Untrained/trained Skills....Noooo!

[jasin]

Combat resolution is the definitive group challenge. Everyone expects to contribute to combat situations and has this as a reasonable expectation, in part because combats tend to be so time consuming, in part that is because it is the nature of the game, and in part because the ways that they can contribute to solving the problem are so varied by class. Individual skill checks, not so much.

Exactly.

It might be that they are trying to change this.

It might be that they're trying to make it so that when climbing (or talking to the king, or sneaking past guards) comes up, rather than just sending out the rogue with +20 climb (or diplomacy, or hide) and saying "deal with it, wake us up when you're done", everyone can participate, and the DM can craft challenges so that everyone needs to participate.

I don't think that would be a bad thing.

 

[Zurai]

Note I never said there were no rules for being venerable, just that there were no rules for being crippled. There are also no rules for playing a venerable PC, and I doubt the rules are focused around maintaining any kind of realism or common sense for them.

Then why are they in the player's handbook? And why does said PHB specifically say:

You can choose or randomly generate your character’s age. If you choose it, it must be at least the minimum age for the character’s race and class (see Table 6–4: Random Starting Ages). Your character’s minimum starting age is the adulthood age of his or her race plus the number of dice indicated in the entry corresponding to the character’s race and class on Table 6–4: Random Starting Ages. For example, an elf ranger must be at least 116 years old (adulthood age 110 plus 6, because the entry for an elf ranger is +6d6).

...

The maximum ages are for player characters. Most people in the world at large die from pestilence, accidents, infections, or violence before getting to venerable age.

 

[jasin]

Not true. The PHB has rules for playing venerable characters. Venerable gives a -6 penalty to physical stats and a +3 bonus to mental stats.

Right.

But how about addressing the point the example was meant to illustrate: a healthy 20th-level wizard in his prime (so Str 10, Con 14?) will probably be able to kill, bare handed, an armoured and armed trained warrior (say Ftr1, Str 15, Con 14?). We learned to accept this as natural, because, hey, he's 20th-level, he's an awesome legendary hero, even without his magic.

Yet if this awesome legendary hero (remember, without his magic) gets tossed overboard in the storm, he's just gone. If he needs to sneak past a couple of trained guards... well, he might have a shot, but it's a long shot.

The quality of implementation remains to be seen (even if Saga does give hints), but it's not a priori unreasonable to apply the same standards to sneaking or swimming that have long now been applied to combat: high level guys pwn n00bs.

 

[Celebrim]

Exactly.

It might be that they are trying to change this.

I've had the same thought. Let me say that I'm reserving judgment on that until I see how they implement it. It could be a bad thing. However, just because I can't see a way to do it that wouldn't be a bad thing, doesn't mean that they haven't figured out something clever that I haven't thought of.

It might be that they're trying to make it so that when climbing (or talking to the king, or sneaking past guards) comes up, rather than just sending out the rogue with +20 climb (or diplomacy, or hide) and saying "deal with it, wake us up when you're done", everyone can participate, and the DM can craft challenges so that everyone needs to participate.

The problem with this is that it is very very hard to enforce this. Combat naturally creates a 'everyone pitch in' sort of situation. But skill challenges tend not to be like that, except in very narrow situations where if they came up frequently you'd be rightfully accused of railroading. Sure, you can have a wall where everyone can participate in the climb, but even in the real world mostly a person free scaling a wall does so alone and you send your best climber up first. How would you force the rest of the party to not send the rogue to do it? Crafting non-combat challenges where everyone needs to participate and which are natural seeming is hard.

It's particularly problimatic with social challenges. I'm uncomfortable with resolving challenges that resolve around roleplay with primarily with dice rolls anyway, but how do you force a party to not present a single charismatic face man as thier leader? Will every noble always insist on hearing the 'henchman's' position on the matter? How thematically does the noble know who the PC's are on every occassion? How would you feel if the NPC hired hand had as much influence over the touchy diplomatic negotiation as the ambassador (the PC)? I just don't see how you force this collective skill use situation as a DM without it being totally clumsy.

I don't see how this gets us much farther than the 'aid other' rules.

 

[FadedC]

Then why are they in the player's handbook? And why does said PHB specifically say:

I think your missing my point here. As I said there are rules for being venerable, just like there are rules for being a commoner or any number of other things. But the game is balanced around the assumption that most of the action is not being done by peasants or wizened old men.

 

[jasin]

As to wanting to be able to do everything, I simply reject that notion. I mean, I'm certain there are some players out there that can get off on being handed everything and then slap themselves on the back for their "accomplishment". But, lets be honest, you don't need a book for that. I've played in many many games where the whole point was that the party is facing REAL challenges. And, quite frequently, they flat out can not overcome the challenge by the direct route. If I'm not afraid to throw a giant at the party knowing full well that they pretty much can not beat him in a fight, then I'm not going to be afraid to throw a wall the wizard can't climb in their path.

Isn't this is still possible with Saga-like skills?

 

[Zurai]

But how about addressing the point the example was meant to illustrate: a healthy 20th-level wizard in his prime (so Str 10, Con 14?) will probably be able to kill, bare handed, an armoured and armed trained warrior (say Ftr1, Str 15, Con 14?). We learned to accept this as natural, because, hey, he's 20th-level, he's an awesome legendary hero, even without his magic.

That wasn't the point being illustrated in the slightest.

Someone came out and said "I think it's fair to tell the ancient crippled wizard that he simply cannot make that jump check". Someone else came back and said "then why can he make that reflex save, dodge the orc's greatax, or hit the fully armed and armored knight in melee combat?". I asked why on earth the wizard would even try to hit the knight, and someone came up with the ridiculous example, which I then proceeded to debunk.

Now, onto YOUR example, using your stats (except I'm going to bump their 15's to 16's and their 12's to 10's, because that's generally what I see people do with 25 point buy).

A level 20 wizard with 14 con is going to have, on average, 91 HP. The level 1 fighter with 14 con is going to have 12 HP.

The wizard has a +10 to hit, but -4 because he's attempting to deal lethal damage with his bare fists. He does 1d3 damage (avg 2) per hit. He has 10 AC.

The fighter has a +5 to hit (weapon focus is reasonable) and does 1d8+3 damage (avg 7.5) per hit. He has a 19 AC (4 scale mail, 1 dex, 2 heavy shield, 1 shield specialization, 1 dodge).

The wizard gets 2 attacks per round and needs a 13 to hit. He thus averages 1.72 damage a round counting crits; he needs 8 rounds to knock the fighter into the negatives.

The fighter gets 2 attacks per round (AoO) and needs a 5 to hit. He thus averages 13.2 damage a round counting crits; he needs 7 rounds to knock the wizard into negatives.

Amazingly, the fighter wins.

 

[FadedC]

That wasn't the point being illustrated in the slightest.

Someone came out and said "I think it's fair to tell the ancient crippled wizard that he simply cannot make that jump check". Someone else came back and said "then why can he make that reflex save, dodge the orc's greatax, or hit the fully armed and armored knight in melee combat?". I asked why on earth the wizard would even try to hit the knight, and someone came up with the ridiculous example, which I then proceeded to debunk.

Now, onto YOUR example, using your stats (except I'm going to bump their 15's to 16's and their 12's to 10's, because that's generally what I see people do with 25 point buy).

A level 20 wizard with 14 con is going to have, on average, 91 HP. The level 1 fighter with 14 con is going to have 12 HP.

The wizard has a +10 to hit, but -4 because he's attempting to deal lethal damage with his bare fists. He does 1d3 damage (avg 2) per hit. He has 10 AC.

The fighter has a +5 to hit (weapon focus is reasonable) and does 1d8+3 damage (avg 7.5) per hit. He has a 19 AC (4 scale mail, 1 dex, 2 heavy shield, 1 shield specialization, 1 dodge).

The wizard gets 2 attacks per round and needs a 13 to hit. He thus averages 1.72 damage a round counting crits; he needs 8 rounds to knock the fighter into the negatives.

The fighter gets 2 attacks per round (AoO) and needs a 5 to hit. He thus averages 13.2 damage a round counting crits; he needs 7 rounds to knock the wizard into negatives.

Amazingly, the fighter wins.

Give the wizard a dagger though and he obliterates the fighter. So the point still stands....this weak naked guy with a dagger clearly has some pretty good skills if he's able to take down an extremely strong opponent with far superior arms and armor.

And yeah the wall the wizard can't climb is still quite doable under saga. By saga rules a wizard with 8 strength would need to be level 14 before he could even climb a brick wall on a 20.

 

[DandD]

So, then simply disarm him, throw the weapon away, and bitch-slap the fighter silly till he's unconscious.

Amazingly, the level 20-wizard wins, because now, the fighter is without his weapon where he applied his weapon focus. Unless you're going to tweak the fighter further and further with things like lock gauntlets and other things so that the 1st level fighter stands a chance against the level 20-wizard (actually, it might very well be a commoner, because wizards without spells are nothing more than commoner...)

 

[Zurai]

Give the wizard a dagger though and he obliterates the fighter. So the point still stands....this weak naked guy with a dagger clearly has some pretty good skills if he's able to take down an extremely strong opponent with far superior arms and armor.

It's amazing how the example keeps changing when people find out that level 20 wizards aren't as indestructable against level 1 fighters as they thought.