Theories regaurding the change in rules of D&D.

[Scribble]

In "real life" there is no link between fighting skill and how good a swimmer you are (as a lifeguard who never got past yellow-belt in Tae Kwon Do, I am living proof of this).

Pshh that's simply because the Lifeguard class doesn't have Tae Kwon Do as a class skill.

 

[Numion]

The "new" problem is that the class & level system does not accurately model how people actually learn stuff (I say "new" in quotes because it's not a new problem at all - class and level has never accurately represented how people learn, but because of the change discussed above class and level is the new constraint* on roleplaying). In "real life" there is no link between fighting skill and how good a swimmer you are (as a lifeguard who never got past yellow-belt in Tae Kwon Do, I am living proof of this). The problem that SHARK is alluding to is that many people (particular older players who are not used to being skill-limited by their character class and level) want to make characters that know more stuff, without actually being better fighters.
.

I don't see a problem here; what and how people do in real life has never had much bearing on D&D characters.

Besides, the capability <-> attack bonus link has always been there. Even in 1e wizards skill at magic and beating with a dagger are linked. The more in tune a cleric was with his god (=more spells, more turning), the better he swung the hammer.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Besides, the capability <-> attack bonus link has always been there.

Particularly with thieves. And in previous editions there was always the issue of why only thieves got to climb, hide in shadows, etc. Now everyone can, though not equally well.

 

[SHARK]

Reading the above threads, I think the problem currently being discussed is that players who learned D&D in the OD&D -- AD&D days learned with a system that (on paper) generated woefully incomplete persons. They thus learned to make PC's where a PC's character sheet was only a single facet of who the character was. There was no skill system until Non-Weapon Proficiencies, and that system was so absurd as to be ignored. One look at it and you had to immediately conclude "This can't be all my character knows, so it must be only the stuff I'm really good at." You would then mentally fill in the gaps, just like SHARK did in his examples. Since there was no codified way of writing these things down (other than with a narrative type character history), you were forced to "wing it", as in SHARK's examples. The character sheet was "spells & combat stuff only."

3e attempted to provide a system for generating more feature-complete characters, and it did so successfully. Now you know exactly how good your character is at Intimidation relative to the other PC's and the public generally. It also is good enough, and complete enough, to "trick" people into thinking that their character classes and levels are a definitive record of who their PC "is". There's nothing else. If it's not on the page, you can't do it (or you can, but you provoke an AOO ).

The "new" problem is that the class & level system does not accurately model how people actually learn stuff (I say "new" in quotes because it's not a new problem at all - class and level has never accurately represented how people learn, but because of the change discussed above class and level is the new constraint* on roleplaying). In "real life" there is no link between fighting skill and how good a swimmer you are (as a lifeguard who never got past yellow-belt in Tae Kwon Do, I am living proof of this). The problem that SHARK is alluding to is that many people (particular older players who are not used to being skill-limited by their character class and level) want to make characters that know more stuff, without actually being better fighters.

I think a fairly simple House Rule that allowed for skill acquisition independent of level advancement would address SHARK's need for flexibility while also addressing Patryn of Elvenshae's and Doug McCrae's concerns about "making stuff up as you go along." The example of SHARK's noble-fighter could be simply addressed by a higher starting age in exchange for some "free" skill points to distribute to Diplomacy, Knowledge (Nobility) and the like. This would reflect the time spent on his noble education.

A house rule like this is necessary because of 3e's multi-classing rules. It simply is the case that taking levels in NPC classes such as Expert or Noble is a sub-optimal choice, but given the RAW, that's currently the only avenue open to you if you want more skills than your adventuring-class level otherwise qualifies you for.

Thus, the rules have evolved to increase the "completeness" of your character sheet, such that it is now a more accurate description of what your PC is (the "roll player"), but simultaneously it has been revealed to be an inaccurate description of what a real person (the "role player") could/ would/ should look like (because the false link between the class & level mechanic and the skill sub-system are the new constraint on roleplaying).

* - This is a term of art. Search WikiPedia for the Theory of Constraints to get a fuller grasp on what I mean.

Greetings!

*Outstanding* Irda Ranger...you *GOT* exactly what I am talking about--and not just the salient point of my argument--but also the deeper motivations involved, and the intellectual wrestling match involved in the process of creating characters that know more--without as per the stupid RAW--being forced to take suboptimal choices, or otherwise be higher level than you want them to be.

Great Post Irda Ranger!!!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

 

[fuindordm]

To me that sounds like you want your cake and eat it too. If you whip up a PC who's a desert dweller before adventuring, you're likely to lack certain water related skills (like swimming, sailing, fishing) which you might need later.

Or maybe you're just thinking up backgrounds that aren't very likely or good adventurers

Well, I guess it's really two related problems. The first is that many classes impose a fairly rigid package of highly specific abilities that may not match the personality of the character I'm imagining. A classic example of this is the idea that all thieves are dirty fighters (sneak attack), which as I mention is addressed by the class variants in UA and the DM allowing classes to be modified fairly freely. So this is handled reasonably well in the 3e framework.

The second problem is a little more complicated.
1. Skill points and feats are an extremely scant resource for most classes.
2. Players expect their initial skills and feats to reflect their character's background.
3. Many typical and not unreasonable character backgrounds seems to demand many more skill points and/or feats than are available.
4. This results in odd characters where some of their background traits are associated with a mechanical bonus, while others are just "color". Frustration sets in.

Let's take a specific example: I have in mind a lower-class, shipwreaked whaler with harpoon proficiency who goes adventuring.

A sailor background ought to have ranks in Balance, Climb, Swim, and Use Rope at a minimum, with Gather Information, Intimidate, Jump and Survival optional. I might eventually settle on the following allotment:

(cc) Balance (2)
Climb (2)
Profession (Sailor) (2)
Swim (4)
(cc) Use Rope (1)
(cc) Gather Information (1)
Intimidate (2)
(cc) Survival (1)

for a total cost of 20 skill points. I think you can agree that these skill levels are pretty minimal, but a reasonable reflection of what he learned to survive in his environment. There's really no other reason to give this sailor the necessary intelligence of 14, however, given his lower-class background. Furthermore, there's no pressing reason for him to have 5 skill points per level once he starts adventuring.

There are many ways to enable this kind of character in 3e: I've heard of DMs allowing players to swap class skills, eliminating cross-class skills, granting bonus ranks in Craft/Profession/knowledge skills, and just handing out more skill points to everyone at first level. I myself have considered allowing profession skills to substitute for any other skill at half the number of ranks, in a limited context. All of these house rules are reasonable.

To conclude, I'm not saying that the 3rd edition system doesn't work. It works quite well, provided you introduce minor house rules and allow the players a reasonable amount of leeway to tweak the classes. In the above example, I would ask the DM if I could get 2 more skill points per level and a few more class skills in exchange for most of the fighter's armor and shield proficiencies and the first level bonus feat.

What I am saying is that it feels much more natural to write a paragraph for the DM describing the PC's pre-adventuring lifestyle, then allowing the character a good chance of succeeding at "sailorish" tasks in the game. He's good at digging for rumors, but only in a typical dockside neighborhood. He's good at tying and climbing ropes. He knows the basics
of navigation by stars, etc.

This method removes a big stack of fiddly bits from character creation, eliminates the need to spend valuable resources on skills which are mainly there for color, and "locks" the background skills at their pre-adventuring level. Presumably when this fellow goes dungeon crawling, he is not gaining skill ranks in profession (sailor)! Finally, and perhaps most importantly, it is inclusive rather than exclusive. It is simply assumed that the PC can do "sailor things".

Remeber the 1st edition barbarian in the original unearthed arcana? EGG carefully defined some iconic skills of the primitive background, and less carefully defined some "secondary skills" such as climbing natural surfaces and hiding in their home environment. Finally, he realized that trying to define a rule for everything in the barbarian's background was a bad idea and give us a third category of "tertiary skills". This was just a list of environments and a few of the survival skills associated with them, and he left it up to the DM to determine whether the player could do something or not.

It really isn't possible to put a mechanical value on everything that comes from a character's background, so why not just write the background and base the PC's non-adventuring competence on that?

 

[Doug McCrae]

being forced to take suboptimal choices, or otherwise be higher level than you want them to be.

The fighter in your example had a 15 cha, you consider that not to be a suboptimal choice? Fighters get so many feats, I would consider taking Skill Focus (Diplomacy) to be less suboptimal than putting a 15 in cha, when he needs it for str or con.

Let's say the seducing fighter needs a 15 on his diplomacy check, or +5 if he takes 10. Lets assume he's human. At 1st level he has 12 skill points, if he has no int mod. He could easily afford to spend 4 on diplomacy for a +2 and take skill focus as one of his three feats for another +3, giving him the +5 he needs. He could spend another 4 skill points on knowledge (nobility) and then save his remaing two feats for useful combat stuff.

This character is not far from being optimal, certainly still useful, and he's a fairly charming nobleman. Remember that diplomacy is a very useful skill anyway, so being good at it should cost him some resources. Admittedly that's not the case for knowledge (nobility) so he only takes +2, enough to pretend he's not a powergamer.

 

[Scribble]

fuindordm,

The issue I have with that is it's a character background written assuming that the character has been around for quite a while as a sailor, and then one day up and decides to go adventuring.

Thats's fine, but it seems it should be a higher level character.

I think the issue is that some people write their characters with the ultimate awesomeness as a background... then rolled their d4 hitpoints... and tried to use the background to eek out a few bonuses for their character.

If you're 1st level, write a background that fits a 1st level character, and the skillpoints make sense.

If you all decide to start a game at higher level, and write backgrounds matching those stats, the skill points will make sense as well.

 

[fuindordm]

*Outstanding* Irda Ranger...you *GOT* exactly what I am talking about--and not just the salient point of my argument--but also the deeper motivations involved, and the intellectual wrestling match involved in the process of creating characters that know more--without as per the stupid RAW--being forced to take suboptimal choices, or otherwise be higher level than you want them to be.

Yeah, Irda Ranger wins the thread. That was much clearer than my post, and I should have read it first!

 

[Slife]

I agree with SHARK on one major point- the fighter's skills *are* pitiful, and it really constrains any character that uses the class.

 

[Irda Ranger]

fuindordm & SHARK:

Thank you. This is an issue I have noticed before, and have drafted some house rules to address. The key rules are (1) backgrounds, and (2) a "skill learning" mechanic separate from level advancement. I think adopting these two rules, or ones like them, will address most of your concerns, while retaining the "feature completeness" of a 3e character sheet (which I think is a good thing to do).

A "Background" is what it says. It implies your education prior to adventuring. Functionally it means that you start with 2-3 Ranks in 3-5 Skills. This is an addition to any skills you have from being first level in your class. You cannot just take any skills you like, but must negotiate a "package" of skills that "makes sense" given the character history you write.

Some examples:

The "Noble Son" Fighter:
Literacy (1 skill point IMC for non-wizards)
Knowledge (Nobility & Heraldry) (3 Ranks)
Perform (Dancing, Lute) (2 Ranks)
Bluff (2 Ranks)
Diplomacy (3 Ranks)

The Sailor:
Professon (Sailor) (4 Ranks)
Rope Use (2 Ranks)
Surival: at sea (2 Ranks)
Gather Information (1 Rank)

The "Professional Soldier":
Knowledge (Military History) (3 Ranks)
Knowledge (Engineering) or Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Artillery) ---> (Note: how often have your PC's used a catapult during an adventure? Yeah, that's what I thought. A Feat you hardly ever use is not munchkin.)
Bluff & Sense Motive (1 Rank each) (For gambling, of course)
Profession (Soldier) (2 Ranks)
Craft (Amorsmithing) (2 Ranks) ---> (Note: this is enough to repair your kit, but not make something new from scratch)

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


As for learning during "down time" between adventures, you may learn any skill by apprenticeship (if you have less than 5 Ranks) or self study (if you have 5 Ranks or more). You must practice every day for at least 4 hours (more than 4 does not help or hinder, as long as you get enough sleep) for a number of months equal to the rank you wish to achieve (1 months for the 1st Rank, 2 months to advance from Ranks 1 to 2; 3 months to advance from Rank 2 to 3; etc.).

Lastly, I can't recommend enough the concept of "Skill Groups" from Iron Heroes. Briefly, having access to a Skill Group (it's a class feature) means that when you level up you can increase your rank in a whole Group of class-relevant skills for 1 SP. By example, the Hunter class (an outdoorsy type) has access to the Wilderness Skill Group, which means 1 SP increases his rank in each of Survival, Use Rope, Handle Animal and Ride. Since spending 1 SP in this manner is a "no brainer", what this means in effect is that class-relevant skills "level up" along with BAB and HP, while your "discretionary" Skill Points are spent on the Skills which make your Hunter different from all other Hunters. Since the basics are already covered you're free to put Ranks in Perform or Bluff or Knowledge "just because" or "for roleplaying reasons" without gimping yourself in the process. It's very nice.