Theories regaurding the change in rules of D&D.

[Mallus]

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.

Because beginning a campaign with a skill set that matches your characters chosen background is completely different than starting with a +20 attack bonus?

It's the same difference that exists between $1 and $1,000. It has to do with value...

Now if you don't recognize that difference, have I got a business deal for you!

 

[Irda Ranger]

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

There's nothing "extra" about them. If you spend X years as a Fighter you get BAB, HP, Feats and some Skill Points. If you spend X years as a sailor or farmer you should get some skill points for that too. They're not "extra"; you've earned them. They also make you character more believable, and more interesting to play. If all I wanted was a 1-dimensional collection of stats that killed things, I could play Diablo.

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?

"I've been a village herbalist for 40 years, but I don't know a lick more about herbs than the 1st level Dwarven fighter that's lived in a cave all his life." What kind of sense does that make? I don't know about you guys, but we play pen-and-paper roleplaying games (as opposed to God of War or World of Warcraft) because you can make more complete characters and more believable worlds, where belief is suspended. But if you're going to go to the trouble of writing a character history, it should be worth something, and not just words on a page that do not translate in any way into the gaming session.

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...

I don't appreciate the insinuation that I have the emotional maturity of a six year-old.

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?

You wouldn't be wrong to do that if the game was starting as 15th level adventurers. But that's not what we're talking about. If you really were reading what I and SHARK and the others were saying, we're talking about a few "life skills" that you've picked up along the way. Not the same at all as being a 15th level Ninja-whatever. I hate to accuse people of "not getting it", because I feel like that's a cop-out, but I think that's really the problem here. You just don't "get" what we're trying to do.

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...

That simply isn't how the rules work. As a very simple for instance, most Craft DC's for ordinary things are DC 15. Assuming that you have to be constantly Taking 10 to make a living at something, an NPC of average Int needs at least 5 Ranks in Armorsmithing to make Chainmail - which means they need to be 2nd level. Masterwork items, full plate mail, locks & lanterns, etc. all require even more, which means you need to be higher than 2nd level. Any sailor "worth his salt" would also need to be at least 2nd - 3rd level. The link between Max Rank and Class Level require this. If you want to remove the Max Rank rule, then fine, most NPC's are now free to be 1st level characters. But your assumptions do not fit the RAW.

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???)

You may be right. I also suspect that OD&D didn't have skills for reasons of accidental omission, not out of any deliberate intent to allow for "creative freedom." But that simply doesn't matter; the author's intent is meaningless. What matters is what people did with the game once they got their hands on it, and what they continue to do with it. The evolution has been away from character sheets being "just spells & combat stuff" to a more feature-complete abstraction of the whole "person." It started with ad-hoc solutions like the thief skills and disguise ability, and expanded to more "universally applicable" NWP's and secondary skills, and expanded further to where we are today.

"Unfortunately" the result has been that since it's all on paper now, and can be compared, character-envy has set in, and the desire to make sure no one else gets any "extra" Skill Points drags us down to the lowest-common denominator of creativity and character history design. Crothian's group does fine in 3e because they're all emotionally mature and competent roleplayers, but the guy at the table who can't be bothered to write a character history and "just wants to kill some orcs" points his finger and says "Hey! He has 2 more SP than I do! That's broken!" Well too bad, buddy. If you were actually interested in roleplaying, you could have some too. This isn't Halo or WoW where everyone who pays their money starts with the exact same amount of in-game "stuff", this is D&D, and you get what you give.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I'd also like to read an explanation of this.


I'd like to read an explanation of this as well. I've read many comments about this "effect", but I've never seen anyone give an example of this happening.

Quasqueton

I've been thinking about this myself, especially in light of the "Gygax Munchkin/CRPG/Computer Beat Up My Roleplayer" thread. One of the things that I concluded is that a role-playing game takes place largely in an imaginary space, with the rules being intended to help define that imaginary space, but not to constrain it. It is IMHO that the reason that I do not view CRPGs as being RPGs is that the rules constrain the imaginary space beyond (to me) its breaking point.

The more consistent and well-defined the ruleset, then, the more constrained the imaginary space. When you stop thinking about how cool something is, and what it means within that imaginary space, and worry instead about it Hardness or DC or build or stat block, you cease to inhabit that imaginary space. The game is no longer about the imaginary space, but about the rules.

Now, admittedly, my knowledge of video games is haphazard at best, but when playing something like Silent Hill (for example) a large part of the game play is about determining what you are supposed to do when. Despite all the excellent mood elements, I find that I end up worrying about the preset conditions that will allow me to beat the game. The imaginary space takes a back seat as the game progresses until, somewhere about halfway through, I don't even care so much about the graphics as I do with what they represent within the gamist view of the game. I cease to inhabit the imaginary space utterly. It is an exercise in cleverness, like sudoku. I can enjoy it (like sudoku), but it isn't what I come to the gaming table for.

On one hand, I love the simplicity of the base mechanics. On the other hand, I think that the game goes too far into making those mechanics serve all things. I don't care if magic items are balanced, for example, if not having them balanced means that it is easier to inhabit that imaginary space. Nor do I care if all of the math is done properly on monsters or NPCs.

I do care that, if I come up with a neat idea, I can quickly and easily determine what game mechanics I need to make that idea work in the game. Which means that, essentially, I want easier creature creation methods, and the means to make new magic items without having to call them artifacts or use a spreadsheet. Earlier editions handled these chores quite easily.

And finally, yes, I do think that some of the graphics look computer-gamey. Of course, I also think that this is most often true of the earlier books, and I am happy to agree that WotC's art direction has consistently gotten better over time. Still, some of those new (to this edition) monsters look like they leaped right of the screen.

SIDE NOTE: My favourite new monsters introduced in the 3.0 MM were the choker and the ethereal filcher. IMC, ethereal filchers steal anything, and only have magic items by happenstance. Now you know what has been happening to your sock drawer!

RC

 

[Doug McCrae]

Limitation is at the heart of the character class system. That's its strength, its simplicity. To create an older character, but still retain balance, you need to be able to trade stats for skill points which D&D, by RAW, just doesn't let you do. You'd need Buy the Numbers or a GURPS/HERO type point-based system.

That said, 3e does give you a bit more freedom, through skill point and feats, which I think is enough to create the characters that have been mentioned so far - the swimming ranger, the intimidatory rogue, the charming fighter and the shipwrecked sailor.

 

[Doug McCrae]

"I've been a village herbalist for 40 years, but I don't know a lick more about herbs than the 1st level Dwarven fighter that's lived in a cave all his life." What kind of sense does that make?

None, but it's the players fault for not taking Knowledge (Nature).

That simply isn't how the rules work. As a very simple for instance, most Craft DC's for ordinary things are DC 15. Assuming that you have to be constantly Taking 10 to make a living at something, an NPC of average Int needs at least 5 Ranks in Armorsmithing to make Chainmail - which means they need to be 2nd level. Masterwork items, full plate mail, locks & lanterns, etc. all require even more, which means you need to be higher than 2nd level. Any sailor "worth his salt" would also need to be at least 2nd - 3rd level. The link between Max Rank and Class Level require this.

With the Skill Focus feat, one of the +2/+2 feats and using the non-elite array (13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8), a 1st-level character can hit DC20 when he takes 10. I would see a skilled sailor as having 4 ranks in Profession (Sailor) and Skill Focus, plus the appropriate stat. Incidentally as characters age their Int, Wis and Cha increase, by up to +3. Wis is the key ability for the profession skill so an older 1st level sailor 'worth his salt' could have +9. Does he really need any more?

 

[Raven Crowking]

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

IMC, characters can spend time to learn skills, so that skill points/ranks are not always reflected by level. I am very pleased with the 3.X skill system, because it is the first skill system in a role-playing game that actually seems to work when playing, but I agree that it needs exactly the tweak Irda Ranger suggests.

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?


RC

 

[Scribble]

There's nothing "extra" about them. If you spend X years as a Fighter you get BAB, HP, Feats and some Skill Points. If you spend X years as a sailor or farmer you should get some skill points for that too. They're not "extra"; you've earned them. They also make you character more believable, and more interesting to play. If all I wanted was a 1-dimensional collection of stats that killed things, I could play Diablo.

"I've been a village herbalist for 40 years, but I don't know a lick more about herbs than the 1st level Dwarven fighter that's lived in a cave all his life." What kind of sense does that make? I don't know about you guys, but we play pen-and-paper roleplaying games (as opposed to God of War or World of Warcraft) because you can make more complete characters and more believable worlds, where belief is suspended. But if you're going to go to the trouble of writing a character history, it should be worth something, and not just words on a page that do not translate in any way into the gaming session.

Sure, your character history is great. It gives motivations for what he/she does, how he will react to events and such, as well as a story as to how he she may have decided to become an adventurer in the first place, people he knows and such.

They do translate perfectly fine.

It's not the job of the system to translate from what you wrote. it's your job to translate what you wrote into the system.

Sure you've been the herbalist for 40 years. Great. If that's your background, and you want it as your background throw the points into herbalism.

Maybe you won't have extra points for something else, but thats fine.

It's the same as in real life. In real life I decided to spend my time learning to ski. I'm better then some, not as good as others. In any case, I didn't have time to spend my "skill points" on things like martial arts, or shooting. I was skiing.

I don't appreciate the insinuation that I have the emotional maturity of a six year-old.

If you feel thats what I was doing, then I apologize. I didn't mean it as an insult, nor did I mean to imply what you took from it. I was simply stating that it felt like you were creating a story as a pitch for bonuses, and dislike the new system because it makes that harder to do.

You wouldn't be wrong to do that if the game was starting as 15th level adventurers. But that's not what we're talking about. If you really were reading what I and SHARK and the others were saying, we're talking about a few "life skills" that you've picked up along the way. Not the same at all as being a 15th level Ninja-whatever. I hate to accuse people of "not getting it", because I feel like that's a cop-out, but I think that's really the problem here. You just don't "get" what we're trying to do.

I "get" what you're trying to do.

It's not different at all. It's just handled in a different game mechanic. You're attempting to utilize the background story to give your character extra abilities. So is the uberninja. Admitedly I exagerated the bonus, but the thought still applies. I'm stating in my background that I was an amazing warrior. Why if I can get extra skill abilities thrkugh my background can't I get extra combat abilities?

That simply isn't how the rules work. As a very simple for instance, most Craft DC's for ordinary things are DC 15. Assuming that you have to be constantly Taking 10 to make a living at something, an NPC of average Int needs at least 5 Ranks in Armorsmithing to make Chainmail - which means they need to be 2nd level. Masterwork items, full plate mail, locks & lanterns, etc. all require even more, which means you need to be higher than 2nd level. Any sailor "worth his salt" would also need to be at least 2nd - 3rd level. The link between Max Rank and Class Level require this. If you want to remove the Max Rank rule, then fine, most NPC's are now free to be 1st level characters. But your assumptions do not fit the RAW.

This is untrue. The DC for "typical" items is 10! Which means you can just sit down and hash out a typical item anytime.

For other items, you might need to take 20, but again I see this as realistic. If you're crafting a more intense item you have to sit down and take your time.

This doesn't even take into account the bonuses you get for favorable conditions, people helping you, et al...

You may be right. I also suspect that OD&D didn't have skills for reasons of accidental omission, not out of any deliberate intent to allow for "creative freedom." But that simply doesn't matter; the author's intent is meaningless. What matters is what people did with the game once they got their hands on it, and what they continue to do with it. The evolution has been away from character sheets being "just spells & combat stuff" to a more feature-complete abstraction of the whole "person." It started with ad-hoc solutions like the thief skills and disguise ability, and expanded to more "universally applicable" NWP's and secondary skills, and expanded further to where we are today.

I see this as a good thing. More abilities accounted for, making the DM's job ultimately easier to handle in game. When I run a game, I don't have to worry about how something will effect events later down the line. For the most part, I know.

"Unfortunately" the result has been that since it's all on paper now, and can be compared, character-envy has set in, and the desire to make sure no one else gets any "extra" Skill Points drags us down to the lowest-common denominator of creativity and character history design. Crothian's group does fine in 3e because they're all emotionally mature and competent roleplayers, but the guy at the table who can't be bothered to write a character history and "just wants to kill some orcs" points his finger and says "Hey! He has 2 more SP than I do! That's broken!" Well too bad, buddy. If you were actually interested in roleplaying, you could have some too. This isn't Halo or WoW where everyone who pays their money starts with the exact same amount of in-game "stuff", this is D&D, and you get what you give.

That's not a problem with the system. That's a problem with the players and the group.

 

[Doug McCrae]

"Unfortunately" the result has been that since it's all on paper now, and can be compared, character-envy has set in, and the desire to make sure no one else gets any "extra" Skill Points drags us down to the lowest-common denominator of creativity and character history design. Crothian's group does fine in 3e because they're all emotionally mature and competent roleplayers, but the guy at the table who can't be bothered to write a character history and "just wants to kill some orcs" points his finger and says "Hey! He has 2 more SP than I do! That's broken!" Well too bad, buddy. If you were actually interested in roleplaying, you could have some too. This isn't Halo or WoW where everyone who pays their money starts with the exact same amount of in-game "stuff", this is D&D, and you get what you give.

I'm very concerned with fairness, not just at the game table. Giving one player extra skill points because he needs it for his character concept wouldn't be acceptable to me.

I don't think that makes me immature or an incompetent roleplayer. Clearly, I am both those things, but not for that reason.

We used to play Amber, where players could get up to 20% more character points by writing character bios and diaries and such. The fiction we wrote was appalling, truly awful. We were adding substantially to the amount of cr@p in the universe. And wasting our time, to boot.

If anything I can see a strong case for giving extra points for NOT writing extensive character backgrounds.

 

[apoptosis]

I have gone full circle in gaming. I used to love the more complete and complex skill systesm (loved Rolemaster). Now, in our games we could play C&C and we dont really need an in-depth skill system. We tend to have class skills (+1 per level), non class skills but character is good at (+1/ 2 levels).

Class skills are pretty much determined by the player and if something new comes up the player and DM and group decide if it fits the character. Alchemy probably a wizard skill. The player might have skill at haggling if they have some reason for it in their background.

It is a very loose and informal way of doing things and is really easy. Of course this does not work as well if you play with strangers or are really into gaming a system.

Apoptosis

 

[Numion]

- the swimming ranger, the intimidatory rogue, the charming fighter and the shipwrecked sailor.

I wanna go adventuring with those dudes! Where's my dice?

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.

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.