Theories regaurding the change in rules of D&D.

[Raven Crowking]

Sorry, my brain froze momentarily. I thought exploration to mean only overland/water travel at first, like with those famous explorers Livingstone, Cook etc..

Of course people mean 'exploring' to include romps in the dungeons, catacombs, heck - you can even explore city sewers. (Heck - exploring can even include exploring heck. I'll be here all day. )

For that kind of exploration D&D is great. For modelling Livingstone, not so. Unless he was kicking ass and taking names on the way

Fair enough, although I have to say that we explored the Isle of Dread (module) and many a homebrewed wilderness as well back in the day.

(Our explorations included kicking ass, having our asses kicked, hiding, looting, and figuring out how to payback the things that beat us the first time, btw.)

 

[Mark]

There are probably better systems for exploration out there than D&D. D&D's schtick has always been kill, loot, level, rinse, repeat.

Glad I wasn't told that in 1974 when I began exploring. Like I said, though, it is not for everyone and you are certainly welcome to play any way you feel comfortable. However, D&D has always worked perfectly well for exploration from my point of view, no matter the edition. So I guess it has more to do with how the game is approached than how it was designed, though I do not doubt the system can handle numerous styles of play.

Sorry, my brain froze momentarily. I thought exploration to mean only overland/water travel at first, like with those famous explorers Livingstone, Cook etc..

That is included in what I am describing.

 

[mmadsen]

This thread reminded me that SHARK and I have been discussing this topic for years. In his The King's Rangers thread, I said:

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.​

 

[mmadsen]

So, Bob the Marine, fresh off the Ohio valley farm: Str 14, Dex 12, Con 14, Int 12, Wis 12, Cha 12.

Realistically, Bob the Boot, fresh off the farm, would have average stats: Str 11, Dex 11, Con 11, Int 10, Wis 10, Cha 10. After basic training, his Str and Con would presumably have gone up -- or his Str went up and he improved his Fort Save.

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.

The problem is that he's not appreciably better than anyone else. Evidently anyone can do all those things just 5 or 10 percent less often than our Marine, because he only has one or two ranks in those skills.

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.

If levels in Expert didn't grant hit dice, BAB, etc., they would be a great way to make background skills orthogonal to adventuring prowess.

 

[Mark]

That way, a Cleric might actually have Knowledge: Religion.[/Indent]

I have rarely seen a Cleric (in 3.x) without Knowledge: Religion.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I have rarely seen a Cleric (in 3.x) without Knowledge: Religion.

A priest without it in my game would be in a world of hurt.

 

[Numion]

and figuring out how to payback the things that beat us the first time, btw.)

That's the 'taking names' part in the saying 'kicking ass and taking names'. You kick asses until you can no more, then you take the names of those who you couldn't, come back refreshed and kick the asses of those on the list.

Easy as a pie

But my point about D&D being rather kill, loot, level system than exploration system, is that it has a lot of rules for combat, dungeon exploration etc.. but little rules for handling problems that usually plague overland expeditions, sans random encounters with wildlife.

 

[Numion]

A priest without it in my game would be in a world of hurt.

It depends. It seems that most churches that adventuring clerics belong to, have both scholastic priests and then martial priests (and some have paladins also). I wouldn't say that a martial priest should use more than maybe 1 or 2 (or perhaps zero), while the scholastic priests are maxed out on knowledge.

 

[Mark]

But my point about D&D being rather kill, loot, level system than exploration system, is that it has a lot of rules for combat, dungeon exploration etc.. but little rules for handling problems that usually plague overland expeditions, sans random encounters with wildlife.

Those are often more setting-specific rules though there are sections of gaming guidelines in the core rules for conditions, wilderness, weather, and all sorts of things, though in the games in which you play they may not be in the forefront.

 

[Raven Crowking]

It depends.

No, because of the qualifier: in my game.