Theories regaurding the change in rules of D&D.

[fuindordm]

A couple more points, just to muddy the waters:

In the real world, people lose skill points as well as gain them. I used to play the guitar pretty well, but it's been years since I picked it up. I think if a background is far enough in the past, it need not have a mechanical counterpart.

A 40 point-buy character gets along just fine with one rank per background skill, but a 28 point-buy character will have a lot of trouble.

 

[Hussar]

But, Lanefan, older edition monsters were so wimpy compared to mid and high level PC's that a single monster or even small groups were a joke. The PC's were just SO much more powerful than the monsters.

Buffing helps, but, not as much as you might think. Mostly it helps at around the 8th-12th level range. Before that, you just don't have enough buffs to matter and after that, your equipment overshadows the buffs you could get anyway. Other than some specific ones like Freedom of Movement, it doesn't matter all that much.

 

[Irda Ranger]

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

Which is why Kobolds are so frickin' dangerous. Anything of at least average Int knows to avoid PC's at all costs when they're "ready".

Perhaps you could say that D&D has evolved so that there is greater fluctuation in a PC's power, depending on whether they're "charged up and ready to go"? Many of my finer memories are of PC's being ambushed, and fighting it off. If PC's come to expect always being buffed to the gills, however, they might come to feel that the ambush is the GM's way of "cheating."

 

[SHARK]

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.

Greetings!

That's effing outstanding, Wayne!

Nice analysis and breakdown, too. Excellent food for thought. I enjoyed reading your commentary a lot. Very solid work.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

 

[jeffh]

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...

IIRC what you suggest is how it already works, in all editions including 3E. The random roll, if you take it, is within a fairly narrow range, but that's just because it doesn't make sense for a 40-year-old to have as narrow a skillset as a first-level character.

 

[Doug McCrae]

A Marine probably has at least a 12 int, giving him 12 skill points at first level.

16 if he's human.

 

[Tharen the Damned]

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.

I think that you could argue that these marines are not 1st level Fighters out of the woods but due to their training and missions (the real world encounter equivalent) are medium to high level Fighters or even multiclassed Fighter/Ranger/Rogues or have Prestige Classes.

Disclaimer: I really love 3rd edition and have no problems with the build in philosophy. I love the coherent system and the immense tactical possibilities in combat encounters.

But I think the real (or perceived problem) is built into the basic D&D (all editions) philosophy:
the level based linear advancement.

the D&D mechanics assume, that you start out as a nobody out of the woods with only basic knowledge of a small range of skills.
As you advance in Levels you get better at these skills in a linear progression.
So while a 1st level rogue struggles to open a simple lock, a 20th level rogue (provided he always put skill ranks in open lock) can open this lock blindfolded under water with his feet (boots on of course). Likewise the 20th level Fighter can use a blunt kitchen knife to beat an orc tribe single handedly while the 1st level Fighter is happy to fight of just one Orc.

The german Midgard Das Fantasy Rollenspiel philosophy is different. The system is skill based. You gain experience points using your skills (which include weapon skills and magic). You use these EP to buy ranks in the skills you want to get better at. You buy ranks individually not dependent on Levels. So you can focus all you EPs on a braod range of skills and be a jack-of-all-trades or become a specialist in just a few skills. The crux: you buy with diminishing returns. the better you are at a skill, the more expensive it is to get even better at it. That means that you can start out with a good bonus on your skill but have to pay a lot of EPs to get to the very top of it.
This is much more like it works in the real world but it is a completly different system that encourages a differnt playstyle than D&D.

 

[Numion]

I don't think D&D will ever portray marines or any other modern humans that well. With just the basic schooling I could academically PWN most medieval scholars in knowledge skills. People should keep in mind that D&D is not a commoner simulation; the rules mostly deal with stuff that adventurers do. It's much more important to be able to make functional adventurers than to model farmers, commoners or marines.

So I'm basically happy just stating that all farmers are commoners 1-3 or something. I also think (and have demonstrated) that the profession skill is pretty good for modelling and adventurers previous life - given that it didn't include black belt in MA, a long stint as a circus performer, being Sauron, or any other scam that would include smooching more bonuses to the character. This is nothing new though; there's always been limitations on a characters background.

 

[Hussar]

A couple more points, just to muddy the waters:

In the real world, people lose skill points as well as gain them. I used to play the guitar pretty well, but it's been years since I picked it up. I think if a background is far enough in the past, it need not have a mechanical counterpart.

A 40 point-buy character gets along just fine with one rank per background skill, but a 28 point-buy character will have a lot of trouble.

Terribly true. My French sucks now since I haven't used it in almost a decade. My Korean has mostly vanished as well. Sigh.

That last point is just wrong though. The idea that DC's are so high isn't supported by the RAW. The DC for most actions outside of some very specific circumstances is 10-15. With 4 ranks and a +1 stat bonus (easily done even with a 25 point buy character) I will succeed at taskings 100% of the time simply by taking 10.

The idea that low level characters are helpless isn't quite valid. They are helpless in the face of high level challenges, sure. But, then again, they should be. If they could overcome high level challenges out of the chute, then why have levels? OTOH, for Joe Q Public, doing his standard job, 1st level will guarantee him a pretty decent success rate (100% is pretty darn good).

 

[RFisher]

In the end, there just no getting around the fact that my 3e PCs seem to fail at things I expect them to be decent at much more often than I expect.

I don't, however, really blame 3e for this.

This was often true of my Gurps PCs too, by the way.

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???)

Based on the stories of the original Greyhawk campaign, I'd say skills were left out because the LG crew didn't think these were things that having rules or often making rolls for added to the fun. They genuinely felt it was better to leave a whole lot up to DM fiat.

Gary himself has obviously changed his mind somewhat about this, but his "skill-bundles" in both LA & C&C are still closer to classes (i.e. very broad skills) or 1e secondary skills than most other game's skill systems.

On a more serious note, you're right about the roll of bonuses and such. The "problem" arises from the fact that a d20 has 5% change increments which works for combat and Save resolution, but not so much for other types of resolutions. It's too random in some circumstances.

Using a bell-curve (mid20, 3d6, whatever) for skill checks while keeping the linear roll (d20) for combat works well, IMHO.

In fact, there was a guy who developed the opposite solution for his TFT game: Use a d20 roll for combat while keeping the game's original 2d6 (nd6 really) rolls for everything else.

But the real problem, IMHO, is that there has been a general trend in the hobby to roll dice more often. Too many things that should be automatic success (or for which the chance of failure should be much lower than the actual roll used; or which should just be glossed over to get to what the group is really interested in) get rolled for.

This isn't really a systematic defect of 3e. It can occur in any system (an 1e DM calling for ability checks for everything PCs do), & it can be avoided in any system (a 3e DM setting DCs based on how easy/difficult he thinks this task should be for this character in this situation ignoring what the module or skill descriptions say). I've witnessed both.

And, I have to admit, rolling the dice is fun. I'm very interested in finding ways to have rolls that aren't pass/fail. Adequate success v. exceptional success can give you the fun of rolling without the consequence of feeling incompetent.

3e still has a DM, though, who can smooth over any warts in the system. In the final analysis, I don't think it is the skill system itself is a reason that I prefer classic D&D over 3e, it's the level of detail. (Or fiddly-bits or complexity or something along those lines.)