The King's Rangers! (Reprised)

[mmadsen]

Mmadsen, seeing that you have WOT, STAR WARS, and Call of Cthulhu, why in those games, the character classes/types all have considerably more skill points per level than the character classes in D&D?

Actually, I only own Call of Cthulhu; the others I perused in Barnes & Noble and read about here.

Why do they give characters more Skill Points? For all the reasons we've discussed, I'd say. D&D has a history of no skills for anyone except the Thief/Rogue, and lots of dungeon-applicable non-skills (large Hit Dice, high BAB, Spells, whatever) for the other classes.

If you're designing the third edition of D&D, do you suddenly give Fighters lots of Skills? Aren't they just supposed to fight?

Similarly, do you give them lots of Feats? They didn't have any Special Abilities before; why give 'em a bunch now?

Sorry, but Elves, with their incredibly ancient lives, should know incredibly more than a Human. In my campaign, I have changed the Elves significantly, to better reflect the absolute mythological superiority of Elves over much of creation.

I have an easier solution: a typical elf isn't 1st level. Or even 2nd or 3rd. This unfortunately breaks down if you stick to D&D's notion of one Hit Die per Level and no base Hit Points.

If I may make an aside (that I hinted at earlier):

Currently characters start with zero Hit Points, and each level they take adds one Hit Die, from d4 through d12, analogous to a +2 through +6 bonus per level.

What if we give everyone a healthy starting number of Hit Points (10 or Con or whatever) and then give no bonus (d0 or +0) for noncombatant classes? A 5th-level Scribe would still have 10 Hit Points, and our knowledgeable elves could just have extra levels of Expert without becoming combat monsters.

(We'd probably also want to reduce the BAB and Poor Save progressions to no progression as well.)

Whether these skills are augmented by others, or not, the argument could be made, especially with the increased depth in "New Uses For Old Skills" sections, that Sense Motive, Diplomacy, Gather Information, Bluff, Appraise, and perhaps a few more, are all not only very useful, but practically essential.

Yes and no. Should a young Ranger, fresh out of Ranger ROTC, have much applied skill in Sense Motive, Diplomacy, Gather Information, Bluff, Appraise, etc.? Those sound like exactly the things a young Ranger shouldn't quite know, but an old dog might've picked up along the way.

Also, I think it's perfectly reasonable that some Rangers focus on certain skills while their comrades focus on others. Sure, every Ranger needs Wilderness Lore and the Tracking Feat, but they don't all specialize in everything.

That said, yes, the character concept should have a lot more Skill Points.

I offer this to simply show that the backgrounds, and the current demands, are often quite broader than what the Standard Classes allow, as to the skill points, and sometimes skills offered.

SHARK, SHARK, SHARK, you wouldn't have this problem if you just went "back to the dungeon"! You and your crazy notions...

Classes definitely need more skill points, in order to develop more "Rounded" characters, and they should be able to do so without everyone having an 18 intelligence, you know?

One problem with most skill systems is that there's no differentiation between combat-oriented min-maxer skills and rounded social/background skills.

Older versions of D&D basically had this right: you had no rules for noncombat skills. That way you assumed the Cleric could lead his flock, the Wizard could read ancient manuscripts, the Fighter could fletch his arrows, etc. If Aragorn the Ranger needs to recount the lineage of the kings of Gondor, he just does.

Once you broaden the skill mechanics to cover all skills, you leave your players min-maxing their skills (quite naturally), and they have to choose between "useful" skills like Hide and background skills like "Hearth Wisdom". Perhaps the Class mechanics should include a list of "flavor" skills to choose from (for free) in addition to the more obviously applicable skills. That way, a Cleric might actually have Knowledge: Religion.

 

[Blue Prussian]

Hey SHARK,

Do your players make use of the Feat-Master class, or is it primarily an NPC tool? I would think this would be an immensely popular option for any PC. And what about their enemies? Your orcs/ogres would be far beyond fearsome with that many feats! I guess I'm wondering how prevalent this class/game-mechanic is in your campaign world.

 

[SHARK]

Greetings!

Hey Blue Prussian! Nice to see you!

Well, I really like the Feat Master Prestige Class/Mechanic because it allows for more *generic* specialization. However, choosing such is not without costs. Seeing that one can only advance to 20 class levels, you have to be careful with it. Choosing a level or more in Feat Master means of course, that that is one less class level of something else you *can't* take. So, it is a serious consideration for a character.

In my own campaign, I would be willing to make it available to player-characters. I have play tested it with npc's, and while providing a certain power-boost, perhaps it's more akin to getting a "broader" or "depth" of power, rather than a straight, vertical leap in power, if that makes any sense. So far, it's been limited to npc's. I suppose it essentially allows you to become better at *what you already do* as opposed to getting better in a different way, or even in a dramatic way, if that makes any sense.

For example, say a 11th lvl Wizard selects a level of Feat Master. Now, the Wizard will gain 1d6 HP, and 2+intel bonus of skill points, and three feats. Most likely extra meta-magic feats, or perhaps the character picks up Spell Focus, Item Creation--Craft Wands, and Skill Focus: Sense Motive. However, the character is passing up another spell-level, with it's attendant new spells. Plus, the character is passing on spell-enhancements of existing spells, by choosing Feat Master, instead of level 12 Wizard. So, it's balanced that way. It presents more choices, and more flexibility.

In my own campaign, I have often used Feat Master to further flesh out those types of characters that experience a lot, but a lot of the same, as opposed to many different things. For example, I've used it quite successfully in providing depth to my professional Legionnaires, or to more urban wizards for example, that may never get above 10th level Wizard, but they have two levels of Feat Master, let's say, which, from a "grand scheme" point of view, I don't really have to worry about them ever going up in level, and getting more spells, and more powerful, but yet, I can be confident that without them being forced to make a sudden, and oftentimes unrealistic class-change, with a few Feat Master levels, they have improved, but not dramatically so. In addition, they can continue virtually forever as very useful members of their organizations without going up in levels dramatically. So, it all works out well. I let monsters and humanoids have access to it as well, with similar cool effects. I highly recommend it's addition to any campaign!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

 

[WSmith]

Older versions of D&D basically had this right: you had no rules for noncombat skills. That way you assumed the Cleric could lead his flock, the Wizard could read ancient manuscripts, the Fighter could fletch his arrows, etc. If Aragorn the Ranger needs to recount the lineage of the kings of Gondor, he just does.

Once you broaden the skill mechanics to cover all skills, you leave your players min-maxing their skills (quite naturally), and they have to choose between "useful" skills like Hide and background skills like "Hearth Wisdom". Perhaps the Class mechanics should include a list of "flavor" skills to choose from (for free) in addition to the more obviously applicable skills. That way, a Cleric might actually have Knowledge: Religion.

I completely agree. This was, IMO, one of the major strengths of of pre-UA/WSG/DSG 1st edition D&D. There was no skill system, other than thieves, and the secondary skills. This lead to an adhoc method that for some sparsely know info, (DM tells, to roll vs. your INT to recognize the approaching battle standard.)

Eventually, when designing the character concept, taking secondary skills would lead to a DM using a common sense approach to event resolution. (You were a navagator, so I will give you a +2 bonus to figure which way is north by the stars.) Take it even further, if a character has from a tribe of horse-riding nomads, he would be given the added bonus also to match his background, even though there were no rules for it.

I am very tired so my response might not make sense. I will clean it up later.

I sure do miss the old ad hoc method, but don't know if a game today could work without a full skill system.

I like what is being done in the CODA system by Decipher. Say your skills include Ranged Combat (longbow) +3, Armed combat (londsword) +5. This means that when firing any bow other than a longbow, you get a +3 to your roll. When striking with any weapon but a longsword, you get a +5 to your attack. When using the skill in the (), you get an additional +2 to that roll, because of its specialty. Firing a longbow nets a total +5 and striking with longsword grants a total of +7.

I think what I am saying is I agree with mmadsen, that less skills give more leaway.

Time to take a nap.

 

[Blue Prussian]

Hey SHARK,

I interpret what you are saying about the Feat-Master as follows: It seems to be a means of exploiting available avenues of power that a character might not otherwise use, as opposed to the specialization that taking another level of a given class would represent. I think I would choose it (for at least a couple of levels), as it should make a character more adaptable and versatile.
It seems to me that most classes (other than fighter) do not get enough feats to make a well-rounded character (along the same lines as your comments on paladins in an earlier post). The possibility to diversify your character that the Feat-Master represents just sounds too good to pass up. Have your players shown any interest in it? If not, are they aiming at prestige classes? I hear you have some impressive ones!

 

[SHARK]

Greetings!

Indeed, you understand my explanation quite well! Yes, I have used the Feat Master to excellent effect. Gradually, the players are warming up to it. They like it a lot, but are cautious, as I have been cautious in implementing the Feat Master into the campaign. Actually, they are a diverse group, who are often torn between the following options:

(1) Gain a Prestige Class. Most of my prestige classes are quite powerful, and very demanding. They represent special groups, intense training, and distinct lifestyle changes that noone considers lightly! I don't have players gathering up multiple prestige classes in my campaign, either. Thus, prestige classes are a serious change in lifestyle and career focus.

(2) Gaining additional standard classes: Like Fighter/Ranger, Ranger/Rogue, Rogue/Wizard, Ranger/Cleric, Fighter/Rogue, Barbarian/Ranger, and so on. Just sticking with the standard class combinations can be incredibly rewarding, and very flexible. These kinds of career additions are always very tempting!

(3) Blending a standard class with Feat Master, and additions of any of the above options; This of course, finely focuses, but at the same time limits, the character's development in distinctive ways. It is attractive, but especially so for characters who have definite, specific visualizations for their character.

(4) Single-class specialty: Believe it or not, some of my players are quite content with just staying the course with a single standard class. This provides a distinctive "generic" flavour, and yet, provides scope for a sort of "generalist mastery" of the class in question that remains distinctively attractive. It sounds in many ways to be paradoxical, and yet it remains true. The single class route offers a depth and broad mastery of a particular class that, despite the range of really cool options out there, that in many ways is unmatched.

It's interesting, because I often wonder if my campaign is "inbred" in the sense that I don't have hordes of new people coming and going every two-four months. I generally have the same group of players that, with some rotation, I've been playing with for many years. I don't like to invite just anyone to my game, because without exception, I try and become friends with everyone who plays with me. This means that the friends and relatives that I play with all like me, and each other, and all get along quite well. They also realize that I, as DM, am the Lord and Master of all creation in the game, and so they know not to rebel against the "Righteous Imperium." I wonder sometimes if I'm missing out on many of the wierdo's, power-gamers, and trolls who don't have a clue about role-playing, and seek to pervert and abuse every possible thing in the campaign?

This "state of affairs"--if you will, means that I, as the DM, have such trust built up, that I can create all sorts of classes, spells, mechanics, or whatever, and I don't have to worry too much about it being abused or trashed in some way, you know? I know that certain things will work in my campaign, and with my players, with *me* as the DM. Sometimes, I wonder if some of my ideas wouldn't work with horrible players, or with a different DM who didn't know how to implement certain ideas and concepts that I have designed.

Things like special prestige classes and such have to be developed very carefully, and implemented cautiously. I have a Ranger prestige class that is very specialized, and available to characters in the campaign. I have many other prestige classes that I have developed, from undead vampire classes, to special elven classes, to classes only available in the Vallorean Empire. Most of them are entirely original, or in some cases, I've taken the framework of some of the prestige classes that have been published, and modified them heavily, to become something else entirely.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

 

[mmadsen]

By the way, SHARK, why did anyone think the Vallorean king was in danger again? Why didn't they just assume Cure Light Wounds would stabilize him? (I recall you had some explanation.)

 

[SHARK]

Greetings!

Yes, Mmadsen, well, in my campaign, I don't use Raise Dead, Resurrection, or Reincarnate Spells. I have developed a system of Fate Points, which different characters start the game with a set amount, and may possibly gain more throughout their career of valour and courageous deeds. Along the way, they can lose such Fate Points for various failed saving throws, or crushing blows, for example. Using a Fate Point allows the character to escape such instant and horrible death. The exact form of that "salvation" from death or horrible maiming is creatively...ahem...remains a divine mystery.

Thus, in the example in the story above, the Vallorean King had used his last Fate Point. Through the timely ministry of the loyal Druids, and through much fervent prayer, the valiant King was able to rally from his wounds and recover! The wounds that the King suffered were thus beyond the ability of normal healing to address. Had the King not had a remaining Fate Point, then he would have died flat out on the battlefield. He never would have made it to the command tent. As such, the use of the Fate Point allowed him the strength to survive the savage wounds in combat, enough to survive the ordeal. The boon of the Fate Point, however, was only partially realised at the moment. The rest of its benefit was realised spread out over the recovery time of the King's convalescence. In this stage of weakness, for example, because it was solely due to the divine grace of the fate point, at that point in time, because he was on "divine time" so to speak, "mundane" healing spells were irrelevant. Once he recovered to a point of enduring strength, healing spells would then help him. However, during this process, the Druids are not aware of such "meta-game stuff." They only know that the King was greviously wounded, they attempted every healing skill and spell they could command, with minimal results. Thus, they remain in devout prayer. Once the King has recovered sufficiently from the savage wounds, he is now capable of benefitting from such magic, however, he now has "zero" Fate Points. This means that if he was to be attacked in the night with a killing blow, he would be dead for good. Or if he was to contract a serious enough disease that resisted a Cure Disease Spell, then the disease or the affliction would kill the Vallorean King as well. Severe Colds, the Flu, Pnuemonia, and other diseases and viruses all have resistance factors that allow them a resistance against the gamut of healing spells that Clerics, Druids, Paladins, and so on have. If the disease fails its resistance, then the spell works as normal, as the Player's Handbook description dictates. If the disease succeeds in its resistance roll, then the particular healing spell fails, and the disease or virus takes its natural, destructive course--whatever that course and effect might be.

In my campaign, I provide all diseases and viruses, and so on, with "levels." They match up a saving throw against the spell level of the healing spell, a roll is made, and the results are compared for the final outcome.

For example:

10+spell lvl+caster's spell bonus=Heal DC.

Disease Strength is ="Character Level" of the appropriate strain of disease. Let's say it's a common strain of the Flu. That would be a 5th Level Wizard. Check the Will Bonus for a 5th level Wizard, and that's the modifier to the D20 roll to resist the Heal DC.

Does that make sense?

Let's say a 10th level Cleric casts the 4th level spell, Cure Disease. Thus, the Heal DC is 10+4+(+2 Wisdom bonus)=16. a Heal DC of 16.

The standard flu, let's say, is a 5th level Wizard. Will Bonus is +4; plus let's add a potency factor of +2 for a "wizard's CHA bonus" for a total of +6.

Disease Roll is roll D20+6 to beat the Heal DC of 16. If the disease get's 15 or less, it is dispelled/healed as normal. If the disease beats the Heal DC, then the spell has no effect, and the target suffers whatever the disease has in store for them.

How's that sound?

I thought of developing this because I don't like the idea of Clerics and such just automatically healing everything in sight, you know? I suppose I'm wierd. I love high fantasy, but I also like the grittiness and oppression of the real-world Dark Ages to be an ever-present, if somewhat survivable reality, even for glorious heroes who have gold armor and +5 Holy Avenger Greatswords. This way, diseases still have an impact upon the game, and on the campaign world as a whole.

I can still have a 20th level Black Plague, with a +24 Potency bonus, sweep across the whole land!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

 

[Maldur]

After a few days of deliberation...as promised

Im still stumped. (anybody intrested in a writers-block virus?)
I think that Ill stay with standard d20 for now, It works good enough for me and my players to have fun. And rewriting classes/prestige classes etc takes more time than I can spare at the moment.

Ill keep reading/commenting/using ideas you guys come up with as I love to hear other peoples views on rpg's.
Im afraid your gonna have to answer silly questions from time to time though.

laterz, Maldur

 

[SHARK]

Greetings!

Mmadsen, how do you handle diseases?

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK