Testing a theory

[AbdulAlhazred]

Like Ahnehnois said, if you're going against what's written in the book, on an ongoing basis--that's a house rule. When I run 4E, I don't give XP and the players just level up when I tell them. I also disallow resurrection magic. Those are house rules, even though I don't have them written up in a binder. (Homebrew is when I make up a new class or monster or something; adding to the book instead of altering what's there.) If you played 1E and ignored the weapons versus armor table... that was a house rule.

The Big Binder o' House Rules is just taking this to the extreme.

Weapons vs Armor was optional

Here's the thing. What is a 'codified rule'? Lets take your example of XP. We already know that in 4e at least the DMG says basically "give out whatever amounts you want in order to have people advance as you desire." So, there is a difference between that and just advancing the PCs at the point in the plot where it makes sense? Not really. You achieved exactly the same result. I ran a whole 4e campaign that way, we'd just get to the end of a session and all look at each other and decide "eh, that's about enough encounters to go up a level" and I'm sure we were probably just about dead on. Now, if you leveled people for some plot reason with no reference to whether they had 1 encounter or 20, OK, now you're into real house rule territory. The other is just "how I run my game".

Anyway, it seems like largely semantics to me. It just seems to me that most of what people call 'house rules' are more "how you actually employ existing rules and guidelines" to me than actual different rules.

For example, consider getting new spells in AD&D. If the DM say always gave you an extra new spell when you hit a new spell level is that a house rule? How about if he fluffs it as your mage guild gave it to you? Is it still a house rule or is it just RP? It is exactly the same thing... I think the vast majority of stuff is kind of like that. It is at best highly unclear.

 

[haakon1]

If you play third edition which we do skills are important. You can not claim to have a good knowledge of say history with out having ranks in it all knowledge skills are trained only. Which means a fighter with no ranks in royalty and nobility has very little idea on the subject. They may have a vague idea of that a king is the highest but who outranks who a baron or a count. That is where a skill roll comes in.

If you just handwave things like that away then you are basically saying that skills don't matter and this hurts the players who actually put ranks in them.

I like skills but I do see some of the issues involved with them. I hate playing with DMs who rarely use them specially if I am playing a character who has a lot of them. It is truly nerfing the skill monkey.

I think one of the issues it get rid of cross class skills. So what if the fighter has pick lock the way to balance this is on how many skill points someone gets every level.

Yes you can role play anything I can put a 3 in charisma and ignore it if my DM lets me. To me that is a form of cheating the same as if I had a 8 in strength and didn't take the minus off my attack rolls.

If I have a charisma of 10 no ranks in diplomacy, nobility and royalty why am I the one talking to the kings envoy the party member who has better skills should be doing that.

In the game I played in with that character we didn't really have a party face we had a paladin but he was all about killing undead he was a simple farmers son who had no clue on the ins and outs of the political intrigue that can be a big part of a Kingdoms of Kalamar game. That is where my character came in. Sure I could have made a bard or a wizard but I wanted to play a kick ass fighter who had a background as an EX Commander of a Kalamar legion.

I run 3.5e, and I don't think it's an either/or choice of role playing versus skill checks.

I ask the players to do both -- tell me what you're doing/saying, and if it's a situation where you need/are trying to get a non-standard reaction, give me a skill check.

If a Fighter wanted to know about the nobility, he would not be able to roll for knowledge on it without a cross-class skill point in Knowledge: Nobility.

But he could easily ask an NPC: "Who is the ruler of this town?" And assuming the NPC knows, the answer isn't a secret, and the NPC has no reason to withhold the info, he's likely to tell him.

Or he could ask the Monk (who has an Int 18 and feats making him a scholar in our group), who could just do a Knowledge: Nobility skill check roll to see if he remembers. DC for who is the (official) ruler of the town you're in would be about DC5 on Knowledge: Nobility, Knowledge: Local, or Gather Information.

I set the DC quite differently based on the complexity of what they are trying to find out. Someone with Knowledge: Nobility trying to remember (what the PC knows that the player doesn't) the national ruler's name and title is ~ DC5.

That the ruler is also the head of the Knights of the Watch is DC10 (common knowledge).

That the ruler is off at the front during the war, and his daughter is acting as Steward from Thornward Castle, deciding on domestic issues, is DC15. People who know about this sort of thing, they know, but not everyone is up on this level of detail.

That the ruler's heir is NOT his daughter, but his nephew, the first born legitimate male of the family, is maybe DC20.

That the ruler's legitimate brother died in a tournament accident and its unclear why he wasn't Raised, and that his illegitimate brother is a general, that's DC35 stuff.

Doing research in books would help, but effectively wouldn't work without the skill.

Talking to NPC's could work for the easy stuff, but the NPC would have to know the info to share it, and have a reason to want to share it.

Seems fair and balanced to me. And I'm having a lot of fun working out the nobility of my campaign world right now, with some outsourcing to the guy who plays the monk and is also interested in this kind of thing.

For your PC idea, of an ex commander who's a Fighter and has lots of social connections and knowledge, I'd say "take a level of Aristocrat".

 

[haakon1]

The simple answer - though likely not many 3e types would agree - is to get rid of all social and knowledge skills entirely; and let role-playing rule the day.

My namesake character here is a Fighter, and he makes it his business to know stuff. If he doesn't know it and he thinks he needs to know it, he goes and finds the right people to give him the right information so he does know it. Then he uses that knowledge (not always wisely, but hey) the best he can; and if he can't he just hoards the information until such time as it might come in handy.

In your example above, if it mattered whether a Baron outranked a Count, in character I'd just go and ask some scholar to rattle off the whole ranking system; and I'd write it down for future reference.

The 3e skill system would wreck the way I play him.

That'd be completely fine in my 3.5e game.

There's no reason asking an NPC for info has to be a skill check. I role play the NPC -- what does he know, and what does he feel like saying -- and give you answer.

The scholar might just tell you, might not know, might ask a fee, or he might lie. But there's no Knowledge roll required. If there's no a pre-established relationship and for some reason is hard to know/a secret, using Gather Information (which is an untrained skill, unlike Knowledge skills) might be appropriate.

You also don't have to do a Ride check to ride cross-country at a normal pace . . . I assume everyone can sit a horse (Ride is an untrained skill). The skill checks are for dramatic situations -- jumping a fence at a gallop while being chased by Ringwraiths, not riding to town.

 

[haakon1]

I do think they should get rid of the whole concept of cross class skills.

Maybe. How would you run Rogues and Rangers, then?

 

[pemerton]

When I run 4E, I don't give XP and the players just level up when I tell them. I also disallow resurrection magic. Those are house rules, even though I don't have them written up in a binder.

Disallowing resurrection magic is a house rule, though hardly a radical one. Certainly less radical than changing the rules for skill acquisition in a 3E game, I would think.

But levelling up without XP is an option expressly canvassed in the 4e DMG (p 121, under the heading "Varying rates of advancement"), and so not really a house rule at all:

If you want to, you can treat experience points the same way you handle action points . . . Tell the players that they gain a level after they complete eight to ten encounters. Don’t count really easy encounters, count really hard encounters as two, and don’t worry about precise XP totals.​

What is a 'codified rule'? Lets take your example of XP. We already know that in 4e at least the DMG says basically "give out whatever amounts you want in order to have people advance as you desire." So, there is a difference between that and just advancing the PCs at the point in the plot where it makes sense? Not really. You achieved exactly the same result.

<SNIP>

Anyway, it seems like largely semantics to me. It just seems to me that most of what people call 'house rules' are more "how you actually employ existing rules and guidelines" to me than actual different rules.

For example, consider getting new spells in AD&D. If the DM say always gave you an extra new spell when you hit a new spell level is that a house rule? How about if he fluffs it as your mage guild gave it to you? Is it still a house rule or is it just RP? It is exactly the same thing... I think the vast majority of stuff is kind of like that. It is at best highly unclear.

I think it is also pretty dubious to say that because a DM happens to say use a particular style of interaction in say 4e with skills which is different from yours that either of you are using a house rule. There's a WIDE amount of latitude in using the rules. In any case some particular quirk of a DM is hardly systematic.

I think these are excellent points - particularly about the latitude permitted by the rules, and quirks of GMing.

The reason I make this kind of distinction is for instance I don't believe most players and DMs expect a game these days to be a 'kit', they expect it to be a game they can play, and that works.

Yes. I am hoping, once my 4e campaign concludes, to run a game of Burning Wheel. There are a few tweaks I would make to the weapon list (I think one or two weapons are out of mechanical balance with the rest, and the weapon list doesn't include a couple of weapons I like, such as flails or two-handed swords). But as far as the core character build and action resolution mechanics are concerned, I would be intending to use them as written.

I think there is a big difference between adding to or subtracting from lists (equipment lists, weapon lists, spell lists etc) and changing those fundamental elements of a game. For me, at least, the lists are part of the fun of roleplaying: what cool items to introduce, what monsters to use, etc. But I want the engine to work out of the box!

 

[Elf Witch]

I run 3.5e, and I don't think it's an either/or choice of role playing versus skill checks.

I ask the players to do both -- tell me what you're doing/saying, and if it's a situation where you need/are trying to get a non-standard reaction, give me a skill check.

If a Fighter wanted to know about the nobility, he would not be able to roll for knowledge on it without a cross-class skill point in Knowledge: Nobility.

But he could easily ask an NPC: "Who is the ruler of this town?" And assuming the NPC knows, the answer isn't a secret, and the NPC has no reason to withhold the info, he's likely to tell him.

Or he could ask the Monk (who has an Int 18 and feats making him a scholar in our group), who could just do a Knowledge: Nobility skill check roll to see if he remembers. DC for who is the (official) ruler of the town you're in would be about DC5 on Knowledge: Nobility, Knowledge: Local, or Gather Information.

I set the DC quite differently based on the complexity of what they are trying to find out. Someone with Knowledge: Nobility trying to remember (what the PC knows that the player doesn't) the national ruler's name and title is ~ DC5.

That the ruler is also the head of the Knights of the Watch is DC10 (common knowledge).

That the ruler is off at the front during the war, and his daughter is acting as Steward from Thornward Castle, deciding on domestic issues, is DC15. People who know about this sort of thing, they know, but not everyone is up on this level of detail.

That the ruler's heir is NOT his daughter, but his nephew, the first born legitimate male of the family, is maybe DC20.

That the ruler's legitimate brother died in a tournament accident and its unclear why he wasn't Raised, and that his illegitimate brother is a general, that's DC35 stuff.

Doing research in books would help, but effectively wouldn't work without the skill.

Talking to NPC's could work for the easy stuff, but the NPC would have to know the info to share it, and have a reason to want to share it.

Seems fair and balanced to me. And I'm having a lot of fun working out the nobility of my campaign world right now, with some outsourcing to the guy who plays the monk and is also interested in this kind of thing.

For your PC idea, of an ex commander who's a Fighter and has lots of social connections and knowledge, I'd say "take a level of Aristocrat".

I do the same I ask the player to role play it out and then roll. Based on what they said I give pluses or minuses to the roll. I do accept them telling me what they say as opposed to actually role playing it our for those who are not good at that. I also look at things like did they do research to find out as much information about this person so they can use it to help smooth things over. So many things go into my deciding what the DC is for success.

Exactly and by not having the skill you are limiting them from not having the background of noble or royalty. Which makes fighters boring lets see do I put my points in climb or jump or swim. Like I said I always max out swim when I play a fighter.

You don't understand knowledge of royalty is more than just knowing who the King is it is knowing the ins and outs of the proper way to behave to be accepted as one of them.

In the movie My Fair Lady they take a guttersnipe and teach her not only how to talk but manners, how to walk, dress how to navigate society. In game terms she ends up with ranks in it.

Which is what I did for my favorite fighter but only because I rolled so well and was not starting at first level with her. Otherwise who wants to start the game as an aristocrat? I am sure the other players would be thrilled that the fighter of the party is so weak at first level and it does not make sense to start later without in game reasons.

It is not just fighters but any character. Why can't a cleric come from a royal background or a sorcerer?

Why should only wizards, bards, paladins be the only ones who come from a noble family?

 

[Elf Witch]

Maybe. How would you run Rogues and Rangers, then?

The same way I ran them before I got rid of cross class skills. Don't forget that rangers and rogues get more skill points so they have an easier time max out and picking a variety of skills. A fighter still only had 2 or 3 if he is human. Plus is highest stat is usually going to be intelligence. Or usually even his second highest.

I got rid of cross class skills in 2008 and in my experience is has not short changed rangers or rogues at all.

My players love it because they feel it gives them a better ability to truly build their concept.

In one game the cleric was fourth inline to the throne so he put some ranks in knowledge nobility and royalty.

In another game the rogue had spent time in an orphanage run by the clerics of Pelor so he had some ranks in knowledge religion.

I have yet to see anyone stepping on anyone toes or taking away anyone else niche.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Maybe. How would you run Rogues and Rangers, then?

It really doesn't change. Being an effective scout generally suggests that you should have Spot, Listen, Hide, Move Silently, Search, and possibly Disable Device. A variety of other skills are also useful if you want to be a really good scout. Other than rangers and rogues, no one else is likely to have enough skill points to max all those things, as well as good Dex and Wis and low armor check penalties.

Class skills were never really the defining mechanic in building your character anyway. I look at them more as suggestions; a list of things that most members of class X should be doing.

 

[haakon1]

I do the same I ask the player to role play it out and then roll. Based on what they said I give pluses or minuses to the roll. I do accept them telling me what they say as opposed to actually role playing it our for those who are not good at that. I also look at things like did they do research to find out as much information about this person so they can use it to help smooth things over. So many things go into my deciding what the DC is for success.

Exactly and by not having the skill you are limiting them from not having the background of noble or royalty. Which makes fighters boring lets see do I put my points in climb or jump or swim. Like I said I always max out swim when I play a fighter.

You don't understand knowledge of royalty is more than just knowing who the King is it is knowing the ins and outs of the proper way to behave to be accepted as one of them.

In the movie My Fair Lady they take a guttersnipe and teach her not only how to talk but manners, how to walk, dress how to navigate society. In game terms she ends up with ranks in it.

Which is what I did for my favorite fighter but only because I rolled so well and was not starting at first level with her. Otherwise who wants to start the game as an aristocrat? I am sure the other players would be thrilled that the fighter of the party is so weak at first level and it does not make sense to start later without in game reasons.

It is not just fighters but any character. Why can't a cleric come from a royal background or a sorcerer?

Why should only wizards, bards, paladins be the only ones who come from a noble family?

Etiquette and fork is NOT what the rules say for Knowledge: Nobility and Royalty.

I'll quote them to you from d20srd.org
"Nobility and royalty (lineages, heraldry, family trees, mottoes, personalities)"

For etiquette, I think it would subsumed within Diplomacy -- a high result meaning you did a good job of it, a low result meaning you did not.

Which fork to use I find it very hard to imagine ever mattering in any D&D game I've ever played or run.

As for being a noble, I have no problem with a player stating that's in their character's background and NOT using the Aristocrat class. I'm not going to dictate their Skill Choices either -- if they are oblivious the lineages of their fellow nobles (not 1 point in Knowledge: Nobility), that's fine, just a Rogue with a guttersnipe background can be oblivious to Knowledge: Local if they choose to be -- an unusual enough choice that it probably needs some explanation, but nevertheless a choice that the rules leave to the player.

But for your proposed character of someone DEFINED by being a warrior with lots of aristocratic skills, but not wanting to a be paladin, there's actually a class with exactly those "combat abilities as good as a Warrior with lots of aristocratic skills" characteristics -- it's call Aristocrat. My suggestion is, if that's precisely what you want to play, then just play it already.

There's a big difference between saying "You must follow these rules for this background" versus "Create your own character, but you might want to consider this class that fits PRECISELY what you say you want your character to be."

You could complain that it's not a PC class, but that would be your choice -- sometimes there are good reasons why Aristocrat, Adept, or Expert might fit a player's vision for a character's origins better than first level in an adventuring class.

The rules are a lot more flexible than you give them credit for. A Fighter could take Knowledge: Nobility as a cross-class skill. Any class can.

The problem you have where you want all your Fighter skill points to go to Swim, but you want to be good at other things, I can't help you with. Since Swim is an Untrained skill, I think it's a complete waste of Skill Points, but again, it's the player's choice. I'd be more interested in Climb and Ride, but that's just me (more dungeon and outdoors, very little ships in my campaigns).

Making trade-offs with limited resources -- whether Skill Points or spell slots -- is a key part of the game. You can't be an Olympic swimmer, the world's leading expert on noble lineages, and an excellent hand-to-hand Fighter simultaneously at first level . . . that's a feature, not a bug. You need to either choose what you really want, or do a little of each and settle for not being Michael Phelps and Hillary Clinton simultaneously at 1st level.

 

[Lanefan]

Which fork to use I find it very hard to imagine ever mattering in any D&D game I've ever played or run.

Easy choice for me: the one that does the most damage when I stab someone with it.

Lan-"yes, it's true: you can't take me anywhere"-efan