Theories regaurding the change in rules of D&D.

[Irda Ranger]

The funny thing is, D&D handles this sort of character very well - he's high level. If he wasn't good at combat and still had all the rest of the skills, then there would be a problem.

I expect that the discontinuity that SHARK is now trying to deal with is (1) the assumed distribution of class levels within society, and (2) the assumed level of skill that a 1st level character has.

SHARK's problem is that he knows a lot of highly capable, well-rounded Marines. They can kick ass, take names, and dance with the ladies. In fact, this well-rounded, highly skilled warrior is the norm. And yet, the DMG says that 90% of the NPC's wandering around are 1st level. Points #1 and #2 above directly contradict each other.

How can this be resolved? Either (a) 1st level characters need more Skill Points, (b) we need a more bell-shaped distribution of character levels, or (c) we de-couple Skill Points and Class Level entirely.

Option (a) is reasonable and simple for book-keeping. I also like (c), because it "makes sense", but I know that's subjective. I think option (b) is a bad idea, because higher levels should be rare, and reserved for extraordinary individuals. To stick with the Sailor example, someone with Profession (Sailor) (+8) [+4 Ranks, +3 Skill Focus, +1 Wis] is good enough for most cases, but I'd want at least +12's for going into the Alaskan crabbing season. BUT, they're still just regular guys (i.e., 1st level). Being even mid-level is reserved for special sailors.

As has been mentioned, stats plus skill focus plus masterwork tools gives me an easy +10 at 1st level. A +10 in a skill is more than skilled enough.

We're just saying "Wouldn't it be nice if they could get as high as +15 without having to level up their HP and Saves too." Just to de-couple whatever "toughness" levels seem to indicate, and skill at a profession. Since there's no rational, real-world link, why not allow for acquiring one without the other?

Besides, not every Profession could have MW tools. What's a a Butler going to use - a MW steam iron and shoe-shine rag? Probably a bad example. You're right. Most "common" Professions and Crafts (with Skill Focus, a 12 Int or Wis, the right tools, and maybe an apprentice to provide Aid Another) should boost a 1st level Expert or Commoner right up to where he needs to be to master his trade.

But that doesn't mean the Skill System works for all cases. It breaks down when trying to make a well-rounded character, or a super-expert with low HP, or a PC for whom adventuring is a "second career." Hence, all the house rules listed above about Backgrounds, free levels in the Expert class, acquiring Skill Points between adventures, a few more Skill Points per level, etc. etc. They're all just attempts to alchemically morph the rules from restraints into helpful tools.

========================

Ok, I think this is the third time I've come back to this point. Unless someone has something really inciteful to add, I think it's a dead horse. Let's get back on topic or move on.



.

 

[Irda Ranger]

Sometimes people just don't learn.

Resisting ... urge ..., failing ... WILL Save ...

You mean like people who disagree with me?

 

[SHARK]

I expect that the discontinuity that SHARK is now trying to deal with is (1) the assumed distribution of class levels within society, and (2) the assumed level of skill that a 1st level character has.

SHARK's problem is that he knows a lot of highly capable, well-rounded Marines. They can kick ass, take names, and dance with the ladies. In fact, this well-rounded, highly skilled warrior is the norm. And yet, the DMG says that 90% of the NPC's wandering around are 1st level. Points #1 and #2 above directly contradict each other.

How can this be resolved? Either (a) 1st level characters need more Skill Points, (b) we need a more bell-shaped distribution of character levels, or (c) we de-couple Skill Points and Class Level entirely.

Option (a) is reasonable and simple for book-keeping. I also like (c), because it "makes sense", but I know that's subjective. I think option (b) is a bad idea, because higher levels should be rare, and reserved for extraordinary individuals. To stick with the Sailor example, someone with Profession (Sailor) (+8) [+4 Ranks, +3 Skill Focus, +1 Wis] is good enough for most cases, but I'd want at least +12's for going into the Alaskan crabbing season. BUT, they're still just regular guys (i.e., 1st level). Being even mid-level is reserved for special sailors.


We're just saying "Wouldn't it be nice if they could get as high as +15 without having to level up their HP and Saves too." Just to de-couple whatever "toughness" levels seem to indicate, and skill at a profession. Since there's no rational, real-world link, why not allow for acquiring one without the other?

Besides, not every Profession could have MW tools. What's a a Butler going to use - a MW steam iron and shoe-shine rag? Probably a bad example. You're right. Most "common" Professions and Crafts (with Skill Focus, a 12 Int or Wis, the right tools, and maybe an apprentice to provide Aid Another) should boost a 1st level Expert or Commoner right up to where he needs to be to master his trade.

But that doesn't mean the Skill System works for all cases. It breaks down when trying to make a well-rounded character, or a super-expert with low HP, or a PC for whom adventuring is a "second career." Hence, all the house rules listed above about Backgrounds, free levels in the Expert class, acquiring Skill Points between adventures, a few more Skill Points per level, etc. etc. They're all just attempts to alchemically morph the rules from restraints into helpful tools.

========================

Ok, I think this is the third time I've come back to this point. Unless someone has something really inciteful to add, I think it's a dead horse. Let's get back on topic or move on.



.

Greetings!

Good points, Irda! Hey--I love that *special sailor* article, too! Damn, that bastard has balls of steel...fighting a shark barehanded??? That's courage, I'll tell ya brother!

You know, as I read your comments, it makes me think about when I make up some NPC's, or when my players talk about backgrounds and stuff for making up some new characters.

In the Marines, I was always somewhat astonished--even amazed--as I mentioned earlier, at the wide range of talents that many of my fellow Marines--most of whom were 18 or 19 years old--some were even 17, like myself--possessed in spades.

One Marine I knew got special dispensation from the higher command to participate with the Marine's Bronc/Bull riding team in the summer. This man also was a good musician--he made money performing at bars and stuff doing gigs with his guitar, and singing country music.

Another Marine that was a friend of mine--he was an excellent shot, so good that he was on the sniper team. This guy was an expert mechanic, as well. His father owned a auto-Body shop and he had been working on tearing cars apart and rebuilding them since he was 10 or 12 years old. I can't think of anything mechanically this guy couldn't do when it came to automobiles.

Another Marine had traveled all over Europe with his family, as his father was a Marine Embassy guard. This Marine--in addition to the martial skills that we all were trained in--was fluent in German, French, and Russian, besides English, and he knew some Italian as well. This leatherneck was a medievalist, had traveled all over there to the castles, and was a layman scholar in medieval history. This bastard also had taken four years of fencing lessons, and collected all kinds of medieval weapons. Naturally, he was a font of knowledge about medieval weaponry, forging techniques, and so on.

I also was friends with a Marine that had lived in the Phillipines, Okinawa, Japan and Korea, as his father was also a Marine. This man was graceful, charming, in absolute great condition, and was an expert in martial arts--but in addition to being a part-time martial arts instructor, this guy was highly skilled in knife and axe throwing. He was fluent in English, of course, but also Japanese and Tagalog.

Now, I have also read numerous sources in ancient history where they discuss different young legionnaires--being fluent in different languages; being experts in woodcraft and hunting; being highly skilled in carpentry and blacksmithing; or being skilled in history, rhetoric and philosophy--as well as some being skilled fishermen and so on.

As Irda Ranger discusses--sometimes when I think of an 18 year old--and 1st level characters, and the assumptions in the RAW, I don't think the RAW 1st level soldier looks anything like the examples I gave above. The same guidelines and assumptions would have them all be 1st level warriors/fighters though, having never before been trained as a Fighter, for example.

And, like some members have mentioned, a RAW 1st level Fighter looks fine when you think of a real-world example of some snot-nosed kid who's just out of high school, knows nothing, never been anywhere, never done 'nothin, and just worked at MacDonalds flipping hamburgers. That kind of medieval or ancient equivalent also existed, which is true. Just like it does today. But as I mentioned, not every 18 year old is the same. Some are vastly different, and the skill-set and such given by a 1st level Fighter RAW, often can leave a lot to be desired when crafting a character, whether that character is an NPC or a player character.

Great discussion Irda!

There's some very good ideas and approaches mentioned by several people here. Good stuff!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

 

[jeffh]

Personally I think that no Core PC class should have a base 2 skill points per level. The minimum should be 4.

Only PrCs should have such scant skill points, as they can justify that extreme level of narrow focus in general knowledge.

Well, I think everyone should start with at least 16, so I agree with you that far. Beyond first level some classes might be narrow enough in focus to justify only 2, though neither the Fighter nor the Cleric should be among them.

 

[jeffh]

I did a poll here a year or so back that showed...somewhat to my surprise...that most respondents got into the game between about 1977 and 1983, and while I know ENWorld isn't reflective of the entire gaming community, this still says something. To make the age limit for the survey, someone starting in 1980 would have had to be 15 or less at the time; there were certainly some such, but where the game really seemed to catch on back then was in colleges...the 18-22 crowd. That's where the now-veteran players came from. That's who WotC chose to ignore.

And yet, the very people you polled are among those making this the most important D&D3 site on the planet with the possible exception of WotC's own site. Looks to me like WotC served the veterans much better than you give them credit for, regardless of your personal distaste for the result.

 

[SHARK]

Well, I think everyone should start with at least 16, so I agree with you that far. Beyond first level some classes might be narrow enough in focus to justify only 2, though neither the Fighter nor the Cleric should be among them.

Greetings!

Very true, sir. Good point, indeed. I think the designers really flubbed it by giving Fighters and Clerics only 2 skill points per level. They definitely need more!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

 

[Lanefan]

And yet, the very people you polled are among those making this the most important D&D3 site on the planet with the possible exception of WotC's own site. Looks to me like WotC served the veterans much better than you give them credit for, regardless of your personal distaste for the result.

Perhaps, but not necessarily. From reading my way around here for the last year or two it seems that despite the original intent that this be specifically a 3e site, it has become far more a general D+D site encompassing all editions and those who play them. Me, I'm a 1e kid...well, except for the kid part, these days...and while I play 3e it's not at all my favourite. I'll go out on a short limb here and say I'm not alone in that.

WotC served everyone, veterans and rookies alike, by getting the game back into the spotlight after TSR had done their best to bury it. That said, I still disagree with their research results...

And on a different topic, to save another post: starting character age should be either chooseable by the player (within the range that does not affect stats) or by random roll. Just saying that all 1st-level characters start at age 18 or racial equivalent seems a bit arbitrary, and overly restrictive...

Lanefan

 

[WayneLigon]

In the Marines, I was always somewhat astonished--even amazed--as I mentioned earlier, at the wide range of talents that many of my fellow Marines--most of whom were 18 or 19 years old--some were even 17, like myself--possessed in spades.

A lot of the disconnect comes from the stupid and absurd skill DC's you see in modules and even in the PHB. When you put DC 30 locks in first level adventures, it only shows you either don't know anything as a module writer, or you really wanted to say 'the pc's can't go this way'.

Another disconnect comes from forgetting the metagaming context that surrounds a lot of D&D. If you make things too easy for PCs - and most skill checks in the real world are actually pretty simple - they run roughshod over the system and have their characters do things that people just don't do; they make them behave like robots or vending machines instead of characters. Some of the craft times are in there simply to foil that, and should not be taken all that seriously. Also, metagaming niche protection gives us Class Skills. Most second generation d20 stuff does away with class skills for this reason.

I would say from the anecdotes that most of them had a single level of Expert and a single level of Fighter, and good stats (which we would of course expect from a Marine). Marines and some other service people are probably the only people in our society that approach what PC-grade person is like: dedicated, resourceful, good stats, etc.

But we can make a good case for Bob the 18-yo Marine to be a 1st level fighter. Why? People keep forgetting about Take 10 and Take 20, and that at first level you get that big x4 skill multiplier. A Marine probably has at least a 12 int, giving him 12 skill points at first level. The only thing that screws him is the class skills for Fighter.

(Technically though, Bob the First Level Marine has come up in our modern world, which has such a huge degree of free time compared to the middle ages that it's like a different planet. People have way, way more time to learn and be exposed to different skills in our modern world. Bob should be a 1st level Strong Hero or Tough Hero, which gives him another skill point x4 AND a better class skill list, which includes Repair, Language Skills, and the Knowledge skills).

12 skill points go a long way, especially when you're talking about the ability to Take 10 or Take 20. Most skills can be done untrained, too, even the crafting skills. Tearing apart most things mechanically, provided that you've been exposed to such things? Average skill check. That's a DC 10, and can be done untrained. Take 10 or 20 on it, as most people do, and boom. You're an expert car mechanic. And these guys have tools, and probably a sergeant around to tell them the quirk about this particular type of gizmo; tools and Aid Another add into that roll as well.

Indeed, most people forget that line that if you're not in combat, you can perform most skills perfectly well, enough to earn a living, without having ranks in that skill. If you have even 1 rank in that skill, like Craft or Perform, then you can do it well enough to make a living at it as long as you're not in extreme time pressure.

So, Bob the Marine, fresh off the Ohio valley farm: Str 14, Dex 12, Con 14, Int 12, Wis 12, Cha 12. Spending his 12 Skill Points, we get: Craft (Mechanical) 1, Climb 2, Knowledge Nature 1 (2pts)", Survival 1 (2pts)*, Swim 1, Perform 1 (2pts), Prof Skill (MOS) 1, Prof Skill (Farmer) 1, and he comes with an extra language because of his Int.

With Take 10 and Take 20, that's enough for him to do all the things SHARK talks about above. He can play a guitar (+2) well enough with most rolls per day to earn more than an unskilled laborer earns in a week, He's woodsy-wise and can answer most questions about basic survival plus survive (hell, thrive) out in the woods indefinately in a loincloth, his basic charm and charisma is more than enough to be gracious at a party and make a good presentation on the drill feild, etc.

*(Again, the d20 Modern Knowledge catagories make more sense for us, here; he'd have Know: Pop Culture and Technology; he'd also get Survival as a class skill from the Rural Occupation he's had since he was 15)

You can solve pretty much every problem with skills in D&D with one simple house rule: Everyone gets a level of Expert, letting them pick 10 skills and 6+int points, x4 at first level.

 

[Numion]

So, the Evolution of DM's/Adventures might look like this:

OD&D - The world is big, and dangerous, and kind of random. You can get killed really easy. Smart tactics will not help if I roll 18+ on this table. Be afraid.
AD&D - There is a PLOT, and you will advance the PLOT.
D&D 3 - The world is big, and dangerous, and CR appropriate. You can get killed, but only if you're stupid. Use smart tactics and you'll always be OK though.

This has little to do with reality (or fantasy, as it is). 3E is actually more lethal than previous editions. People like to yap about the 'appropriate CR' encounters usually resorting to falsehoods: 1) that the EL can ever only be equal to average party level and 2) that EL = AVP encounters always just take 20% of resources with no deaths.

1) goes against the 3E DMG, actually. The guidelines say that the DM should sometimes use encounters of over AVP +5. That can be pretty lethal, no matter how 'smart tactics you use and you'll always be OK'.

2) The books say that on average they would spend 20% of resources. Due to any number of variables, that might be 0-100% in any single EL = AVP encounter, but averages over time. I've seen many adventurers killed by equal CR encounters due to bad rolls by the players or good rolls by the DM. This is just due to the increased offensive power of the monsters, increased variance in damage dealing and the 3E saving throw system.

 

[Lanefan]

2) The books say that on average they would spend 20% of resources. Due to any number of variables, that might be 0-100% in any single EL = AVP encounter, but averages over time. I've seen many adventurers killed by equal CR encounters due to bad rolls by the players or good rolls by the DM. This is just due to the increased offensive power of the monsters, increased variance in damage dealing and the 3E saving throw system.

In mid-high level parties, what seems to make the most difference is how buffed the party is going in to the encounter. If you reverse the thinking, and ask yourself what CR a party represents to the opponent, think how different the answer is for a fully-buffed party as opposed to one caught off guard...

Older editions didn't have quite the same amount of buffing as 3e, so the difference wasn't as noticeable.

Lanefan