Theories regaurding the change in rules of D&D.

[Lanefan]

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.

Oh, I agree; I've been beefing up 1e monsters for ages to provide a decent mid-high (7-11) level challenge. But, other than the "Strength" and "Aid" spells, the oft-reviled "Stoneskin", and some defensive stuff e.g. "Endure Heat", 1e's buffability amounted to a hill o' beans. 3e, by contrast, has buffs in places no buffs should ever go.

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.

Maybe that's why I'm noticing it so much, then, because 8th-12th is exactly where we are right now in our 3e game.

Lanefan

 

[jdrakeh]

Retraining rules and circumstance bonuses and penalties cover this.

Yes, though in fairness, thats' tantamount to handwaving. There is no true system to represent skill or ability atrophy due to neglect in any edition of D&D.

 

[Lanefan]

Yes, though in fairness, thats' tantamount to handwaving. There is no true system to represent skill or ability atrophy due to neglect in any edition of D&D.

Despite my many attempts (none successful) over the years to mechanically solve exactly this problem, and having asked about it here once or twice. :\

Hey...maybe this is something we can ask for in 4e...a good system for decaying skills and abilities?

Lanefan

 

[Slife]

Yes, though in fairness, thats' tantamount to handwaving. There is no true system to represent skill or ability atrophy due to neglect in any edition of D&D.

Well, if you aren't playing guitar, you're doing something instead.

 

[Slife]

I don't see D&D XP as representing learning. They certainly didn't in 1st Ed - no one learns just by garnering up vast piles of loot, and the DMG made it clear that training and education happen off-screen during downtime

IIRC, there's a specific note about that in the AD&D book. In essence, Gygax admits it's unrealistic, but it's an abstraction for the cleric engaging in devotions, or the wizard studying arcane lore, or the thief casing a mark. AFB, so don't have direct citation

 

[Hussar]

The contradiction is this: Hussar says that "background" equals levels, and 1st level characters are wet-behind-the-ears 18-year olds. You say that a sailor, sailing for 20 years, is typically a 1st-level Commoner or Expert. I take it as obvious that a sailor of 20 years has some background. Thus, you are saying that most NPCs with background are 1st level NPC classes.

Pemerton, I already covered this upthread. I was mistaken. Nuff said.

 

[Gentlegamer]

1st ed is the Dwarf.

2nd ed is the Elf.

3rd ed is the Human.

ELF SHOT THE FOOD!

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Despite my many attempts (none successful) over the years to mechanically solve exactly this problem, and having asked about it here once or twice. :\

Hey...maybe this is something we can ask for in 4e...a good system for decaying skills and abilities?

Lanefan

The problem might be that it should means to much book keeping. Suddenly you have to keep in mind what skills you might not have used?

Maybe retraining is an acceptable solution - a character at any give level can have only x skill points. This means, the more level you have, the more things you know stay in your mind, regardless of whether you use your knowledge and training or not. If you don't get levels, the only way to get better at something is neglecting something else.

Level means something like raw power, and a high level means that you are really an extraordinary person. A high skill rank just indicates that you trained a lot in that skill, but anybody could have done, if they just put their time on it, and neglected other things.

 

[Lanefan]

The problem might be that it should means to much book keeping. Suddenly you have to keep in mind what skills you might not have used?

Maybe retraining is an acceptable solution - a character at any give level can have only x skill points. This means, the more level you have, the more things you know stay in your mind, regardless of whether you use your knowledge and training or not. If you don't get levels, the only way to get better at something is neglecting something else.

Level means something like raw power, and a high level means that you are really an extraordinary person. A high skill rank just indicates that you trained a lot in that skill, but anybody could have done, if they just put their time on it, and neglected other things.

It goes beyond just skills, though.

Let's take an old wizard as an example. In his day he got to a good high level...high enough to cast Limited Wish, say. Then he retired, and left off most things to do with wizarding and adventuring; he let his skills go, he didn't bother studying most of his spells to the point he forgot how they worked (i.e. he lost knowledge of them and now can't understand most of his own spellbook), he let his combat skills go such that he's lost most of his hit points and fighting ability...but because people keep asking (and paying) him to do it, he studies Limited Wish every day and still remembers how to cast it. So, in effect he's become a low-level wizard able to cast a very high-level spell.

So. How the %*$# can this be put in a mechanical system such that it consistently works for all classes (including multiclasses, and they're even a bigger nightmare) and gives useful results that make sense to what a real person would do? Or can it at all?

Lanefan

 

[Varianor Abroad]

Why would you want to make people lose skills? That's just not fun. It's like taking away their toys...magic items...all the time.