reapersaurus
Explorer
in Ubaar's world, it's those that DON'T fight hard and well that die.... 
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
[OOC] OOC thread about the non-iconics adventure (part deux)
- Thread starter HeavyG
- Start date
reapersaurus
Explorer
CR the Man wrote:
I'm wondering, Charles....
Would you prefer to play a commoner with a stick, with 2 skills and 1 feat.
THAT would be a perfect gaming challenge, eh?
Forget this heroic ideal of larger-than-life....
I wanna play a loser, who knows even less than I do.
Someone who doesn't get better at skills like Search, Spot, Listen, etc, even tho their life depends on it everyday.
It's funny how we, as humans in a non-hostile world, get BETTER over time at things like spotting, and realizing what other's motivations truly are (SEnse Motive) and the like.
And our lives don't even depend on those skills, and we get better over time.
Let's perpetuate the stereotype that if anyone is good at fighting in a game, than they can't be good at anything else.
Wait.
The wizard is damned good at combat, and he's got plenty of combat dominance.
Wait.
The rogue is huge out of combat, with skills o'plenty, but he can still dish out lots of damage in combat.
Whew!
Now THAT'S an OOC rant...
and CR - I was really just playing in the thread, you know that, don't you?
You didn't have to even come close to 'explaining' what you had Kytess do in character.
I like the info you share, but i just hope you don't feel like you owe it to me or anything.
?
Oh.. what a surprise!!
I'm wondering, Charles....
Would you prefer to play a commoner with a stick, with 2 skills and 1 feat.
THAT would be a perfect gaming challenge, eh?
Forget this heroic ideal of larger-than-life....
I wanna play a loser, who knows even less than I do.
Someone who doesn't get better at skills like Search, Spot, Listen, etc, even tho their life depends on it everyday.
It's funny how we, as humans in a non-hostile world, get BETTER over time at things like spotting, and realizing what other's motivations truly are (SEnse Motive) and the like.
And our lives don't even depend on those skills, and we get better over time.
Let's perpetuate the stereotype that if anyone is good at fighting in a game, than they can't be good at anything else.
Wait.
The wizard is damned good at combat, and he's got plenty of combat dominance.
Wait.
The rogue is huge out of combat, with skills o'plenty, but he can still dish out lots of damage in combat.
Whew!
Now THAT'S an OOC rant...
and CR - I was really just playing in the thread, you know that, don't you?
You didn't have to even come close to 'explaining' what you had Kytess do in character.
I like the info you share, but i just hope you don't feel like you owe it to me or anything.
?
Doppleganger
First Post
A side note on the commoner with a stick idea. I played a commoner (goatherdsman) with a staff in the Sunless Citadel thread here on the boards a long time ago and it was alot of fun! I thought it'd be more realistic to roll 3d6 for each ability and then even rolled for his HP. Needless to say, the character wasn't very effective for combat (or anything else, for that matter...). But there was still plenty of stuff for the character to do and say as we did our exploring. I had a blast!
CRGreathouse
Community Supporter
reapersaurus said:
Of course - if I thought it was any more than venting and poking a little fun, I'd clarify it via email. Still, I'd like to think I know you at least well enough to tell when you're joking.
reapersaurus said:
http://www.enworld.org/messageboards/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3462
No, it's not that I want to play useless characters; I want characters that are forced to choose their skills carefully - "hard choices". In particular, I don't want characters to all share a common set of skills. I could have given Kytess Spot, Listen, and Bluff/Diplomacy/Intimidate - but I didn't. Instead, I had to make a hard tradeoff for Jump, Ride, and Tumble (et. al.). In fact, I could have still put ranks in Spot, but I wanted to flesh out my background with Craft (weaponsmith). In fact, if I had fewer ranks*, I'd still take Craft (weaponsmith), likely 2 ranks (with 2 fewer ranks in Ride, or 1 fewer rank in Ride and Jump). It's not about being machoistic and wanting my character to be weak - it's about not being Superman.
* This would be a problem for me, because Kytess' above-average Int is a major part of her character (for me, at least). She's not dumb muscle - and she knows it.
CRGreathouse
Community Supporter
I'll be out of town for a while (leaving next morning). don't flip if I can't post for a while.
******
If we're lucky, we can have some charactyer development for some of the other characters now - I'd love to see more of Taz and Sollir, and more *deeply* into Ivellios. (I'd also like to see Murhid's backstory come into play, but that's a little harder.)
I'm not trying to discourage Jalon and Ubaar from developingm but I think I understand them fairly well. If they'd help the others, though, so much the better.
******
If we're lucky, we can have some charactyer development for some of the other characters now - I'd love to see more of Taz and Sollir, and more *deeply* into Ivellios. (I'd also like to see Murhid's backstory come into play, but that's a little harder.)
I'm not trying to discourage Jalon and Ubaar from developingm but I think I understand them fairly well. If they'd help the others, though, so much the better.
reapersaurus
Explorer
reapersaurus
Explorer
I so don't agree with that gaming approach, CR.
If I want to play someone that has to limit their gaming choices between incredibly-small-ability A and incredibly-small-ability B it would take me 15 years just to play enough to get exposure to one-tenth of the core rules.
I believe you should get MORE for your gaming time than just one ability or two.
If my character sheet only allows me to do a fraction of what the system is able to rules-wise accomodate, than i think tat's a waste of utilization.
You don't need rules to role-play.
you need rules to allow a PC to do things.
And in my opinion, the base 3E rules do not allow a character to do enough for my money. (skills, feats, abilities)
If I want to play someone that has to limit their gaming choices between incredibly-small-ability A and incredibly-small-ability B it would take me 15 years just to play enough to get exposure to one-tenth of the core rules.
I believe you should get MORE for your gaming time than just one ability or two.
If my character sheet only allows me to do a fraction of what the system is able to rules-wise accomodate, than i think tat's a waste of utilization.
You don't need rules to role-play.
you need rules to allow a PC to do things.
And in my opinion, the base 3E rules do not allow a character to do enough for my money. (skills, feats, abilities)
CRGreathouse
Community Supporter
reapersaurus said:
First, I don't think that Kytess is limited at all: Craft (weaponsmith) +9, Jump +7, Ride +10, Tumble +8.
Next, if you really mean that, you should take a character with (1) higher Int, and (2) a class with more skill points.
Getting lots of skills is for rogues and experts. Raging and casting spells is for clerics. If a barbarian/cleric should complain about not getting enough skill points, shouldn't a rogue complain about not getting enough spells and special abilities?
Do you think high skill point classes are too powerful?
reapersaurus
Explorer
Kytess has FOUR skills that she's good at, dude.
FOUR.... skills.
She can't Climb worth a damn, she can't even swim, she has NO ability to perform - not even a limerick, she can't see or listen worth a damn (even tho her life depends on it), etc etc etc.
Seems pretty straight-jacketed to ME, and you even spent points to give her extra skills AND she's a human, to boot.
It's just not a realistic emulation of what real people can do.
Just because you have a manual labor occupation doesn't mean you can't be good at dancing.
Or rhyming, or bluffing, or any number of things that we see people good at in every single day of our lives.
Solution:
Give more skill points.
If you want, and are afraid of powergaming with skills, only allow them to be used for flavor skills, such as Craft, Profession, Perform, Knowledge, etc.
It is my opinion that all adventurers should get better at Spot, Listen, and Sense Motive (if they have any headyness) as they go up in levels (all ideas clarified from KarinsDad's house rules), due to how much they use them, it's insane that they wouldn't get better by practice.
And CR:
"If a barbarian/cleric should complain about not getting enough skill points"
Don't you mean a PLAYER of a barbarian/cleric?
I'm not Ubaar, man.
And rogues DO get special abilities in addition to their metric boatload of skills.
They also can be good in combat.
And i DO think that high skill classes (rogues and wizards - due to their prime stat conveniently being the only stat which grants skills) ARE too powerful.
And Thanee - yes, i DO have an obsession with non-fighters being too good at combat.
Thanks for asking.
FOUR.... skills.
She can't Climb worth a damn, she can't even swim, she has NO ability to perform - not even a limerick, she can't see or listen worth a damn (even tho her life depends on it), etc etc etc.
Seems pretty straight-jacketed to ME, and you even spent points to give her extra skills AND she's a human, to boot.
It's just not a realistic emulation of what real people can do.
Just because you have a manual labor occupation doesn't mean you can't be good at dancing.
Or rhyming, or bluffing, or any number of things that we see people good at in every single day of our lives.
Solution:
Give more skill points.
If you want, and are afraid of powergaming with skills, only allow them to be used for flavor skills, such as Craft, Profession, Perform, Knowledge, etc.
It is my opinion that all adventurers should get better at Spot, Listen, and Sense Motive (if they have any headyness) as they go up in levels (all ideas clarified from KarinsDad's house rules), due to how much they use them, it's insane that they wouldn't get better by practice.
And CR:
"If a barbarian/cleric should complain about not getting enough skill points"
Don't you mean a PLAYER of a barbarian/cleric?
I'm not Ubaar, man.
And rogues DO get special abilities in addition to their metric boatload of skills.
They also can be good in combat.
And i DO think that high skill classes (rogues and wizards - due to their prime stat conveniently being the only stat which grants skills) ARE too powerful.
And Thanee - yes, i DO have an obsession with non-fighters being too good at combat.
Thanks for asking.
Similar Threads
