|
Almost every cleric in my home campaigns has opted for craft and knowledge skills over diplomacy and sense motive. Most of them, in point of fact, have been humans and our characters tend to have decent intelligences (you know - so we get skills, which we like).
I agree that is the best way to build an effective character in 3E. Humans with good INT make great clerics. I am sure that your style of play is the kind of game I prefer - I cannot stand having to min/max characters just to survive.
But what about non-human clerics? What about non-human clerics with an INT of 10. They get seriously screwed in the skills department.
As written the 3E skills system does not allow for a broad selection of skills by any but a few classes. It also places too high a value on certain critical skills.
When a party gets up to high level play weak primary skills will start to show as a real weakness. In Living Greyhawk (where you only get 28 points to build a PC) high level mods often involve critical skill checks with DCs from 32 to 35. Without maximum ranks in that skill the chance of success drops.
Adhominem. So the answer would be no.
In truth, I enjoy our discussions. I deleted my post since it was out of line.
|
|
Crosswired we have.
I've seen several posts listing the use of profession skills. This doens't count my own use of Profession (Gambler) Profession (Herbalist) Profession (Sailor)
I agree that the three you mention are useful. But why do they need to be skills? As I mentioned - skill points are few and far between and there are too many other choices that are critical to a character.
I think a separate pool of background skill points would help. If I continue with 3.5 that will be a house rule for sure.
I think a separate pool of background skill points would help.
Some RPGs have a "background" mechanic. White Wolf's Exalted springs to mind. Adding something similar would be a good idea to D&D. Not necessarily WW's implementation, but something to indicate that the character didn't spontaniously appear.
|
I agree that the three you mention are useful. But why do they need to be skills? As I mentioned - skill points are few and far between and there are too many other choices that are critical to a character.
Ok, here I think is where our fundemental disagreement is. There are no skill choices, IMO, that are critical to a character. None. A character is defined by the choices he makes and he is free to make any skill choices he chooses to define his character. If you want to play a rogue with no thieving skills, good. If you want a cleric with no Knowledge of religion, more power to you. You claim to dislike min/maxed character yet insist there is no other way to do it.
I think a separate pool of background skill points would help. If I continue with 3.5 that will be a house rule for sure.
It would be an improvement and one that many of us have already made.
Which brings us back to the original point of the thread though, the use of these skills does not make the game less fun, it makes it more interesting for many of us. Adding more skills is the solution. Removing them is not. And I believe you have finally confessed as much
I'm glad to see you are coming around. ;)
I'm glad to see you are coming around. ;)
In all fairness, crosswiredmind has been rather consistant in saying that he is taking a wait and see approach.
Adding more skills is the solution.
Personally, I don't have a problem with condensing the skill list. Rolling Spot and Listen into Preception isn't that big of a deal. Infact, if I DMed a game, I'd also use preception to also cover someone's "gut" feeling that they're being watched. Of course I'd add varying curcumstance bonuses depending on how the players played their characters.
Doing something as radical as removing Profession with no replacement is a different matter entirely.
|
|
I'm glad to see you are coming around. ;)In all fairness, crosswiredmind has been rather consistant in saying that he is taking a wait and see approach.
Oh, I didn't mean coming around in reference to 4e. I'm not rabidly 4e myself. Yet. I'll wait till I see the actual rules to join that crowd. ;)
I meant coming around on the idea that some skills are useless and boring and should be thrown in the tar pits with the other dinosaurs.
edit - And by adding more skills, I meant to the character sheet, not necessarily to the game.
Knowledge (nature) and Survival could be better distinguished. I like the fact that Paizo adventures seem to use knowledge (nature) to replace Knowledge (monster). etc. and etc. I just disagree that all profession skills are inherently boring or bad.
Knowledge (monster).
Is that a 3.0 skill? I never played 3.0, but I know that's not a skill in 3.5.
|
|
Knowledge (monster).Is that a 3.0 skill? I never played 3.0, but I know that's not a skill in 3.5.
Sorta.
Its not in the 3.0 PH but it is in the Kalamar Players Guide which ostensibly had the WotC seal of approval.
Don't have the 3.5 PH, I use the SRD for 3.5. But the 3.0 PH basically suggested you could create (with DM approval) any number of Knowledge skills. The KPG thus lists several possible Knowledge skills and their uses. Knowledge (monster) was one my son liked a lot as it allowed you to identify monsters and on a good skill check know their weaknesses, habits, etc.
Of more interest to me personally in the KPG was the many crafts and professions listed as possibilities for a character to possess.
I agree that the three you mention are useful. But why do they need to be skills? As I mentioned - skill points are few and far between and there are too many other choices that are critical to a character.
That was one of the fatal flaws with the Victory Games 007 rules: "in-game" (combat & social) skills were skills, everything else was "backgrounds." You had two different sets of mechanics, and the "backgrounds" mechanics were so vague as to be meaningless in-game. For example, "Demolitions" was a skill, because it's fun to blow stuff up. You could make skill checks to correctly estimate the amounts of explosives needed, where to place them, etc. "Computers" was a background, if I recall correctly. There was no skill check to see if you could hack into the enemy's mainframe. You either had selected it upon character creation, or you hadn't. If you did, you could presumeably automatically perform any task imagineable involving computers, including building one out of pine cones. If you hadn't selected it, you could never learn to type on a keyboard--ever.
That system was no fun. Consistent mechanics were one of the things that made 3.x edition fun, to my mind. Everything worked by the same rules. Add more skill points--OK. Maybe even tell people that the bonus points have to be spent on non-combat skills. But a "separate but equal" system quickly becomes "separate and unuseable."
Don't have the 3.5 PH, I use the SRD for 3.5. But the 3.0 PH basically suggested you could create (with DM approval) any number of Knowledge skills. The KPG thus lists several possible Knowledge skills and their uses. Knowledge (monster) was one my son liked a lot as it allowed you to identify monsters and on a good skill check know their weaknesses, habits, etc.
I like the way my DM handles it (don't know if its official, but ... ). Every knowledge skill handles a different group of monsters. Local = humanoids, Planer = Extraplaners, Religion = Undead, Nature = animals/vermin, arch & Eng = constructs (I think), etc.
|
I like the way my DM handles it (don't know if its official, but ... ). Every knowledge skill handles a different group of monsters. Local = humanoids, Planer = Extraplaners, Religion = Undead, Nature = animals/vermin, arch & Eng = constructs (I think), etc.
That's the breakdown covered in 3.0 and 3.5 PHB. Arcana also covers dragons I believe. Dungeoneering=oozes.
|
|
Ok, here I think is where our fundemental disagreement is. There are no skill choices, IMO, that are critical to a character. None. A character is defined by the choices he makes and he is free to make any skill choices he chooses to define his character. If you want to play a rogue with no thieving skills, good. If you want a cleric with no Knowledge of religion, more power to you. You claim to dislike min/maxed character yet insist there is no other way to do it.
The challenges faced in a game are varied. If a cleric does not take knowledge religion then the party will have a tough time facing undead. If a rogue does not take search and disable device then all the party can count on is the dwarven trap finder - run the tough dwarf out in frint and see if he triggers a trap. The nature of D&D dictates that certain skills need to be taken for a party to function.
It is possible to play it differently. Home campaigns that do not use stock mods can run well with a vast diversity of PC classes and build choices. Most commercial mods assume the presence of a fighter, a rogue, a cleric, and an arcane caster. The mods also assume that they will be very proficient in their core competencies.
Which brings us back to the original point of the thread though, the use of these skills does not make the game less fun, it makes it more interesting for many of us. Adding more skills is the solution. Removing them is not. And I believe you have finally confessed as much
I'm glad to see you are coming around. ;)
Adding more skills is a good thing but it needs to be done in a ay that allows more choices and better choices. It needs to be flexible. Yes, there are a few profession skills that can be interesting. As implemented, profession is just a big miscellaneous bucket for the skills that had no other home.
A rogue is pretty much the only class that depends on skills ot fill it's role. Look at Fighters and Clerics with their whopping two skill points a level: Skills are window dressing for them.
And I've still had a group who gave up on rogue trapfinding and started running the dwarf out in front: The guy running the dwarf thought it was more fun and faster that way. The rogue got relegated to flanking and treasure finding.
Profession, Knowledge, and craft skills give the ability to customize a character, because power isn't everything (and a good DM won't punish a group for running interesting characters). I will miss them when they are gone.
|
|
A rogue is pretty much the only class that depends on skills ot fill it's role. Look at Fighters and Clerics with their whopping two skill points a level: Skills are window dressing for them.
Yes and no. I agree that the class skills for rogues are the most critical but I would say that the lack of skill points for clerics and fighters is the root of the problem thus making them seem like window dressing. If clerics and fighters had more skill points they would be less one dimensional. They would get past the meat shield and healing battery roles that they are too often called on to play.
Profession, Knowledge, and craft skills give the ability to customize a character, because power isn't everything (and a good DM won't punish a group for running interesting characters). I will miss them when they are gone.
As far as I know profession is the only one of those on the chopping block.
Take a cleric with her 2 points per level (barring a higher INT or her being human). Is she going to take any skills beyond Knowledge Religion, Heal, Concentration, or Spell Craft? If she could then there is always diplomacy and sense motive. Not much room for profession or craft.
Here's the thing: That's your choice, not mine. If I want to play a cleric with no ranks in Heal, Knowledge (religion), or Spellcraft, and ranks in Perform (Weapon Drill), Intimidate, and Knowledge (Military Tactics) then I that's the character I want to play. No one's holding a repeating crossbow to my head and saying "TAKE SKILLS RELAVENT TO YOUR PARTY ROLE!". If I don't take those skills, so be it. Will it make the game unplayable? Not at all. Will it make some aspects more challenging? Possibly. Will it make the game more fun for me if I decide to play an over the top cleric of a god of battle and combat? Absolutely*.
*
[/pointjack] The comments printed in the Races & Classes book are inflamatory and insulting. That's what people here are upset about. It's just yet another bullet point in the long list of WotC's marketing debacle.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
For the record:
AD&D 1st Edition had thief abilities, rising statically with a thief's level, and randomly-rolled "backgrounds".
AD&D 2nd Edition allowed for point distribution in theif abilities, and then introduced "non-weapon proficiencies" -- that is, skills.
3rd Edition has 32 skills and five macro-skills (craft, knowledge, language, profession, and survival).
GURPS 4th Edition has about 350 skills.
A lot of people have referenced something like "profession: farmer" which would probably be a craft.
My opinions:
The more activities there are in a game that are covered under skills, the weaker the PC's are. For example, in 1st Edition, any time the party camped, they could start a campfire. In 2nd Edition, the party needed a character with the appropriate NWP. When NWP came out, it was no longer the case that everybody knew how to swim.
If your character has a static background as, say, an innkeep, you can trust that the PC will do all the inn-keepy things needed to maintain that background. The issue WotC seems to be raising is: do we want that to be a roll? Do we want to keep track as to exactly how good our PC's are at inn-keeping? Or should professions act more like languages: once you get the background, you're presumed competent?
I see that point, and it makes sense to me.
But I can see a perfectly viable, and probably fun, campaign where the party is running a tavern, and the tavern trade / competition in town is an important side-light. (The kraken have been sinking ships, and there's an ale shortage in town, and the PC's need to make a profession:inn-keep roll to make sure their tavern gets at least some share of the reduced supply.)
And, yes, I'm offended by the tone of voice that suggests that, if we're haivng a good time role-playing this kind of adventure, we're not playing D&D "right".
|
|
[/pointjack] The comments printed in the Races & Classes book are inflamatory and insulting. That's what people here are upset about. It's just yet another bullet point in the long list of WotC's marketing debacle.
I have just finished completely reading it, and while I didn't read through with a highlighter to mark the parts that insulted me or the stuff that just sounded like bad game changes, I have to agree.
I finished that book and felt angry at the comments, saddened that D&D is deciding to take a turn that will make me walk away from it, and extremely skeptical of the future of the game.The attitude in the book is "if you want to play D&D you WILL accept these ideas", and not "we want you play D&D so we designed the game with you in mind in THIS way".
A couple of the mechanics looked interesting and some of the ideals sound good, but other things are just plain stupid. Class roles for example. Is this really needed? You need a tank, an arcanist, a trapsmith, and a healer. Now they decided to label each class? Oh but we don't want clerics to feel like the healer of the group so we will call their role "Leader" and make every class have some healing ability.
Great, now you really don't need to work together as a team because you can heal yourself even as a fighter! Just find a hapless goblin and use your biggest maneuver on it to heal yourself! "Boy, smashing the hell out of critters sure does make me feel better!"....What?!?! How is this not just seen as ridiculous?
I do like the idea of the "One Progression instead of Four" thing for BAB and saves. Seems to be trying to streamline that aspect of the game.
Teiflings and Dragonborn and Warlocks and Evil Paladins....
Yuck and double yuck on evil Paladins. "And I have two more words to whet your appetite: Evil. Paladins." is how they put it in the book. Is that supposed to excite me? Sorry, it had the opposite effect. I hate the idea. Someone has a stiffy over at WotC for evil stuff and has decided to make it Kewl, so now a bunch of idiots are gonna run around in their parent's house talking about how Kewl it was to "murder that whole hamlet" or "My warlock sent that dude to hell and when he returned all screwed-up I conjured a dark creature to eat his soul. It was so awesome!". Yeah, that's gonna be some great PR for D&D.
Sorry all, just had to drop my thoughts.
|
I have just finished completely reading it, and while I didn't read through with a highlighter to mark the parts that insulted me or the stuff that just sounded like bad game changes, I have to agree.
I too read the whole thing and DID try to go back through with a highlighter and pen to mark my thoughts on the document.
The second time through I couldn't get passed page 50 (or so).
It was just too painful to relive a second time. :)
Maybe I'll finish sometime this week.
On another note, I was highlighting every use of the word "cool"... just for my own sick curiosity.
I think I was up to 9 or 10 when I stopped (I don't have my tally with me nor remember the exact count.)
-J
Does anyone have an anecdote that actually addresses the offending quote?
My players found Profession (Sailor) exceptionally useful while playing STAP. Piloting ships past dangerous shoals, maneuvering their ship to put the enemy vessel 'in irons', navigating across distances...
Someone mentioned their players using Profession (Gambler) to make money. I've seen that done, and I've seen Profession (Merchant) used to plan caravan routes in order to increase revenues.
In my game, I've allowed Profession (Soldier) ranks to increase a PCs Leadership score in combat. Why? Because he's learned to lead troops in battle, not just swing a weapon. If you think doing that doesn't require some sort of effort and training, you are sorely mistaken.
For my own PCs, I have a fighter/wizard who took levels in Expert (Smith). Once he's high enough level in wizard, he'll be forging his own weapons for enchanting. Additionally, the party will save gold by having him repair their weapons, armour, etc., and he'll be able to earn extra cash by doing work for others as needed.
I almost forgot Craft (Embalming) from the Secret College of Necromancy. Useful for preparing the fallen for proper burial, winning brownie points with the locals, perhaps. Also, a necromancer can create some of the toughest undead around. Fun!
I'd say the Craft and Profession skills can have an impact on one's game, if the DM and players want it to.
|
|
I have just finished completely reading it, and while I didn't read through with a highlighter to mark the parts that insulted me or the stuff that just sounded like bad game changes, I have to agree.
They can say all the want about it being "cool" (and WotC, along with their duly appointed representatives on various message boards, will), and it might be that for some people, but it isn't Dungeons and Dragons. Evil paladins? Seriously? That makes Gary Gygax spin in his grave and the man isn't even dead. It's not because it doesn't make sense, it's just because that's not what a paladin is in D&D. And that's the problem with all of these "fluff" changes.
Passing 4E off as D&D is like trying to force yourself into seeing "Galactica 1980" as "Battlestar Galactica". Sure, some of the names were the same, but the heart of it wasn't.
(For those of you who remember "Galactica 1980", you'll understand when I say that the producers of the series probably thought that their fan base would think flying motorcycles were"cool", too.)
In twenty years D&D will rock again. Because no matter how tragically you screw something up in a desperate attempt to create a new fan base (or pander to one you imagine already exists), the classics never die.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Great, now you really don't need to work together as a team because you can heal yourself even as a fighter! Just find a hapless goblin and use your biggest maneuver on it to heal yourself! "Boy, smashing the hell out of critters sure does make me feel better!"....What?!?! How is this not just seen as ridiculous?
That made me laugh.
Going to start a thread on how spells/powers work in the 3x section because of it, but yeah that still bugs me. At least White Raven had a divine aspect in its healing still.
Heathanson, to review the book would require me to buy it. :-(
|
|
Evil paladins? Seriously? That makes Gary Gygax spin in his grave and the man isn't even dead. It's not because it doesn't make sense, it's just because that's not what a paladin is in D&D. And that's the problem with all of these "fluff" changes.
IconoclasticScream, please.
We've had anti-paladins since the '80s. It ain't no thang.
I've got plenty of doubts and quibbles and concerns about the specifics announced for 4E (and the general need for 4E and the breathtaking lack of communicative writing skill exhibited by the design team), but unholy champions have been around for decades.
Paladin's gotta eat, too.
|
|
Or should professions act more like languages: once you get the background, you're presumed competent?
I think that this is a fantastic idea. It would allow a PC to then use all of the other skills in that area of expertise. So profession:sailor could use survival to navigate, spot to avoid running aground, etc. It would mean that the skills would need to be general enough to be applied to various professions.
Hmmmm. Professions as context - I like it.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
Or should professions act more like languages: once you get the background, you're presumed competent?
Must ... suppress ... urge to ... rant ... against how languages are gained in D&D! ...
dothedesignersofthisgameknowhowharditistolearnalanguagethatisradicallydiffe rentfromyourown? thisgamemusthavebeendesignedbymonolingualamericans. theassumptionseemstobedon'tworryeveryonewillspeakyourlanguageandifyoureally wanttoitcan'tbethathardtolearntheirs!!
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Hi, Tarren. (laughs)
I think the linguistics rules are written as they are because so many fantasy characters are rich polyglots; even "brutes" like Conan or Fafhrd speak several languages.
It might be fun for an elf and a human to find each others' language incomprehensible, once. It might be a fun story hook that the PC's misinterpret a patron's idiomatic instructions, once. But it gets old fast. So, characters can learn languages quickly.
Has anybody here actually run RuneQuest with the language rules (which, as Murphy's Rules pointed out, allow two simple native speakers in a market to misunderstand one another 30% of the time)?
(The James Bond rules were invoked earlier in the thread. For similar reasons, that game's designers presume that all the characters can read and speak most every language they run across.)
"But when was the last time you saw a PC make a profession check that has a usefull impact on the game? (Hint: If it was recently, your game is proablity not as much fun as D&D should be. Sorry)"Well crap! Now they tell me.** spoiler omitted **
Wizards of the Cost? That's better than my uGleemax(tm)!
I think your average barbarian could very much shows signs of polyglotification (it's a word, look it up). If you were in a fantasy realm and people spoke sixteen different languages within a five day ride, it makes sense you'd pick up a smattering of all of them through mere exposure, not to mention as a way of getting by better in the world. When I hung out with a Hungarian friend I, through osmosis, began speaking it with no actual attempt to learn. One day, while staring down at my plate, I just understood his mother asking for a napkin and passed it to her. Everybody was stunned. Same happened with a Norwegian friend... a Chinese friend... A Russian friend... et al...
Okay. It's not really a word. <:) And did I just accidentally suggest that if I could do it a barbarian could do it? How's that for self-esteem on the ropes, folks?
"My mother was a pure woman from a noble family. And I, at least, know who my father is, you pig-eating son of a whore!"
13TH WARRIOR quote. Nobody trip.
Perfect film to illustrate the point. The way Antonio just suddenly got it... that's very much what it was like for me.
|
|
Clearly with 4E the developers are focusing on the tabletop ROLLplaying functionality of the system (the mechanics). They are essentially throwing all other mechanics out for the sake of "balancing" the classes/races/monsters etc. This doesn't necessarily mean they will NEVER approach non-combat mechanics.
The problem with skills in 3E is not that there exists a Profession skill. The problem is that such a skill competes with skills such as Spot. Even then, its not a problem in so far as a player can always choose NOT to take profession. The problem arises when the skill lists of each class is used as a balancing factor. Class balance is very important in regards to combat. In regards to roleplaying, it simply is not important whether or not one character is better at non-combat-ish skills than another.
However, to flip the coin: Adjudicating whether or not a character is successful at gambling SHOULD be done via some mechanic otherwise you end up with DM fiat. This is essentially why you see such skills in the first place. Profession wasn't a skill randomly thrown in. People have been trying to develop a decent skill system for these sorts of tasks in a roleplaying game for years. Throwing them out doesn't change the fact that there is a NEED for them in the community.
I fully expect to see a 4E splatbook called "Wizards Presents: Skills" that details how to implement and use skills such as profession at some later date. They would be foolish not to; 3rd party publishers will certainly do it (hint to 3rd party publishers: If such non-combat skills are missing form PHB1 and DMG1 get on it asap).
I think we should look at 4E and the first set of books much like the OD&D "red box". It'll get us started and playing. It wasn't until the "companion" book iirc that we got to branch out into "prestige classes" and new mechanics like "wrestling".
Combat is the core of D&D. Rollplayers like combat for combats sake, ROLEplayers like combat when it has purpose to the story, but I can't imagine a D&D game without ANY COMBAT EVER. Its also the most rules-heavy portion of the game.
I am personally nervous about the fact that 4E is looking "ALL-COMBAT-ALL-THE-TIME" (This is hyperbole, please do not take literally). But I do believe that later "releases" will broaden the game into more roleplaying elements.
One of the successful 3.5 "experiments" into 4E are things like Organizations, flaws, traits, D&D business, all of which were found in the highly successful 3.5 PHB II. I do not think WotC has thrown that out. Its just not something being offered initially and hopefully, will show up sooner (ie BEFORE PHB II etc) than later.
When I hung out with a Hungarian friend I, through osmosis, began speaking it with no actual attempt to learn.
You're one talented guy. I spend a month in there TRYING to learn the language even a little bit, and learned only to say hi and ask for beer. And the language is even supposed to be close to finnish...
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
You're one talented guy. I spend a month in there TRYING to learn the language even a little bit, and learned only to say hi and ask for beer. And the language is even supposed to be close to finnish...When I hung out with a Hungarian friend I, through osmosis, began speaking it with no actual attempt to learn.
I think that languages should be more expensive to acquire than they are at present and I think that the background of the character should be at least invoked when adding languages. Antonio, at least, was travelling and learnt through exposure.
That being said, how many PCs would bother learning languages and how fast would it get old? Maybe I will houserule a certain number of points/level that can only be put into certain skill areas: profession, speak language ... what else?
Instead of just cutting profession or making speak language minimally expensive, why not establish a pool of skill points only for certain areas?
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Well Salama, I'm Finnished trying to learn languages, I apparently have a block. Can't even learn Spanish for booting up cold!.
Profession skills do cross over with other skills, but in limited circumstances. Just like Knowledge (Nature) and Survival basically tell you if that berry is safe to eat. Watch Survivorman, and try to tell when he's using Knowledge instead of Survival.
To use Profession (Gambling) as an example, it can cross over into other things.
Now outside of the context of gaming, that profession isn't going to help me see the hidden gnome, block that feint leading to the sneak attack, tell the guard that I'm not the druid he's looking for, cow the ogre, or allow me to slip the noble's necklace off his neck.
A high level rogue can use Spot, Bluff, Etc. to play poker along with the best of them, but he also can use those skills outside the table. the guy with profession, can't.
Well Salama, I'm Finnished trying to learn languages, I apparently have a block. Can't even learn Spanish for booting up cold!.
Well, I think I'll also stick with trying to make my english understandable =).
I haven't actually used craft or profession very much in my games, but this thread has some good ideas and I think I'm going to use some of them in my next campaign. Maybe there are some good professions for Curse of the crimson throne that player's would like to take...
I've finally figured out what WotC's been trying to tell us when it comes to us and our silly 3.5 games...
Knowledge (monster).Is that a 3.0 skill? I never played 3.0, but I know that's not a skill in 3.5.Sorta.
Its not in the 3.0 PH but it is in the Kalamar Players Guide which ostensibly had the WotC seal of approval.
Don't have the 3.5 PH, I use the SRD for 3.5. But the 3.0 PH basically suggested you could create (with DM approval) any number of Knowledge skills. The KPG thus lists several possible Knowledge skills and their uses. Knowledge (monster) was one my son liked a lot as it allowed you to identify monsters and on a good skill check know their weaknesses, habits, etc.
Of more interest to me personally in the KPG was the many crafts and professions listed as possibilities for a character to possess.
I used to put Knowledge (Dungeoneering) and Knowledge (Monsters) into one skill. Unless the monster lived above the surface then it was Knowledge (Nature). For monsters that were found frequently on both sides, I allowed either to work.
I also mashed Craft and Profession together when it made sense. Like Craft (Woodworking) and Profession (Carpentry). Didn't seem to make sense to demand that someone spend points to have both when they basically meant the same thing.
I think that languages should be more expensive to acquire than they are at present and I think that the background of the character should be at least invoked when adding languages. Antonio, at least, was travelling and learnt through exposure.
In addition to D&D I also run Mutants and Masterminds which I am sure you are aware is d20 related.
In the basic rules for the game, languages (like all skills), cost 1 point each.
However, in the Masterminds Manual it suggests you have 4 ranks in each language.
Rank 1 is the basics. Asking for a beer and other simple phrases.
Rank 2 is described as fair fluency
Rank 3 is good fluency
Rank 4 is totally fluent with no discernable accent.
I think it would work well for D&D languages too.
Rank 4 in your native tongue and any special languages (Druidic etc.)
And perhaps rank 2 in other 'Bonus languages' with the option to buy them up for greater fluency.
|
Owner - Johnny Scott Comics and Games
|
My dude in Searn's PBP is a sorcerer who likes to sing (ranks in singing)! He sings his verbal components and puts together Dio-esque lyrics in praise to his god. Does it give him a modifier in combat? No. But it shows who he is and helps me get into his character.
Guess I don't know how to have fun, I better take some lessons from WotC, they would never steer me wrong!This is why I constantly have to make saves against crushing people's head on a daily basis. Arrogant f**ks.
Dio RULES!!
WotC just doesn't get it. The way their current marketing campaign is going, it'll be interesting to see if:
1) They completely alienate their current customer base.
2) They fail to draw in their target demographic due to a lack of graphics/shiny stuff.
Lock up the wolves...
All I can think of is Ronny James Dio. The short heavy metal guy.