards, etc. I'm unfamiliar with BECMI (I came in at B/X then moved to AD&D) so I don't know how ACKS compares in this respect.(As an aside, ACKS has a permanent wounds system you may appreciate.)The Kingmaker AP does something similar for Pathfinder. It introduces rules for founding, ruling, and defending kingdoms. These are revised and expanded upon in Ultimate Campaigns. I'm still waiting for my copy of UC to ship so don't know the extent of this revision.I didn't think either ACKS or Kingmaker did anything particularly ground-breaking compared to AD&D so, from your perspective, they're probably just as unbalanced?As originally presented the "Surprise! It's me!" feat seemed to imply that the rogue could invoke this feat and suddenly become disguised as someone else. IIRC they would move from being with the party in the king's hall to suddenly being one of the serving wenches, or something. The rationale seemed to be along the lines of "Actually, I'm not with the party after all, I snuck off earlier and disguised myself. I'm now stood behind the king with a plate of lobsters and a knife to his back". Perhaps that's a misinterpretation but it's the impression I took away.Assuming this is what was meant this utterly defies my interpretation of how D&D works. I'm all for a rogue slipping away from the party (stealth), donning a disguise (disguise) and ending up in the same place (bluff), but deciding they did this after the fact is anathema to me. Cause and effect. Rogues can't travel back in time, so their players can't decide they'd rather have done something else after the fact either.However, assume the party plan to enter the king's hall for some reason. For the sake of argument they plan to rescue their comrades. There's nothing to stop the rogue going on ahead to infiltrate the palace, a la Lando Calrissian. I guess I don't really view it as a feat. Infiltration is/should be a skill much the same as assassination in 1e AD&D. It's perhaps akin to craft or profession in 3.x terms, i.e. an action of long duration. Does  that make sense?Well, hopefully the above explains the distinction i make between infiltration in the short and long term.I view the conscription and hue & cry ideas as extensions to diplomacy/intimidate/leadership/etc. They have limited application--they can't magic people into existence; they only really make sense in a populated environment. I guess I view these as feats that enhance leadership, granting some kind of DC bonus.Yeah, like that <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification