Remember Kits?

[SkidAce]

Eric...here is an idea to consider...

Use the prestige class rules/framework but lower the prerequisites based on your judgement of when a character should be able to take "a kit".

For example...make a Spearman kit/PC that a warrior could take at SECOND level. The full kit benefits would be available after 3 or 5 levels of the PC.

Or if the "kit" concept was more esoteric...raise the requirements to around 10th level.

This way you can vary your "kits" to the level of power you desire, entered when appropriate for your campaign, AND the players can pick and choose how much dedication to the kit they give their character concept.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

Before the tete a tete shuts down my thread...

I think here-in lies the problem. The 3E mentality is that RP and Rules are seperate and should not be interlinked.

Huh, I've been to numerous Gencon seminars, and I don't think I can recall and of the 3e authors making this claim. I don't think I can recall any of the other WotC R&D folks, or designers ever making this claim.

Granted, I think it's a load of horse feathers, and even the DMG points out that this is false: It gives an example that in the default environment, common folk are familiar with magic and should not be scared or shocked by it, therefore it would be improper to RP a person that is surprised by the presence of magic, either as a PC or NPC. Thus, how to RP the person is effected by the rules and the balance of those rules regardless of marketing statements to the contrary (or, as I have always put it, "The rules define the character's reality.").

Uh, it seems like you aren't disagreeing with me at all. But I can't tell just what you are advocating here with this paragraph...

That said, I think the only way to get what you're looking for is to design it yourself, although, technically, you are looking at something that grants bonuses to some Charisma/Wisdom Skills while simultaneously granting some Charisma/Wisdom Skills penalties, with some of these being situation-dependant, all the while not effecting anything else related to the character mechanically.

Not what you want? Probably not, but that's the way the system ticks.

No. Not "all the while not effecting character mentality".

But I have gotten some helpful suggestions by others to look into. And you are right, that even with all the potpourri of D20 publishers and accessories out there, I may still have to do it myself.


Regards,
Eric Anondson

 

[hong]

First, my name isn't "Bendy", nor is it "Bendy Nouget".

It is Bendris, Bendris Noulg, or, if you really want a shortened, you could try Ben.

"Bendy" would be a nickname. Nicknames are given to friends. You are not my friend, nor do you intend this to be a kind invitation to talk.

If my screen name is too difficult, you may try Jim or Jimmy.

If you feel like actually respecting your betters instead of being flippant, you may try Mr. Domsalla.

Or possibly Mr Nougat. Mmm, nougat. Crunchy, with a soft center!

Otherwise, stick to Bendris.

Whatever you say, Bendy.

After all, I'm not calling you Thong, no matter how tempting the urge.

I can say with absolute confidence that anything you could call me has been seen at least a dozen times before. The best I've ever seen was "Hung Over", or perhaps "Bong Boy". Call me anything you like; after all, there's always the chance you'll surprise me with something entirely original. But somehow, I doubt it.

Which is what the rules are designed to create and are balanced to produce.

The rules are designed to create _player characters_ who have access to lots of funky powers and things. Player characters may have these toys, but non-player characters can have any damn thing you want them to have.

Sure, the DM can change the balance to feature less than the default amount, but that's exactly what the DM is doing: changing the set up of the game.

Was there a point to this pearl of not-really-wisdom, or did posting it just seem like a good idea at the time?

Are you sure you're trying to prove me wrong? Cause it sure seems the opposite...

Now you're rambling again.

I would never indicate that the DM is constrained by the rules

No, you just complain about it N times, as N approaches infinity. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

(although over-marketing of the term "balance" has led to plenty of DMs being constrained by their players to the rules, but that's another issue entirely).

If you can't handle paying at least lip service to the notion of "playing by the rules", go play a LARP. Actually, even LARPs have rules too, so cancel that.

High Level has nothing to do with it, nor do spells more potent that fireball...

Hold on to that thought.

I'm in a city, here are low level Clerics, Wizards, Paladins, and Bards... They all use magic.

I'm in the wilderness, here are low level Druids, Adepts, Sorcerers, and Rangers... They all use magic.

Rangers and paladins don't get spells until 4th level, and the relative prevalence of each of the classes is entirely up to you. The DMG itself says that the vast majority of people in the world should be 1st level commoners, which is entirely consistent with your desire for magic being rare. If you don't want lots of low-level clerics and wizards running around, then don't have lots of low-level clerics and wizards running around. Assuming your players aren't in the habit of slaughtering every person in every village they meet, they won't give a damn; in fact, they probably won't even notice. It's that simple, and entirely within the rules of D&D.

Alternatively, you could continue carping on about how the rules dictate flavour and how WotC killed your cat, which, while certainly a neverending source of amusement, does get slightly monotonous at times.

Guess what? Where ever you go, there's magic at work. And level doesn't seem to be a major factor; the design of the classes is. The classes are part of the rules...

Going from this (rather trivial) assertion to saying that the rules dictate the setting is remarkably silly. See above re the relative prevalences of each class.

Still sure you're trying to prove me wrong, here?

I think you're doing a fine job all on your own, actually.

Well, aside from your own falacy of assuming high-level is my issue, you are actually right here...

Gee, you've finally amazed me.

I am but your humble servant.

More proof that I'm right? Bring it on... You're finally contributing to the boards in a constructive manner today, which is a most delightful surprise, and it would be nice to see more.

You first.

 

[hong]

Huh, I've been to numerous Gencon seminars, and I don't think I can recall and of the 3e authors making this claim. I don't think I can recall any of the other WotC R&D folks, or designers ever making this claim.

It's not an "official" position as such, but rather the general vibe that's grown up around 3E. It's a vibe that's been helped along by the expansion of the 3E ruleset into a general d20 system, used for all sorts of games: Star Wars, Spycraft, d20 Modern, etc.

Also, the ruleset is much more formalised and elaborate than previous versions of the game, and such rulesets often bring about that sort of philosophy: that the rules themselves are just a framework, and flavour and setting-specific material are the responsibility of individual DMs. Much the same happens with GURPS or HERO, both of which are games that also explicitly aspire to be generic. D&D is in the funky position that, while not avowedly generic in the sense of explicitly setting out to support different playstyles, is also not particularly specific either: it's a mishmash of bits and pieces. The advantages of this are that people who like different playstyles have a common reference point, and it allows more flexibility: if you find mid-game that you don't like something, it's not too hard to change it. The disadvantage is that no one style is fully supported, which causes angst.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Whatever you say, Bendy.

Hong...

-Hyp.
(Moderator)

 

[Olive]

It was something a character just "slipped" in to, no taking a Feat, spending skill point, getting a new level... etc., just a list of requirements that 1st-level characters could meet.

And here I was, thinking that taking skills and feats in 3e was something that 1st level characters just slipped into. You're makign this more complicated than it actually is.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

And here I was, thinking that taking skills and feats in 3e was something that 1st level characters just slipped into. You're makign this more complicated than it actually is.

After all of my posts, I'm afraid you missed the point.


Regards,
Eric Anondson

 

[Orius]

I remember kits. They were a hit and miss. Some gave silly abilitys. (Sea rangers in complete ranger handbook, could call a group of fish to do his bidding at 9th level.)

Greenwood ranger was even sillier -- at 10th level they could change into a wooden man with three arms.

 

[Orius]

Ah, and I recall the days here (or rather, Eric's boards) when I was shouted down because the one thing I missed about older editions was Skills & Powers abilities to customize class abilities...

Amen to that! PO: Skills and Powers was one of the most flawed and unbalanced products TSR produced, but at the same time, it made D&D fun again and stoked the imagination.

Same here. The biggest problem was that PO was built on a bad foundation to begin with, that is the 2e core rules. Too many DMs seem to have banned it outright, instead of using it as a tool (of course it was a tool that had to be used carefully.) Probably some of the more powerful class and race abilities would have worked better with a higher character point cost. And as I mentioned recently, I used the system to custom built specialty priests in my game.

 

[TiQuinn]

Same here. The biggest problem was that PO was built on a bad foundation to begin with, that is the 2e core rules. Too many DMs seem to have banned it outright, instead of using it as a tool (of course it was a tool that had to be used carefully.) Probably some of the more powerful class and race abilities would have worked better with a higher character point cost. And as I mentioned recently, I used the system to custom built specialty priests in my game.

Yeah, I think by the time Skills and Powers came out, we were so far away from regular 2nd edition, that it was practically a whole different system. IIRC, we were playing 2nd edition, along with Skills and Powers and Mayfair Games' Blood and Steel. Way, way, WAY over the top!