Felos can get behind an aasimar waging a hopeless personal war against the forces of evil.
Felos can get behind an aasimar (or anybody else) that's clueless.
I get the feeling Felos can get behind anybody at all. Except maybe pirates. :)
He can get behind them too...as long as it's to push them into shark-infested waters.
He may just get the chance to push a few overboard, although I can't promise the shark-infested waters all the time.
How's everyone else's character creation process coming along? Jatori, Joana, any further thoughts on your characters?
Now the real question is can he get behind pirates because the back is the best place to put three or four arrows? He isn't a paladin of Iomedae or Ragathiel, deities who value honour and nobility. He follows a good deity concerned with two things: flying creatures and fishermen/sailors and their communities. Ignoring the first part, which doesn't apply here, I would think pirates go against that philosophy the same way undead go against Pharasma's.
The law of the land (I believe, but you never did answer my question on it) is that ship captains are fully within the bounds of the law to execute captured pirates (the burden of proof probably varies from place to place). I don't see much difference between executing a prisoner and stabbing an equally guilty combatant in the back.
Now the real question is can he get behind pirates because the back is the best place to put three or four arrows? He isn't a paladin of Iomedae or Ragathiel, deities who value honour and nobility. He follows a good deity concerned with two things: flying creatures and fishermen/sailors and their communities. Ignoring the first part, which doesn't apply here, I would think pirates go against that philosophy the same way undead go against Pharasma's.
The law of the land (I believe, but you never did answer my question on it) is that ship captains are fully within the bounds of the law to execute captured pirates (the burden of proof probably varies from place to place). I don't see much difference between executing a prisoner and stabbing an equally guilty combatant in the back.
My apologies. I must have missed that question. Cheliax is certainly very much anti-pirate, and Corentyn doubly so. The naval forces based in Corentyn ruthlessly hunt down pirates and make sure none (well, as few as possible--they're not perfect at stopping them all) get passed the Arch of Aroden and into the Inner Sea. The naval forces definitely have the right to execute pirates outright. Whether captains of law-abiding vessels have that same right is a greyer area, I'd say. However, only Hellknights are likely to quibble over such a thing, and Hellknights don't generally concern themselves with nautical issues.
There's not a whole lot of information available on Ylimancha beyond a single paragraph in Magnimar, City of Monuments, so it's pretty much up to us to define specifics about here tenets (although the forthcoming Chronicles of the Righteous might have more information). Being NG in alignment means she's less interested in the letter of the law than in seeing justice done. Shooting or stabbing people in the back during combat really wouldn't be a problem (especially considering that without facing rules in the game, you can never really be sure what side you hit them in). Once combat is over though, it becomes a different situation. Summarily killing a prisoner who has been disarmed and is not putting up further resistance is certainly very problematic, especially for a paladin.
I'll have to think a little about the specifics of the code for paladins of Ylimancha. Feel free to discuss.
There would probably have to be some sort of trial.
I find it interesting that given the existence of Besmara, goddess of pirates, there doesn't also exist Xhfdugft, god of kicking pirate butt.
I find it interesting that given the existence of Besmara, goddess of pirates, there doesn't also exist Xhfdugft, god of kicking pirate butt.
Oh, but there is. It's just that all his followers died out centuries ago in a holy war over how to pronounce his name. ;)
Well, unpronounceable names was also part of his portfolio, along with halfling cobblers and strawberry milkshakes. He was a fairly eclectic god.
Eclectic, maybe, but his faith did give rise to the halfling hero Ggggfgg. A cobbler by day, he was a vicious butt-kicker of pirates by night. He would kick the pirates wearing shoes with special steel-plated toes that he made himself. He would kick those pirates out of town, then kick back with a nice strawberry milkshake.
Is it wrong that I now want to play a halfling cobbler paladin of Xhfdugft?
I'd like to voice concern in that I do expect a paladin to behave with honor. The ways of their chosen deity aside, the paladin remains a lawful-good warrior.
Now, to me, in combat that doesn't mean you cannot shoot them in the back - rather silly if you cannot do combat if the enemy just turns away from you. But on the other hand I would not consider it paladinny to shoot at enemies from an ambush or from invisibility.
"Honour" is a loaded word with as many different interpretations as there are people who know the word. Paladins are supposed to be lawful good, but I really dislike the interpretation of paladins that make them lawful stupid. Paladins have a strict code, but that doesn't mean there's no wiggle room. The separate paladin codes in Faiths of Purity do a pretty good job of demonstrating that, I think.
A paladin should definitely not be attacking unarmed innocents, for example. But depending on how it's used, there isn't necessarily anything wrong with attacking from invisibility. To quote from Sarenrae's paladin code: "The best battle is a battle I win. If I die, I can no longer fight. I will fight fairly when the fight is fair, and I will strike quickly and without mercy when it is not." That seems to indicate that if battle with an evil, irredeemable foe is certain, especially when that foe will not hesitate to kill you in your sleep if it gets the chance, I really see no problem with striking it down in the most expedient way possible (at least for paladins of Sarenrae). Paladins of Torag seem downright ruthless. Not only do they defeat their enemies, but also "scatter their families". Their allegiance is to their people and they "will do what is necessary to serve them, including misleading others."
Now, I'll admit, I feel Torag's code is stretching the idea of a paladin a little bit, but it does nicely demonstrate just how much the interpretation of an "honourable" warrior can vary depending on who is doing the interpreting--you, me, the writers of Faiths of Purity, or anybody else.
At any rate, rest assured that I have no intention of giving the party's paladin carte blanche to do whatever he wants. He will be held to a strict standard. I just won't force stupid behaviour as well.
Lorekeeper, I believe that "lawful good" and "paladin-y" don't have to mean the same thing. There are times when deception or subterfuge may be necessary (like disguising the party as cultists to penetrate an evil temple, for example). There's not reason a lawful good character has to stubbornly insist on marching in in gleaming plate mail because it's the honourable thing to do", it's just that this sort of plan isn't the one he thinks of first...it's never going to be his plan, whereas a chaotic character would go to such options first and roll their eyes at the "honourable", face-to-face approach.
An example that nicely illustrates this came up in an old Star Trek: Deep Space 9 episode I recently watched, where Sisko (lawful good, honourable to a T station commander) is trying to find a way to make a currently neutral superpower come into a war on his side. He has no legit way of convincing them that it's in their own best interests, so he turns to Garek, the chaotic neutral former enemy spy, to come up with a less honourable way of doing it. Despite his own intelligence, Sisko knows that there's no way he thinks in the manner necessary to come up with a plan to get the job done. In the end, he sums it up himself, quoting that he "lied, cheated, bribed men to cover up the crimes of other men, and was an accessory to murder, but that if he had to do it all over again, he would". Garek defended his actions by saying that the price for saving billions of lives was only "four lives and the self-respect of one Starfleet officer, a small price indeed", and Sisko agreed.
I know there are GMs out there who would look at that one act and instantly slam Sisko with alignment penalties, or just unilaterally declare that he's now chaotic neutral and demand that the player play him that way, but that's folly. This one act hasn't changed how he views the world, how he will normally act from this moment onwards. It's an extreme case, one time where he went with a plan that wasn't honourable, because it was necessary, and he was willing to pay the price, both the price to his career if things went wrong or his superiors didn't agree to support the plan, and the price to his conscience and self-respect. A "lawful good" character knows that there are times when he's going to have to do what he wants and accept the consequences later, whereas a chaotic character will do what he wants to get the job done, and then work on getting himself out of as much trouble as possible.
Now paladin's are a more extreme case of "lawful goodness" because they also have a paladin code. A lot of times, I think people feel that paladins have to be honourable because they're lawful good--that's backwards. Paladins are lawful good because they are honourable and have their code of conduct. It's the code that limits them, not their alignment.
I don't do "lawful stupid" paladins, partially because it's no fun, and partially because it's unfair to the other players. These kinds of paladins become dragging anchors to the momentum and fun of the group, and the reason why nobody wants them around. Saying that a paladin is never going to shoot from invisibility is the same as saying that a paladin is never going to get a flaming bow, or attack from higher ground--both are tactical advantages that a warrior determined to survive long enough to destroy evil should take whenever possible. However, making himself invisible is never going to be his first plan, his preferred plan. His mind set is never going to be look at the plans for battle and think of where invisibility is going to be the most use. But if the party wizard points out that there are fifty orcs coming for the village and the only way to save the day is to scatter the horde by sneaking into their midst under cloak of invisibility and slaying their leaders, he's not going to plant his heels and declare that honour dictates he give the orcs as much chance as possible to kill them all and savage the innocents by staying visible, if for no other reason than sneaking in under cloak of invisibility to perform a commando strike sounds like tons of fun for the players, and what right do I have to ruin it for everybody, just because I want to play a paladin? Everybody else's enjoyment of the game has to come first before my own conceited view of how I have to play MY character.
Hopefully all that clarifies my own position.
The difference, of course, being that, in the Star Trek universe, Sisko doesn't get special powers based on upholding a code. The only consequences he has to face, assuming no one in authority over him finds out about his compromise, is perhaps not sleeping as well at night -- although he seems to think that the end justifies the means anyway if he'd do the same thing again, so I guess he doesn't even feel that bad about it. In a world where alignment is objective and judged by some omniscient force or other from which no action can be hidden, I can't see a paladin being party to lying, cheating, bribery, and accessory to murder without some pretty heavy atonement necessary. Now, if he is really convinced that the world will be better for his actions and is willing to accept the consequences, he might still act in the same way and sacrifice his ideals and self-respect -- but he still ought to lose his powers until he can atone, imo.
Yes, but that example was in the section of my post on lawful goodness, not paladinhood. Of course a paladin should have to atone for doing what Sisko did in that episode, but he should not be instantly forced into an arbitrary alignment change, unless he makes a habit out of such actions.
I agree with not playing a lawful-stupid paladin, but there's many more layers to it than just waving away potential problems:
1. Sisko "lied, cheated, bribed men to cover up the crimes of other men, and was an accessory to murder, but that if he had to do it all over again, he would" - this is not a single act, but a whole arc of actions. Assuming he'd start as lawful-good, the character would end-up neutral-good afterward on the grounds that he did it all that subterfuge for the greater good. Naturally he can recover lawful-goodness over time in appropriate ways, but I don't think it's right to think of this as one act that can be rationalized against the weight of his other lawful-good actions. The overall course of events could very well represent one or more levels worth of adventuring in Pathfinder; not a single transgression.
2. A paladin does not need to follow stupid (or worse, party-endangering) course of actions. When a horde of 50 orcs come along, instead of going headlong with the wizards sneaky invisibility plan to assassinate the leader, he can first challenge the leader to a duel (or other diplomatic/intimidatory) actions - warning that if the orcs do not comply, then extreme measures would be taken.
Of course, once the paladinny attempts fall on deaf ears, then mostly anything is game. Exceptions of course come along with deities that have specific agendas: a dwarven paladin of Torag likely sees no need to offer any honorable engagements with orcs (of course, such a paladin possibly sees no problem with taking on 50 orcs by himself). And pretty much all paladins have a shoot first, bash second, attitude towards evil undead, dragons and outsiders - and that is okay too.
People roughly following the law is not in fact a lawfully aligned thing, neutral people roughly follow the law.
...
Anyway, all I'm saying is that I don't think paladins need to be dumb about what they do - but likewise actions cannot just be waved away as chevalier delict. Personally I think it's particularly worthy of a paladin to willingly fall from grace in service of a cause he believes in, and the corresponding fall (and return) to grace makes for great story/roleplaying.
Anyway, all I'm saying is that I don't think paladins need to be dumb about what they do - but likewise actions cannot just be waved away as chevalier delict.
I don't think anybody has said that they can be waved away. Actions have consequences and that's doubly true for paladins. If Sisko were a paladin, he would lose his powers for those actions (in my game, at any rate, but probably most other games too) until he could do suitable atonement. Likewise, if Felos does anything similar, he'll lose his paladin abilities, too. However, a blanket statement that paladins don't attack from invisible is an oversimplification.
At any rate, I don't want this to become an argument over alignment (another thing that you'll find just as many interpretations of as the number of people you ask). Let's not judge Felos's actions until he actually does something. :)
Here is Festa Fire, a follower of the Everbloom.
In lieu of Savage Tide campaign traits, I've looked at the traits for Serpent Skull and Skull & Shackles; if that is okay. I picked "ship's surgeon" (Skull & Shackles) which grants +1 heal (class skill) and +1 craft (carpentry) and you start with a healer's kit.
I've had Festa trained by Slow Sure Fist who is one of my PFS monks - the combination just seemed a natural fit in terms of their backstory and motivation. Slow Sure Fist hails from Chu Ye (Tian Xia) where he is part of the rebels fighting against the oni tyrants. He's been crippled in his battles there, and so has taken up the mantle of sensei (martial arts teacher) instead. Although from Chu Ye, Slo Sure Fist is now in the Inner Sea, trying to gather support against the oni tyrants that control his home. Turning to the folks of the Everbloom just makes good sense for him - and in turn, they can benefit from his martial arts teaching.
...
I expect Festa to not be much of a combat presence early on, but pick up a bit of steam once he gains an agile amulet of mighty fists. Probably around level 4 or 5.
...
If there's any character looking to be ship's captain or navigator/steersman; (s)he should consider "Hurricane Savvy" (Pirates of the Inner Sea) which lessens wind conditions by 1 step. I think that's a pretty big deal if the AP covers storm conditions.
Here is Festa Fire, a follower of the Everbloom.
In lieu of Savage Tide campaign traits, I've looked at the traits for Serpent Skull and Skull & Shackles; if that is okay. I picked "ship's surgeon" (Skull & Shackles) which grants +1 heal (class skill) and +1 craft (carpentry) and you start with a healer's kit.
The only problem here is that this is a bit more powerful than non-campaign traits. If everybody had access to equally strong campaign traits, I wouldn't have a problem with it. I've actually considered creating some custom Savage Tide campaign traits, but just haven't had the chance to do so, and I'm not sure I'll get that chance. If I do, I'll include something virtually identical to Ship's Surgeon and you can keep it as is. If I don't, we'll have to dial the trait back a bit. Removing the free healer's kit should work well.
If there's any character looking to be ship's captain or navigator/steersman; (s)he should consider "Hurricane Savvy" (Pirates of the Inner Sea) which lessens wind conditions by 1 step. I think that's a pretty big deal if the AP covers storm conditions.
There is at least one major storm during this AP. :)
Right, I've settled on character concept. I just need to flesh out the personality/backstory and mechanical details a bit. I'm going with the mad dog barbarian from Animal Archive.
I hope to take up the close to melee range combat slack. As far as ship roles go, I'd like to grab the chief steward (and/or cook) role (Intimidate and Profession (chef)). I'll go with a dog as an animal companion and he'll fill the role of the ship's ratter.
I'm leaning towards half-orc.
I thought we weren't doing ship roles. :P
I blame 2 years of GMing Rogue Trader. Besides, every ship needs a warrior-chef.
I thought we weren't doing ship roles. :P
When we first go to sea, it might be as crew members, before we get our own ship.
But we agree that we will not set up a situation where one PC is in charge. Equal ownership. Personally, if we are the owners, I don't object to an NPC captain. It's like we're all the owners of a sports team, but there would still be an NPC coach and General manager.
I thought we weren't doing ship roles. :PWhen we first go to sea, it might be as crew members, before we get our own ship.
Actually, I'm pretty sure I already stated that you don't ever need to serve under an NPC captain in this AP. You get your own ship pretty quickly in this AP. Of course, in a pbp, quickly is a relative term. :)
Personally, if we are the owners, I don't object to an NPC captain. It's like we're all the owners of a sports team, but there would still be an NPC coach and General manager.
Yes. He/she handles the ship and the crew and whatever sailing checks need doing, but at the end of the day, the captain answers to us.
Wouldn't it be awkward to simultaneously be the captain's boss and part of the crew as surgeon/steward/whatever? I'd think that kind of entanglement would lead to kinks in the chain of command.
Also, am I correct in my understanding that the PCs don't actually start out aboardship? We begin the adventure land-based but need to make characters who will eventually embrace the seafaring life?
I don't care about who/what is captain. But a big enough ship needs someone in charge that can coordinate the crew to make the ship go to the desired location. And a navigator (possibly that is the captain). And actual crew. And somebody to make food. And so forth. This is not a matter of creating a hierarchy, it's simply a matter of how a ship works. Similar to the adventuring party, there are roles to fulfill (tank, ranged, arcane, divine, utility, etc) - this doesn't make any role more important than other roles (other than that all non-melee orientated roles are poopyheads :p).
Unlike Jade Regent (or Kingmaker for that matter), I seriously doubt that whoever is "in charge" is also automatically the pivotal focus of the story and plot. So I'm pretty sure no matter how the crew-system works out, "we" (meaning the PCs) will be the movers and shakers who determine where we go and what we do.
Yes, yes, and yes, I believe.
Since we are creating characters who are already looking for a seafaring life, it makes sense to create a character who could serve as part of a crew, even though they won't, since our characters won't be expecting to start out as ship owners. They are hoping to go to sea and probably expecting the normal route of signing on aboard a merchant/fishing/military ship and working their way up. Even if our characters don't end up serving as surgeons/stewards/whatevers, they would be planning to. Fortunately, many of the skills and abilities we would pick if we were making characters intended to serve on a ship's crew, like Profession (Sailor), Knowledge (Geography), Heal, Survival, Perception, etc. will also come in handy for adventuring. Now, somebody designing a character to be the ship's cook will probably throw a rank into something like Profession (Cook), which isn't as useful for adventuring, but it makes for great fluff and RP-fodder.
Personally, I have designed Felos to be the type of person who will take on whatever role of crewman he has to to get to sea and a chance to fight pirates. It's all very vague with the unifying thought of "get to sea and fight pirates", which leaves him quite flexible to follow whatever excuses the GM gives us to embroil himself in the AP's plotline.
|
My character isn't a sailor at all, but he would be able to 'embrace the seafaring life' and his skill set and class lends itself to ship's chaplain and surgeon.
I agree that the position of captain is important and, while he does maintain order and discipline, that doesn't mean that he rules over the PCs.
I don't care about who/what is captain. But a big enough ship needs someone in charge that can coordinate the crew to make the ship go to the desired location. And a navigator (possibly that is the captain). And actual crew. And somebody to make food. And so forth. This is not a matter of creating a hierarchy, it's simply a matter of how a ship works.
And this is what we hire people for. I have no intention of being part of the crew, whether on our own ship or someone else's. I don't want to play Sid Meier's Sailing Ship Tycoon, and it sounds like that's what you guys are looking forward to.
Now, somebody designing a character to be the ship's cook will probably throw a rank into something like Profession (Cook)
You have obviously not heard Jerall argue that his profession (cook) ranks allow him to use a saucepan as an improvised weapon substituting the profession (cook) skill as the BAB. ;)
And this is what we hire people for. I have no intention of being part of the crew, whether on our own ship or someone else's. I don't want to play Sid Meier's Sailing Ship Tycoon, and it sounds like that's what you guys are looking forward to.I don't care about who/what is captain. But a big enough ship needs someone in charge that can coordinate the crew to make the ship go to the desired location. And a navigator (possibly that is the captain). And actual crew. And somebody to make food. And so forth. This is not a matter of creating a hierarchy, it's simply a matter of how a ship works.
Nothing further from the truth. I've no interest in the ship, the crew, or its development other than as a vehicle that keeps the plot roll-- sailing. Similar to my Kingmaker game where I don't have any input how the kingdom/cities get built, and the ex-Jade Regent where I don't care about the caravan details either.
But I do want the ship to "make sense".
Hiring a captain and a crew also makes sense. Indeed, historically speaking, the owner of a ship was often not a member of the crew. Captains (and consequently the remainder of the crew) were generally employed by the owner(s). I should point out that the ship you receive is not a particularly large ship, so it doesn't need a huge crew. It will be well within your means to hire a crew for it. Indeed, the first adventure in which you go to sea in this ship assumes that is what you actually do and includes a sample captain and other crewmembers for the PCs to hire. (It also provides provisions for parties that want to captain and crew the ship themselves, but even there, they need to hire a few extra helping hands.)
At any rate, you will be starting out on land and will eventually go to sea. Your characters consequently need to be willing to travel at sea, but there are numerous ways you can build your backgrounds. You can be sailors who are currently out of a job. You can be be people who have dreamed of going to sea, but have so far not managed to. You can be people who have never even considered going to sea, but when the opportunity arises discover a desire or need for it. Or any combination of the above.
Same as Lorekeeper. No interest in being a crew member. I'm just saying that we should create characters who would have the skill set necessary to BE a crew member. If you build Golarion's most promising ballet dancer, it could be fun to play, but wouldn't make any sense for him/her to want to go sailing. A ballet dancer might end up going to sea to serve sone greater good, but the whole time would be itching for any opportunity to leave the ship and follow his/her own dream.
Now I do have interest in playing Felos as a would-be merchant. He's never going to be very good at it, in all likelihood, and I expect most of those activities will be relegated to Profession (Merchant) or Diplomacy rolls when their ship puts into port, nothing more, and not taking any of the game focus, unless Navior chooses to use it as a vehicle to advance the plot line in some fashion.
I'm just saying that we should create characters who would have the skill set necessary to BE a crew member.
Even that's not necessarily accurate. It's a valid character concept, but you can also easily create characters that don't currently have any sailing skills at all. Sure, you ballet example might not work, but that's a pretty extreme example. A character might simply want to travel at sea as a passenger.
I didn't think of passenger. Really, Felos is just interested in being a passenger in the beginning, albeit one that works for his fare, since he can't pay for it.
Which I guess is really just an itinerant crewmember with commitment issues.
Okay, so character line-up so far:
Felos, catlfolk paladin -- Nazard
Festa Fire, human monk (everbloom thorn archetype) -- Lorekeeper
Aasimar oracle of life -- Dax
Barbarian (mad dog archetype) -- Jatori
You don't yet have an arcane caster or a roguish character. Joana, don't feel constrained by that however. Just as I was willing to add an NPC to cover a healer if the party ended up without one, I'm also willing to add an NPC arcane caster or whatever else if necessary.
Sounds like we need an arcane trickster! :)
Felos has some more background up, and there's some stuff there about his Empyreal Lord. Navior hasn't vetted that stuff yet, though, so there may be changes.
Magic shmagic - arcana shmarana - we need a pure rogue. Rogue is gold. Rogue is awesome. Possibly the archetype from Animal Archive that gives the rogue a familiar (parrot or monkey, yes!)
|
|
As I've mentioned before, I've played and ran a fair portion of the path (up to about 12th level). In my experience the ship is mostly backdrop and the problems you mention haven't come up. It is a means to get from encounter area A to encounter area B. The fact that it is a ship suggests certain types of encounters (pirates and sea monsters) but we also put into port to re provision and can have encounters on land that way. The crew are there to be interacted with as any NPC is.
In one game I'm in, a PC is the captain. He's not a jerk about it and has only made a few decisions for the ship and those weren't critical. So I absolutely believe that you will find your concerns to be unfounded.
Well, that was my impression from what Navior said, but then everyone started talking about what crew "role" their PC was going to claim. :P
For me, a boat's just a way to get from Point A to Point B. If we get attacked en route, then we fight on the ship, but I don't want to be making Profession (sailor) checks all day. I had a bad enough time in my extremely short tenure in Skulls & Shackles to avoid anything like that like the plague.
Was that due to bad rolls?
A buddy of mine had a statistically extremely unlikely string of ridiculously bad rolls in our real-life Kingmaker campaign. He was the general or warden or something. Whatever is supposed to do stability checks. He failed in excess of 90% of them (in over 5 years of simulated kingdom time, i.e. 60+ rolls) and rolled a natural "1" half-the-time.
He rolled perfectly well in all other situations, but our kingdom was constantly in turmoil.
Was that due to bad rolls?
Eh, I didn't even have time to have bad rolls. I quit the morning of the second in-game day. I just don't like the mechanic of having a single die roll determine the success or failure of hours worth of in-game time, especially at level 1 where you're pretty much flipping a coin anyway, as your bonus likely isn't large enough to make a statistical difference.
The added wrinkle of "if you roll low, not only will you fail at your whole day's worth of work, but we'll also strip your female PC to the waist in front of the people she has to interact with every day and beat her into unconsciousness" was just gravy. Thought I'd better quit the game before I failed a roll, because I'd jump my PC overboard to drown before I'd submit to that. :P
Was that due to bad rolls?Eh, I didn't even have time to have bad rolls. I quit the morning of the second in-game day. I just don't like the mechanic of having a single die roll determine the success or failure of hours worth of in-game time, especially at level 1 where you're pretty much flipping a coin anyway, as your bonus likely isn't large enough to make a statistical difference.
The added wrinkle of "if you roll low, not only will you fail at your whole day's worth of work, but we'll also strip your female PC to the waist in front of the people she has to interact with every day and beat her into unconsciousness" was just gravy. Thought I'd better quit the game before I failed a roll, because I'd jump my PC overboard to drown before I'd submit to that. :P
There is something to be said for a system that uses a series of skill checks to represent extended work like that, to avoid the possibility of catastrophic failures...sure you could still possibly roll fails x number of times, but you're much less likely to, and then even small bonuses have a cumulative positive effect.
I don't know much about 4th edition (and everything I hear makes me want to know less), but doesn't it use something similar, except with all skill checks?
The "skill challenge": All I really know about it is what I've read here on the boards, but apparently you have a series of rolls and have to accumulate a certain number of successes before a certain number of failures. I'm not sure if every skill check is a skill challenge; my impression is that it's more for major plot points/noncombat encounters you can get XP for than for what's basically a series of busy-work rolls in the background of the story. It would certainly help mitigate the "everything we've been working for comes down to this one die roll, and I rolled a 2" moments.
How would a system work where something like a day's worth of work on a ship was treated like a chase? In a chase, you make a series of skill checks, usually picking one of two options at each juncture, with the hope that the PC(s) will pass more checks than their opponent, and so catch up or escape.
I know we aren't going to be the crew in this game, but it works as a hypothetical example. The party has to get the ship from point A to B.
Scene 1 (getting started): make Knowledge Geography check to recognize landmarks or Survival check to ascertain their direction.
Scene 2 (rigging comes loose): Climb check to navigate rigging or combined Strength check to haul on sails
Scene 3: (crew gets heat stroke): Heal check to tend crew or Profession (Sailing) check to temporarily take over while crew rests
Scene 4: (rocky shoals): Perception check to spot and avoid rocks or Profession (Sailing) to navigate around them
Etc.
Maybe a typical day has 8 scenes and they make 1 hour's worth of progress for each one they pass (more or less depending on extraordinary check results). Obviously, this approach requires a great deal of imagination from the GM, and might get quite tedious if you tried to use it for every game day of a long voyage.
Again, I am not suggesting this as something for us to use in this game, just as something better than one skill check or you get strip beaten in front of the crew for a game that is sailing based. Theorize. Discuss.
That would definitely get really tedious to use for every day, although with some tweaking it might be made to work for "unusual" days.
Honestly, for typical days and conditions, the DCs for sailing really shouldn't be very high. Most crews are made up of low-level NPCs and manage to sail the seas effectively. The typical DCs need to be passable for characters with a single rank in Profession (sailor) taking 10 (so no higher than DC 14 which is passable with 1 rank and a class skill bonus). Storms and unusual conditions would provide higher DCs, but they only come around once in a while. Thus, most sailing days shouldn't require any checks at all.