Theories regaurding the change in rules of D&D.

[Ridley's Cohort]

But that's exactly what you seem to be doing. An overly adversial DM kills the fun just as much with 3e as with 1e. Mechanics don't fix that.

The difference being that you do not have to have an adversarial DM to suck the fun out of "skills" in 1e. The floor is very very far down.

I can easily have fun using skills in a 3e under the eye of a generically mediocre DM who makes an honest attempt to follow the RAW.

As for the adversarial relationship, I have the impression that it was encouraged quite a bit more often than the opposite in earlier editions when compared with later editions. I do not seem to be the only one with that impression.

 

[Hussar]

Ridley - I should pull out my copy of Isle of the Ape - it pretty much specifically states that if the players don't go for the hook, the DM should browbeat them into doing so.

We've come a long way baby.

 

[Irda Ranger]

Why does your sailor have these skills? The only one he actually needs is 4 ranks in Profession Sailor. Everything he does on a ship is subsumed into that skill - tying ropes, fishing, everything. Poof, one skill, does everything.

That's a problem with the skill system. The "Profession" Skill is a really not a single Skill at all, but a group of related Skills used under similar circumstances. I included "Rope Use" at less than Profession (Sailor) because the skills he acquired as a sailor transfer over to other situations where ropes & knots are used (such as mountain climbing). He has no direct experience at climbing mountains, but if the Ranger hands him a coil of rope and says "Tie me some harnesses", the Sailor can figure it out pretty quickly (faster than the Fighter with the Noble background, at any rate).

I think one of the disconnects is that people want to start their 1st level character as this experienced person who has done stuff. The problem is, that's not what a 1st level character is. A 1st level PC is fresh off the farm so to speak. He hasn't spent years doing much of anything since, if he had been doing something exciting and dangerous, he wouldn't be 1st level anymore.

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. I recall an AD&D 2e campaign where we all rolled up 1st level characters, and my buddy made a 1st level human Wizard who was in his 60's (for the age bonus to Int, obviously ). His character history was that he had been a local herbalist and hedge wizard (0th level, no formal training) for most of his life, but had come across a "real" spellbook and collection of magical treatises late in life. The DM just gave him a couple extra NWP; the AD&D 2e equivalent of my Background house rules. If that had been a 3e campaign it wouldn't have been fair to force him to be a 3rd-5th level Expert however (why all the HP?), when the rest of us would be leveling up so much faster, but it also wouldn't have made any sense if he didn't have some of the appropriate skills.

A 1st level character with a sailor background has been a fisherman, hugging the coastline and dragging nets with his father. He's not a crewman on the Santa Maria because they wouldn't take snot nosed kids out on dangerous trips like that.

Background is what your character has at about 7th level, looking back at what he's done for the past 6 levels.

This. right. here. is the down-side of the evolution from 1e to 3e. The 3e rules have attempted to create "universal mechanics" for all PC's (and it pretty much has), but the Skill System and the Multi-classing rules simply do not allow you to make a PC with certain backgrounds (without shooting yourself in the foot, big time). For purposes of making PC's with interesting backgrounds, the RAW only works so long as you don't try to multi-class NPC and PC classes. Someone who's been at sea for 20 years probably can be accurately modeled as a 7-10th level Commoner (for the crew) or Expert/Aristocrat (for the officers), but that should not be a penalty for deciding later in life to go adventuring as a Fighter or Wizard.

An alternative to my Background rules would be to allow "Free" multi-classing between PC classes and NPC classes. The NPC classes would be the exception to the rule that you add all your class levels together to determine "Character level." That way you could be a 4th level Commoner (Farmer, Sailor, whatever) and a 1st level Adventurer. To implement this you'd probably have to tweak the rules for HD, HP and Saves (etc.), but this is an easy problem to fix.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Someone who's been at sea for 20 years probably can be accurately modeled as a 7-10th level Commoner (for the crew) or Expert/Aristocrat (for the officers), but that should not be a penalty for deciding later in life to go adventuring as a Fighter or Wizard.

Someone who's been at sea for 20 years can (and probably should) be accurately modeled as a 1st level commoner. About 85% of people are 1st level commoners, irrespective of age.

 

[drothgery]

Someone who's been at sea for 20 years can (and probably should) be accurately modeled as a 1st level commoner. About 85% of people are 1st level commoners, irrespective of age.

Maybe in your campaign (and even maybe by the book), but when I'm running things 1st-level commoners are either children or extremely lazy adults. I just can't see anyone with the skills and abilities of a 1st-level commoner as a competent adult. So 'normal people' are 3rd-5th level; 1st-level characters with PC classes are usually teenagers with just enough training to be trusted without someone looking over their shoulder.

Now, a 1st level SWSE nonheroic, that actually works as a competent adult.

 

[fuindordm]

Do you have a quote for this? As it went in the games we played, other classes couldn't climb and they definitely couldn't pick locks.

Alas, my RPG library is far from complete. In the AD&D PH and DMG, the climbing ability is clearly specific to vertical walls.

So the other classes couldn't climb walls, but would that prevent them from climbing trees and rough mountain faces? I seem to remember that the Basic D&D sets described the ability as "climb sheer surfaces"

"Hiding in Shadows" was the other grossly misused ability--as per the AD&D books, this ability can never be used when observed or moving. But a great many DMs called for a "Hide check" any time the PC tried to remain unseen. A thief who sneaks up on a campsite and hides behind a thick bush or tree is not hiding in shadows--they actually have cover/concealment, and no roll is needed.

Picking locks and trap removal are obviously much more class-specific--there's no question of attempting these untrained. One could make a case for allowing non-thieves a small chance of finding traps or picking pockets, however.

3rd edition is the first version of D&D that has rules for using skills untrained, but I don't think it's the first time it's been allowed. In many campaigns all these tricky non-combat actions were resolved using an appropriate ability check, at least where it didn't clearly step on another class' toes.

Ben

 

[fuindordm]

.

Why does your sailor have these skills? The only one he actually needs is 4 ranks in Profession Sailor. Everything he does on a ship is subsumed into that skill - tying ropes, fishing, everything. Poof, one skill, does everything.

I think one of the disconnects is that people want to start their 1st level character as this experienced person who has done stuff. ... A 1st level character with a sailor background has been a fisherman, hugging the coastline and dragging nets with his father. He's not a crewman on the Santa Maria because they wouldn't take snot nosed kids out on dangerous trips like that.

Background is what your character has at about 7th level, looking back at what he's done for the past 6 levels.

I strongly (but respectfully, I hope) disagree with this interpretation. Most people do not need HP and BAB, only skill ranks. A professional NPC need not be more than 3rd level or so to be good at their career.

By the book, I believe the profession skill is used only for one thing: making money. Yes, it allows you to function "as a sailor", but no game advantages are spelled out for this; it only allows you to get a job on a ship.

If you allow Profession (sailor) ranks to substitute for Use Rope and Survival (navigation), then this is a house rule. It might be a very good house rule, but the fact that a house rule is needed just highlights the point that background skills are very difficult to model properly within the core rules.

Finally, I would get bored really quickly with a campaign where all first-level characters are naïve young adults fresh out of their apprenticeship.

Cheers,
Ben

 

[Scribble]

That's a problem with the skill system. The "Profession" Skill is a really not a single Skill at all, but a group of related Skills used under similar circumstances. I included "Rope Use" at less than Profession (Sailor) because the skills he acquired as a sailor transfer over to other situations where ropes & knots are used (such as mountain climbing). He has no direct experience at climbing mountains, but if the Ranger hands him a coil of rope and says "Tie me some harnesses", the Sailor can figure it out pretty quickly (faster than the Fighter with the Noble background, at any rate).


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. I recall an AD&D 2e campaign where we all rolled up 1st level characters, and my buddy made a 1st level human Wizard who was in his 60's (for the age bonus to Int, obviously ). His character history was that he had been a local herbalist and hedge wizard (0th level, no formal training) for most of his life, but had come across a "real" spellbook and collection of magical treatises late in life. The DM just gave him a couple extra NWP; the AD&D 2e equivalent of my Background house rules. If that had been a 3e campaign it wouldn't have been fair to force him to be a 3rd-5th level Expert however (why all the HP?), when the rest of us would be leveling up so much faster, but it also wouldn't have made any sense if he didn't have some of the appropriate skills.


This. right. here. is the down-side of the evolution from 1e to 3e. The 3e rules have attempted to create "universal mechanics" for all PC's (and it pretty much has), but the Skill System and the Multi-classing rules simply do not allow you to make a PC with certain backgrounds (without shooting yourself in the foot, big time). For purposes of making PC's with interesting backgrounds, the RAW only works so long as you don't try to multi-class NPC and PC classes. Someone who's been at sea for 20 years probably can be accurately modeled as a 7-10th level Commoner (for the crew) or Expert/Aristocrat (for the officers), but that should not be a penalty for deciding later in life to go adventuring as a Fighter or Wizard.

An alternative to my Background rules would be to allow "Free" multi-classing between PC classes and NPC classes. The NPC classes would be the exception to the rule that you add all your class levels together to determine "Character level." That way you could be a 4th level Commoner (Farmer, Sailor, whatever) and a 1st level Adventurer. To implement this you'd probably have to tweak the rules for HD, HP and Saves (etc.), but this is an easy problem to fix.

Creative is one thing, but the examples I've seen so far are just poorly disguised attempts to get a bonus or two.

Frankly, I see your idea of freely multi classing NPC classes as just a way to eek out extra skill points.

Maybe I'm wrong, and if I am I appologize, but even the old man example had the added few NWPs... Why??? If it was really about creativity, why the need for the extra bonuses?

It just feels like some people are mad because the current edition hindered the good salesman's ability to sell some bonuses to his DM...

If I write a background saying that I'm a uberawesome ninja from the far east who's beaten whole armies single handedly, should I then get a +20 bonus to my attacks? Maybe throw in 5 attacks per round?

Why should skills be any different.

At first level, even if you've been alive for a long time, you're first level. You're just barely cooler then a normal person. Even the old man example... So what he was 60? He was a "normal" before adventuring. He had normal skill abilities just like everyone else. First level for him, was simply the moment he realized he was just a little betetr then everyone else. He found said book. He learned there are things you can do that are bigger then most people ever know.

First level has always, to me at least, represented someone just coming into their powers. Doesn't matter if it's after 60 years or 2... You've got the edge kid, but you ain't there yet...

I seriously don't think 1e or 2e or basic d&d left out skills simply to allow you to be more creative... The game started as a wargame, skills were probably not even thought of. (Which seems more apparent after the lame attempts they made with nwps and secondary skills I think they were called???)

People playing it seemed like they were amazed just at the ability to go "adventuring" in a dungeon instead of spending movement points so their army can attack a neighboring one... They didn't really have any idea people would soon start interacting in the various ways we do now...

 

[maddman75]

I've found that the 3e skill system works a lot better and provides more interesting characters if you just give everyone two skill points extra per level.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Tying a firm knot is a DC 10 Use Rope check, which can be performed untrained. Why does a sailor needs ranks in Use Rope? Or swim (most medieval sailors couldn't), survival, intimidate, gather info, etc.