This thread is is for 3.5 only although I suppose it could relate to any edition.
I'm wondering if MY group is the only one that suffers from charecters that are supposed to have a specific job/skill within the group and DON'T!
My prime example is a cleric with no knowlegde religion or a druid that has no ranks in knowledge nature. Mages that have no knowledge arcana or rouges that cant bluff.
Honestly it reminds me of second edition where you could pick and chose your racial abilities so that not every dwarf had stone cunning or not every elf was good with a bow. To me it just seems silly that if your charecter is supposed to focus on something and the rest of the group needs taht skill why wouldn't you?
Has anyone else encountered charecters like this?
I think a lot of it pertains to the types of games being played. If the DM doesn't call for skill checks a lot, or doesn't give out good information when people use them, most folks will use those skill points in other areas.
I know when I run a game people best bring their Perception and Knowledge skills to the table, or they will be real sorry. But I've played with other DMs where these skills don't come up much.
|
I think it has to do with character concept as well. I agree that every cleric should have at least a few ranks in Knowledge: Religion and every wizard should have a few ranks in Knowledge: Arcana if for no other reason then to reflect your training and background. However, if you are playing an urban druid, Knowledge: Local might be more appropriate then Knowledge: Nature. Likewise a rogue who is a total thug might not be able to bluff his way out of a paper bag but he might have very high ranks in Intimidate.
Has anyone else encountered charecters like this?
If by "encountered", you mean "created and played", then yes. :-)
Why should every rogue have Bluff, may I ask?
I rarely run pre-published adventures, so this is a non-issue for me. That is not to say you are 'doing it wrong' or an attempt to invalidate your concerns. I am merely trying to put forth a different perspective.
I create my adventures around the PCs. So if I have a party of fighters, then the adventure generally works for a party of fighters. That does not mean that they never face situations they are not equipped to deal with. These situations force the players to come up with alternate solutions.
Also, I usually do not have set pieces. I come up with a general situation that the PCs must react to. The PCs actions determines what happens next. This requires a great deal more improvisation on my part (less pre-game prep though), but I believe is it more rewarding for the players. They are free to avoid whatever encounters they can reasonably avoid without me feeling I wasted hours preparing for them to face off with the BBEG lieutenant. They do not have to have a Cleric because they are not going to take X damage on average per game. Their characters are more invested in the situation because it literally revolves around them with strong ties than Patron X hired us to do Y.
Now, as to your issue, I would say let the cards fall where they may. Let the characters deal with the consequences. They might just surprise you with alternate solutions. And I would add, please do not penalize them when they do so. Let their crazy schemes work. The alternative is to bog the adventure down, and that is bad for everyone.
We once had a "Bard"(I use the term loosely) who never used Bardic Music, cast a bunch of oddball spells, and just overall was terrible at being a Bard...
Turns out it wasn't a Bard at all. It was a Rakshasa in disguise, who used the players as part of a component of resurrecting a dark god and opening a massive gate to a layer of Hell. Here we thought we were completing some goal to help save the world, and we end up ending it. Hell of a RP session though :)
The player had gotten with the DM ahead of timed and planned this all out. Needless to say, after the big reveal, the player played a different character and the "Bard" became the major villain of the campaign. The next major story arc involved us chasing down and having a final battle with this Rakshasa. Turned out really well.
Some characters cannot spare the skill ranks for the Knowledge skills - I have had many clerics that did not bother with it - they needed Concentration, Heal and Spellcraft to do their 'thing'. The basic tasks of performing clerical duties falls in the DC 10 or less range any way.
Is disappointed to find that he filled-in the blanks wrong, and there is no business to be had here.
Some characters cannot spare the skill ranks for the Knowledge skills - I have had many clerics that did not bother with it - they needed Concentration, Heal and Spellcraft to do their 'thing'. The basic tasks of performing clerical duties falls in the DC 10 or less range any way.
Seconded. I don't think I've run a cleric in all of 3.x (mostly I DM), but all characters get pathetically few skill ranks.
One way to fix that is to make a skill work like a class ability. All Clerics roll their level + 3 in Knowledge (religion) instead of allocating skill points.
Druids get Knowledge (Nature) same way. Wizards get arcana. Any others?
For Pathfinder rules purposes, you actually should make that skill points instead of "can roll as if..." otherwise someone could multiclass cleric/wizard and get +6 (3 for it being a class ability, 3 for it being a class skill).
In my group there is a cleric with only one rank in knowledge religion. She chose leadership and has as cohort an expert who is knowledgeable in all kinds of subjects. This cohort is the information source for the group and all his feats are used for boosting his knowledge skills.
The player has come up with this idea. So there are creative ways of getting around this problem.
I have seen some of this before, but usually as Court Fool and others say, there's ways around the problem. Knowledge skills can be fun and very useful, but if someone doesn't have them--then they learn the hard way, try another tack. If it really seems to be a huge problem, if it's appropriate, the DM could perhaps allow a different, related Knowledge check at a higher DC.
For example, say you need to make a Knowledge: Religion check to identify a certain kind of undead. But your party cleric wasn't actually a trained priest, he just woke up with a mission from god and thus doesn't actually know about the church's teachings on unholy horrors. But maybe, he's got knowledge: arcana. An undead is created by arcane energies, maybe the cleric can approach it from the perspective of--where does a creature like this come from, who makes it, etc. Let them substitute in that check at a +4 to the DC for stretching a little outside the domain--but they still have a chance of contributing useful information.
And it's unfair to expect people to take skills they don't want/don't think is appropriate to their character concept. While no, people should not build their characters to specifically be useless, the point of having all these skills and feats is so we can build the character we choose to play, not the character someone else expects of us. There's only so many skill points to go around. Back to the example of the "cleric" who isn't actually a priest... okay, so he can't help with Knowledge: Religion, but he put those points somewhere. Maybe he can't ID the undead or recall a holy text, but he might well be a godsend when his Knowledge: Planes comes in handy to ID the devil and tell the party what bypasses its damage reduction.
Even rogues with their plethora of skill points need to focus. You usually can't be an effective con-artist/detective/thief/acrobat/performer/dungeoneer all at once. You usually pick a few things you're good at and try to specialize. One rogue may suck at picking locks--but he probably talked the party out of trouble just an hour ago. Another rogue disables traps incredibly, but where she's nimble with her hands she might not be so nimble with her tongue.
Both GM and players need to learn to be flexible, and need to learn to use what assets they have at hand rather than lament what they lack.
…the point of having all these skills and feats is so we can build the character we choose to play, not the character someone else expects of us.
I think you have just uncovered why I hate Class based systems so much.
OK I can see all of your points and maybe I am simply being just a little narrow in my focus.
However when the player thats playing the party druid spent all his points on disable device, search, spot and listen and other rouge skills but he dosnt want to take an actual level in rouge so he can be good at them because it would mess up his spell progression thats what I find so far fetched.
My wizard is good at religion anyway because my DM allows the Book of Vile Darkness sacrafice rules. I guess I'm just gonna have to boost my INT to ungodly levels and call it good.
Thanks for the input at least I know my group isn't the only ones that do stuff like this.
I'm wondering if MY group is the only one that suffers from charecters that are supposed to have a specific job/skill within the group and DON'T!
Yes. Usually, when we go for a certain job/skill, we make sure we have it.
My prime example is a cleric with no knowlegde religion
Does not compute. Did you go for a cleric or a theologist?
I say you don't need to have knowledge ranks to know the basic tenets of your own faith, and you get the usual rituals and festivities right. It's not for the high priest, but clerics aren't cloistered monks, they're really divine champions.
or a druid that has no ranks in knowledge nature.
So the druid doesn't know much of the academic trivia about nature. You don't need ranks in knowledge nature to know simple stuff like the circle of life or how to not violate nature. Survival is about getting around in the wilderness....
Mages that have no knowledge arcana or rouges that cant bluff.
Well, a wizard (let's use the classes' official names - otherwise some could assume that "mage" means "wizard or sorcere") without knowledge skills is seen rarely, but knowledge arcana isn't really about spells, so they don't really need it to be wizards. All they need to be wizards is knowing what words and gestures will make enemies go up in flames.
And rogues that can't bluff are perfectly viable. Not all rogues are swindlers or feinters.
Neither do they need to have Stealth, or Disable Device, or Acrobatics, or Sleight of Hand, or anything.
To me it just seems silly that if your charecter is supposed to focus on something and the rest of the group needs taht skill why wouldn't you?
The problem lies with your false assumptions: People play characters. They play roles. Not classes with "standard skillings" or anything like that.
A character's focus is up to the player. If the party thinks they need someone who can bluff or tell a daffodil from a carnation, they need to sit down, talk, and decide who will cover that angle.
Doesn't need to be the obvious choice, either.
Has anyone else encountered charecters like this?
However when the player thats playing the party druid spent all his points on disable device, search, spot and listen and other rouge skills but he dosnt want to take an actual level in rouge so he can be good at them because it would mess up his spell progression thats what I find so far fetched.
Why? So he choose to be the best he can be at druid magic and wildshape and other druid class abilities and for that decided to not go for maximum possible skill bonuses.
(By the way, rouge is stuff you put on your cheeks - or maybe not you, but a certain kind of woman. It's also red in french) :,P
My wizard is good at religion anyway because my DM allows the Book of Vile Darkness sacrafice rules.
So you think you should get some awesome power for everything you sink points into?
That's called powergaming. Nothing inherently wrong with it, but it's not for everyone.
I can see his point. A one level dip in Rogue would hurt his spell progression…and his BAB too, if I am not mistaken. In my opinion, multiclassing in D&D is far from elegant.
Is it robust?
Yes, but a Fighter/Rogue/Wizard would pretty much be useless...in my opinion.
Fighter 1 / Wizard 1 is viable.
Fighter 10 / Wizard 10, not so much.
In my opinion, multiclassing in D&D is far from elegant.It doesn't require a degree in advanced math though.
It does require a degree in D&D though. How do you calculate BAB and Saves? Which Skills are considered Class Skills at which point? When do you get an ability bonus? Which Classes stack with Caster Level? Ect.
I understand it was just a friendly snipe, and I do appreciate that. Honestly, though, the only reason D&D is 'simpler' is because people are more familiar with it. To a n00b, it is just as complicated.
|
Is it robust?Yes, but a Fighter/Rogue/Wizard would pretty much be useless...in my opinion.
Fighter 1 / Wizard 1 is viable.
Fighter 10 / Wizard 10, not so much.
Multi-classing is indeed a strategic undertaking in 3.5e unless you want an absolutely useless character. One of those "yep 3.5e ultimate freedom to make a character you want". Only what they don't tell you is you have 16,000 combinations that will suck in game and only a handful that will work (in game).
Multi-classing is a nice idea but in practise it usually only hurts your ability to function that the level of a single classed PC.
S.
|
|
In my opinion, multiclassing in D&D is far from elegant.It doesn't require a degree in advanced math though.It does require a degree in D&D though. How do you calculate BAB and Saves? Which Skills are considered Class Skills at which point? When do you get an ability bonus? Which Classes stack with Caster Level? Ect.
I understand it was just a friendly snipe, and I do appreciate that. Honestly, though, the only reason D&D is 'simpler' is because people are more familiar with it. To a n00b, it is just as complicated.
I agree, the first time I finally decided to role up a character for 3.5 it took me about four hours and the help of a well-connected gentleman who I will not name at this time. Now I have it down to about 20 minutes and if it's a first level character I may not even need the book.
I'm sure I would agree too, if I understood the comment. D&D is simpler than... what, exactly?
I'm sure I would agree too, if I understood the comment. D&D is simpler than... what, exactly?
David was making a reference to Hero.
Assuming classic backgrounds, I mandate that a cleric/druid/wizard will have at minimum 1 rank in Spellcraft and their appropriate Knowledge skill. You cannot spend years learning about your god or studying in class without picking up enough knowledge to be considered trained in the subject.
However when the player thats playing the party druid spent all his points on disable device, search, spot and listen and other rouge skills but he dosnt want to take an actual level in rouge so he can be good at them because it would mess up his spell progression thats what I find so far fetched.Why? So he choose to be the best he can be at druid magic and wildshape and other druid class abilities and for that decided to not go for maximum possible skill bonuses.
(By the way, rouge is stuff you put on your cheeks - or maybe not you, but a certain kind of woman. It's also red in french) :,P
My wizard is good at religion anyway because my DM allows the Book of Vile Darkness sacrafice rules.So you think you should get some awesome power for everything you sink points into?
That's called powergaming. Nothing inherently wrong with it, but it's not for everyone.
Ok again I can see your point about power gameing and yes it is MY fault I think that everyone is a power gamer and it just drives me to distraction when I am confronted with a non-power gamer.
Thanks for pointing out the misspelling I didnt even notice it.
Yes, I do happen to think I should get awesome power for everything I sink points into otherwise why do it?
No sarcasm is intended with this reply I am in no way trying to be snarky, as I was rereading my response I relised it could be taken that way as print cant infer inflection so I just wanted to point it out to avoid any misunderstanding.
I am just gonna have to realise that if we need to know anything then it's up to my charecter to be "that" guy.
Ok again I can see your point about power gameing and yes it is MY fault I think that everyone is a power gamer and it just drives me to distraction when I am confronted with a non-power gamer.
My sympathies for your loss.
Is it robust?Yes, but a Fighter/Rogue/Wizard would pretty much be useless...in my opinion.
Fighter 1 / Wizard 1 is viable.
Fighter 10 / Wizard 10, not so much.
He may not have tremendous cosmic power, but I have a Fighter 7/Wizard 8/Divine Champion 2/Arcane Devotee 2 of Mystra that would disagree wholeheartedly with you, and knock down any spell you throw at him (he specializes in counterspelling and dispelling magic).
When you can take out a drow wizard (somewhere around 17th or 18th level) IN the tower of magic single handedly, and get out without being detected, I'd say it's pretty viable.
Mr. Fishy feels this problem could be easily resolved with the use of a stick. Beat them until they play the way you told them to. Or they may start "talking" to NPCs and thinking, god help you if they start thinking.
Some times you just have to pull rank. Requiring trained characters to be trained isn't too heavy unless you get Nazi on them. 1 rank in a skill that is considered a "class" skill isn't too much to ask.
Or you could give mages and cleric 1 free rank in Knowledge Arcana or Religion to represent training in the basic tenents of the faith or school of wizardry. 1 Rank isn't game breaking and you players think they're getting something. If the fighters and rogues whine give them craft weaponsmith and craft traps.
Or the stick. Mr. Fishy prefers the stick.
Would that be a fish stick?
Or the stick. Mr. Fishy prefers the stick.
No, Fish Stick is a very sad and retarded little fish. See the Mr. Fishy fan club for proof. Though, now that ZombieFish think about it, it does answer a lot if they were the same. ZombieFish needs more brains to answer... Will you give ZombieFish brains?
After nearly 30 years of playing DnD, one does tend to get a little jaded. I am guilty of making up characters that go against type. Sometimes _really_ against type. Though not nearly so bad as the firend who made up a migrant worker (with skill points in tomato-picking) Jedi who did not believe in the Force, but occasionally funky things would happen around him.
When I do do something really odd, I make sure my DM knows and understands where it's coming from. Good DMs love players with expansive backgrounds, and I even occasionally put in blatant begging plot hooks, just to ensure there is always something to do in game.
Perversely, just because the DM knows doesn't mean my fellow players should know. Sometimes the "reveal" in-character is really fun. But I also expect that for every backgroundheavy character there is a power-twink-extreme-doritos-and-mt.dew character, as well as an utterly inept character (player?).
Has anyone else encountered charecters like this?
Once. That player was laughed at so hard by everyone that it's never happened again in our group.
Maybe not odd, but I had a 2e thief who never put a point in pick pockets. In game justification was that picking pockets was beneath him.
I wholeheartedly agree with making a thief with no points in Pick Pockets. Thieves/Rogues are valuable for finding traps and secret doors and treasures, for opening locks, and for hiding - particularly in conjunction with the backstab / sneak attack ability. Picking pockets isn't nearly so useful in a traditional "Kill the monsters in the dungeon" adventure, and can do more harm than good in a town.
Maybe not odd, but I had a 2e thief who never put a point in pick pockets. In game justification was that picking pockets was beneath him.I wholeheartedly agree with making a thief with no points in Pick Pockets. Thieves/Rogues are valuable for finding traps and secret doors and treasures, for opening locks, and for hiding - particularly in conjunction with the backstab / sneak attack ability. Picking pockets isn't nearly so useful in a traditional "Kill the monsters in the dungeon" adventure, and can do more harm than good in a town.
I've seen and played plenty of rogues that don't put anything into dissable device, perception, sneak, or some other iconic class feature of the rogue and still work fine and well within the confines of the class. Rogue is perhaps the most versatile class in this regard, and what you learn depends on what you expect to do. If I make a face, I'm not nessarilly going to put anything into opening locks or disarming traps, even if that is what my class normally does.
And come to think of it, my previous post relates to the OP's point. Why does my cleric put no points into Knowledge (Religion), or my wizard no points in Knowledge (Arcana)? (I create such characters all the time.) Because those skills just aren't USED as often. So many adventures have encounters along the lines of "Make a Climb check; if you fail you break your neck. Whoops! You should have put more ranks into Climb, fool!" So my characters who DO choose appropriate skills soon die, and the ones with more important, though less appropriate, skills survive.
And I can easily imagine a cleric with no knowledge of religion. "No, I never learned Latin, but I feel the presence of God. THAT'S what matters."
Why does this wizard have no knowledge of arcana? Maybe for the same reason an expert in computer networking might have no knowledge of old programming languages. Maybe "arcana" is such a wide-ranging set of fields, that you can study certain aspects of it for many years without touching upon most of them.
With a little thought, you can justify these decisions.
Now, a HIGH-LEVEL character, with many skill points, can afford to put a few into less important skills. This is occasionally rewarding. "Hey - how about that? I actually managed to USE that skill!" But for low level characters, such a decision can be fatal.
I've seen and played plenty of rogues that don't put anything into dissable device, perception, sneak, or some other iconic class feature of the rogue and still work fine and well within the confines of the class. Rogue is perhaps the most versatile class in this regard, and what you learn depends on what you expect to do. If I make a face, I'm not nessarilly going to put anything into opening locks or disarming traps, even if that is what my class normally does.
That's fine, so long as the player has fun with it. I'm speaking as someone who detests playing rogues, but who gets bitten time and again with the "Whoops! You got poisoned with another trap! What's the matter - can't you find the secret door that's necessary to complete the adventure? What - can't you open the lock to the dungeon? Then you'll need to hire an NPC thief and hope he doesn't pick your pocket!" syndrome. That's the only reason I would ever play a rogue (unless it's a PIXIE rogue...)
But if you ENJOY playing an unconventional rogue, knock yourself out.
Where is the line to be drawn between what a player wants to play and the type of campaign the GM wants to run?
Where is the line to be drawn between what a player wants to play and the type of campaign the GM wants to run?
In Soviet Russia, game runs you!
|
|
I once had a character back the the 2E - Skills and Powers/Combat & Tactics supplement era that looked and acted a lot like a thief (rogue), but class-wise was a fighter.
He was designed to take advantage of every AC bonus you could get for not wearing armor, and he specialized in fighting only with a dagger.
Conceptually, he was a street thug/mugger who was trying to become a little more honest (adventuring instead of mugging).
He was a problem for the party, though, because he wasn't really the "stand in the gap and absorb damage" kind of fighter, and he had none of the skills that makes a thief useful, either.
He was good at running around in combat, not getting hit, and stabbing enemies repeatedly for small amounts of damage-per-hit.
|
|
Where is the line to be drawn between what a player wants to play and the type of campaign the GM wants to run?
Usually, what I do is sit down with my players and tell them the kind of game I want to run, then ask them what types of characters they want to play. Then while they are making the characters, I sit down and rework my campaign idea to fit the characters.
There have been a few times where one of my players wants to play something that really does not fit in my campaign. I had one player that frequently wanted to play Toon instead of whatever it was I wanted to run. And I have had the one player who wanted to play a Jedi in a Fantasy campaign.
Unfortunately, in most of the games I have been a player in there has not been any discussion with the players about the type of campaign or even aspects of the game they would enjoy. It was pretty much the GM's way or the highway.
I learned a long time ago that that is a sure trip to an abrupt end of your campaign.
I have seen some grey beards who like to 'hold court' before a gaggle of high school kids too naïve to know there are other styles.
Unfortunately, in most of the games I have been a player in there has not been any discussion with the players about the type of campaign or even aspects of the game they would enjoy. It was pretty much the GM's way or the highway.
Unfortunate, I suppose... but right and proper since we don't live in a perfect world, and the GM is not made of time nor the players' dancing monkey. But...
The GM is under no obligation to do any more work than he/she wants to do. (Now, of course, there are consequences to that - if the DM doesn't put in just enough work to satisfy his/her players, then the game is pretty much done. So, indeed - use 'my way or the highway' only if the players choosing 'highway' really is a viable option the DM is willing to accept.)
What I, personally, do is ask my players what type of game they are interested in. We have a discussion, and I expect my players to come to a consensus and then present to me some options of what type of game they want to play and can all agree upon. (It's all less formal than it sounds, of course.)
At that point, I then tell them yay or nay to their idea(s), based on how much work I'm interested in doing, and if any of the ideas are even interesting to me (I'm in it for my fun too, and I'm not, as I mentinoed above, their dancing monkey). If I say "no", I tell them if they want to play such a campaign, then one of them can DM - I won't be doing so. I may or may not be a player depending on if the idea is interesting to me.
In the end, I only DM something that I'm interested in. Period. Full stop. I'm not made of time. (The good thing for us is that all my players are interested in the same things I am. Yay me.)
So, that answers your question - for our group - as to "where is the line drawn".