Theories regaurding the change in rules of D&D.

[fuindordm]

That is not true. In PHB, page 80, ..for example, a sailor knows how to tie several basic knots, how to rend and repair sails, and how to stand a deck watch at sea. The DM sets DCs for specialized tasks.

So, all things you'd expect a sailor to be able to do, go to category specialized task and have a DC set by the DM. Hence, a sailor doesn't need a stack of skills.

Cool! So here's my sailor:

Str 15 Dex 13 Con 12 Int 8 Wis 10 Cha 14
BAB 1, Attack +3 harpoon (longspear) 1d8+3

Skills/Feats:
Skill focus (sailor), combat reflexes
Profession (sailor) (4) +7
Intimidate (4) +6
Gather Info (2) +4

+7 is a pretty good roll. He can balance on a yardarm, swim in choppy waters, tie harnesses and tackle, get a sailboat heading towards shore by the stars, butcher a whale and render its oil, go fishing when he's hungry, and all that good stuff... all at +7.

This character is by the book, then?

As a DM, are you going to tell me that I can't balance my way across a narrow stone bridge because it's not on a ship? That I can't navigate by the stars if I'm not at sea? That I can't splice ropes together into a sturdy harness, because "it's not the same kind of rope"? That I can swim the ocean, but not an underground lake?

You see the dilemma, I hope. If applications of the profession skill are portable to other environments, then it becomes a very sweet deal. If its uses are strictly limited, then it's worthless. I think the profession skill was meant only to handle specialized tasks not covered by the other skills.

 

[danzig138]

That's not how I read it. A 1st level PC is someone who has just starting adventuring, as opposed to a normal, non-adventurous life.

A 1st level human character has a starting age of (average) 17, 18, or 21. At this point, they haven't really had that much life when they started adventuring, so I'd say you're reading it a little wrong. YMMV, etc, etc.

I've heard the basic "But my background says...!" from players before who were trying to rationalize getting something for nothing. Reading your posts, it's like hearing them all over again. It's your job to write your background while accouting for the system; it's not the system's job to account for your attempts at scoring extra by writing about how you were a manly man before you started adventuring.

I don't normally say this, but it really sounds like you should just leave D&D for a different system. I think someone may have recommended Buy The Numbers. While I've not looked at it, I've heard decent things about it, and it might work for you. But I doubt it, because it really sounds like you don't want to play what D&D is designed to play.


And I heartily endorse giving each class 2 extra skill points per level. Or giving them a small poolof points as "background points", and then letting them apply them to a select list of skills.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

The ability to create exacting detail for PCs is a strength of the current edition. The need to create exacting detail for NPCs and monsters is a weakness, and, IMHO, limits creativity. Surely we can have one without the other?

You raise an important point.

Personally, I am skeptical that the "need" you speak of really exists to the degree you suggest. Perhaps for a few choice villains, but not for everyone surely. (And isn't statting out the BBEG one of the sacred pleasures of being a DM? )

There is a relevant remark lying around in someone''s sig somewhere. Ah here...

"But on the grand scale of things, most NPCs that make it to the battlemat are mooks. They might live through the first 3 hits instead going down at once, but they are still just Orcs in drag."

I do not see that precisely statting out NPCs and monsters to be a requirement when you are in the hands of an experienced DM.

Statting out NPCs and monsters cuts both ways for less experienced DMs. It is not obvious which is the best way to serve inexperienced DMs.

 

[fuindordm]

I've heard the basic "But my background says...!" from players before who were trying to rationalize getting something for nothing. Reading your posts, it's like hearing them all over again. It's your job to write your background while accouting for the system; it's not the system's job to account for your attempts at scoring extra by writing about how you were a manly man before you started adventuring.

Well, I'm almost always the DM--so I'm not thinking about ways to squeeze out more points for my precious PC.

What I am thinking about is the style of game I want to run, and whether the 3e skill system supports that. Shall I bring my players to the table and tell them "Because the 3e skill system only supports fledgling adventurers, you will all create young characters who have just finished their apprenticeships."?

No, I would rather tell them "I want you to create characters that have a place in the world, a reason for traveling, and a reason for being together. Since part of the spirit of D&D is finding strength through diversity, I urge you to be creative."

I'm starting to feel that the best way to encourage characters of diverse personality and background (i.e., life experience) is to de-emphasize the mechanical nature of the skill system, and to me that is the point of this conversation. The mechanical examples given so far demonstrate that there are many interesting character concepts which are difficult to shoehorn into the 3e rule set. I propose that it is more fun to allow interesting character concepts than deny them, and am looking for ways to enable this creativity.

Indeed, my upcoming campaign will be closer to 1st edition than 3rd. If players want to be able to do something that is (a) very useful and (b) clearly requires training, they will have the option of "buying" a percentage-based skill comparable to a thief's skill. Otherwise, their chance of success at a difficult task will be based on an ability check and their character's background.

Furthermore, the background need not be a page or two of awful fiction--just knowing the character's country of origin and pre-adventuring occupation ought to be enough for most purposes.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

No, I would rather tell them "I want you to create characters that have a place in the world, a reason for traveling, and a reason for being together. Since part of the spirit of D&D is finding strength through diversity, I urge you to be creative."

I would sum that up as, "Create 3rd-5th-level characters."

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

I would consider whether you can have a "highly experienced" person of only 1st level to be a matter of controversy in all editions of D&D. There is no perfect answer IMO.

On one hand, it does seem "unrealistic" (whatever that means) that, say, a great scholar must have significant HPs.

OTOH, if you are significant enough to really matter to the Heroes or the Villains, there is a certain implicit genre self-consistency that demands many levels. The adult King of a great nation being a 1st or 2nd level Aristocrat would really blow SOD for me.

 

[Scribble]

I would sum that up as, "Create 3rd-5th-level characters."

Yah.. roll up some dudes. 3rd level.

 

[Numion]

Cool! So here's my sailor:

Str 15 Dex 13 Con 12 Int 8 Wis 10 Cha 14
BAB 1, Attack +3 harpoon (longspear) 1d8+3

Skills/Feats:
Skill focus (sailor), combat reflexes
Profession (sailor) (4) +7
Intimidate (4) +6
Gather Info (2) +4

+7 is a pretty good roll. He can balance on a yardarm, swim in choppy waters, tie harnesses and tackle, get a sailboat heading towards shore by the stars, butcher a whale and render its oil, go fishing when he's hungry, and all that good stuff... all at +7.

This character is by the book, then?

Your character is by the book, but you can't do all that stuff you listed with Profession (sailor). For example a file-and-rank sailor probably couldn't do all fishing, navigating and cirque soleil balancing, but just some of those. And not all sailors could swim, so I'd keep that one out.

As a DM, are you going to tell me that I can't balance my way across a narrow stone bridge because it's not on a ship? That I can't navigate by the stars if I'm not at sea? That I can't splice ropes together into a sturdy harness, because "it's not the same kind of rope"? That I can swim the ocean, but not an underground lake?

The skill description only talked about tasks, not where you do them, so this point is moot.

You see the dilemma, I hope. If applications of the profession skill are portable to other environments, then it becomes a very sweet deal. If its uses are strictly limited, then it's worthless. I think the profession skill was meant only to handle specialized tasks not covered by the other skills.

No it doesn't, if you read the skill. The skill description actually says the opposite: "broader range of less specific knowledge."

For example Profession (sailor) means the basic stuff, some of which will come handy in adventuring (like operating a watercraft, making basic knots, fixing sails), but you can't do circus stunts (as with acrobatics), play bondage (as with use rope) or swim (as with swim skill).

Most skills uses are limited. (Like scrying). Does that make em useless? Profession sailor is IMO quite probably to prove useful at some point of a PCs career; there's bound to be water and a craft to pass the water at some point

 

[JDJblatherings]

Yeah, but that way seemed to be failing already. It doesn't matter if we stuck with it for a long time. We won't always be around, and most of us, as we get older, don't have the expendable income for the product that the younger crowd has.

Back when i was a teen and preteen I had less then $100.00 a year to spend/spent on RPGs. These days I probably spend my old annual game budget every month or two.

Teens and parent mooching college age folks only have "disposable income" because mom and dad are footing the real bills. I'm a parent now..my son is an RPGer, I keep him down to about 15.00 a month in gaming.

 

[Scribble]

Back when i was a teen and preteen I had less then $100.00 a year to spend/spent on RPGs. These days I probably spend my old annual game budget every month or two.

Teens and parent mooching college age folks only have "disposable income" because mom and dad are footing the real bills. I'm a parent now..my son is an RPGer, I keep him down to about 15.00 a month in gaming.

Hey maybe all of my friends, and myself were different then the average? I used to spend a whole lot more on games and gaming related products then I do now.

Doesn't matter where the money comes from. So what if mom and dad are funding it? The kid has it, the kid spends it.

Every year there's a hot new toy that every kid wants for Christmas... They don't market the new toy to the parents, they market it to the kid.