|
Consider the fairly common fantasy story cliche of the greatest [insert career here] in the land. For my example I'll use blacksmith. Using d20 rules, this character would need a large number of ranks in Craft (Weaponsmithing). But in order to do this, the characater would need an equally large number of levels. So we have a very high (perhaps even epic-level) commoner. To add to the silliness, this commoner is a better combatant than a medium-low to mid-level fighter, simply because his BAB and HD have grown with his level. d20 is horrible with normal people who excell in their chosen fields, because they all become amazingly tough. A king would be better off sending his epic-level palace staff out as shock troops then the pitiful knights they would replace. A Master Cobbler could pop off on the weekends to slay a tribe of giants, and still be back in time to make a pair of masterwork loafers.
Monster creation rules are likewise overly codified. Once you pick a monster type and a desired CR, you've pretty much roped in the amount of skill points and feats you get to select from.
So I have a couple of questions, one for the Paizo staff and contributers, and one general question for all of the teeming masses:
1. For Paizo: Let's say I submitted an adventure, for use a PFS scenario, or even a full module. If it contained monsters or NPCs that broke the rules, such as a 1st level commoner with 32 ranks in Craft (Weaponsmithing), or a odd creature from the Dark Tapestry that broke most of the monster creation rules, would that result in an automatic rejection or a strong inclination for rejection? Or would you still put it in the "to be considered" pile?
2. For the teeming masses: Agree/disagree? What are your thoughts on how d20 can be over-codified at times?
Nitpick: You aren't talking about d20. You're talking about a specific iteration of D&D.
True. But many other branches of d20 also suffer from this problem. It realy depends on how much of the SRD they ported without making these types of changes.
You have cited the thing I have hated most about d&d. Because everything is tied to level, it becomes impossible to get experts who aren't high level. It really irks me sometimes, especially when I want to play that epic level crafter who doesn't know how to fight.
I think it is more a miss-perception that you aren't the best at something unless you are the highest level. Take a look at the Knowledge & Crafting section of this gent's article. He talks a lot about this issue and I agree with him that there is no reason that the greatest blacksmith in the land is any higher than 5th or 6th level.
|
You have cited the thing I have hated most about d&d. Because everything is tied to level, it becomes impossible to get experts who aren't high level. It really irks me sometimes, especially when I want to play that epic level crafter who doesn't know how to fight.
+1. I'm going to have to check out Fantasy Craft a bit more. I only recently have even heard of it.
There are several issues with thinking d20 is too codified.
First off is the "20th level Commoner" issue that has been brought up and shot down a lot over the years. The short of the argument that shots this down is that, basically, the best NPC craftsmen in the world are in truth only about level 3-5. With Skill Focus, Craft as a class skill, and an Int of 14 you'd looking at a Craft check at +11 at least. That person can crank out Martial weapons on a 4 or better, and only needs a 9 or better to hit Masterwork. This person can even create magic items by picking up the Master Craftsman feat. Having more than 11 ranks in Craft (plus the assumed options above) means the person can never fail to make Masterwork items, so the best weaponsmith in the world wouldn't have to be higher than 11th level, and he probably should be a pretty impressive fellow... Summary: NPCs rarely have to be higher than 5th level, most players/GMs just assume they do because the PCs go up to 20th level.
EDIT: Ninja'd a bit, but now you've got a summary of the argument...
Next up, check out The Most Important Rule for Pathfinder. Basically stated, the rules are a framework to help balance things. When they don't fit your game, change them. If you are writing a scenario, however, don't change the rules unless the story/concept really requires it and you consider what the change will do to any game balance.
For monsters, the first sentence in Monster Creation states, "Creating a monster is part science and part art." Combined with The Most Important Rule, this means as a DM you don't have to follow the rules if it doesn't match the concept. Want different skill points? Give the new creature a "Highly Skilled" or "Skill Deficient" racial trait that modifies the skill point total.
In summary, I absolutely do not find d20 over-codified, and indeed it has supported my gaming style better than any other system I've used in the past 25+ years. It's "crunchy" enough to give solid mechanics, but flexible enough to bend without breaking when necessary. The key is keeping the fun of the game in mind, then working the rules around that.
What I get from the original post is that not only the level needed per se is what he sees as bad, but that the master craftsman also is a not-too-bad fighter, which is not warranted with his craft. I could imagine that a weaponsmith slowly advances in levels as the gets more experienced - but why the hell should his BAB and hp get any better from smithing?
Stefan
Next up, check out The Most Important Rule for Pathfinder. Basically stated, the rules are a framework to help balance things. When they don't fit your game, change them. If you are writing a scenario, however, don't change the rules unless the story/concept really requires it and you consider what the change will do to any game balance.
Right, but for a Pathfinder Society scenario, you should better stick to the RAW, I guess. Then it might be a problem.
Stefan
It depends on just what you mean by "expert" at something. Most mundane professions don't need ridiculously high skills in order to excel at them.
A 1st level blacksmith (assumign the expert class), with 1 rank in his craft skill and a decent intelligence (say a +2 for his modifier), is looking at a +6, if he takes skill focus (which he should) his mod at 1st level goes up to +9. That's not doing too bad considering he now only needs to throw an 11 in order to make something masterwork. Add in his staff of apprentices and he's getting at least another +2 to his checks.
Make him a 5th level blacksmith and you can add 4 more skill ranks, maybe another +1 from intelligence, and he can take the master craftsman feat and make magic items. He's routinely taking 10 to make masterwork items.
For my money, having a truly expert (as in legendary) craftsman with up to 10 or more levels is perfectly fine to me anyway. They aren't going to really reach legendary status without being more resilient than your average craftsman. But lower levels is usually sufficient for most requirements.
There's a good essay on this here: The Alexandrian. Scroll down to the section on "Knowledge and Crafting".
What I get from the original post is that not only the level needed per se is what he sees as bad, but that the master craftsman also is a not-too-bad fighter, which is not warranted with his craft. I could imagine that a weaponsmith slowly advances in levels as the gets more experienced - but why the hell should his BAB and hp get any better from smithing?
Stefan
For a weapon-smith specifically, he's been swinging a big hammer over molten steel for years, and understands his creations enough to use them. At 5th level, he's going to have a +2 or +3 BAB at best, and around 15-20 HP. That sounds right too me.
It gets weirder for a "Master Weaver" or some such, but there all you have to do is give the character a 9 in Str and Con. Or better yet, just ignore the combat mechanics entirely if the Master Weaver is never going to be relevant in combat (having a +3 Attack does not mean Mawmaw wants to take up a sword against the gnolls).
Don't let the rules control the game. The GM controls the game.
Next up, check out The Most Important Rule for Pathfinder. Basically stated, the rules are a framework to help balance things. When they don't fit your game, change them. If you are writing a scenario, however, don't change the rules unless the story/concept really requires it and you consider what the change will do to any game balance.
Right, but for a Pathfinder Society scenario, you should better stick to the RAW, I guess. Then it might be a problem.
Stefan
I've written scenarios for organized play (RPGA, not PFS) that introduced new mechanics to handle something not covered by the rules. I found that as long as the mechanics were solid, there was no problem. I cannot say for sure that the same would hold for PFS, but I'm betting Josh would consider any serious submission that builds on solid mechanics and isn't just different for the sake of being different.
|
Why do you even need stats (and levels) for the Blacksmith to begin with? If it becomes important for your characters to know about him, just tell them the local Blacksmith is highly skilled. The players certainly don't need to know whether the Blacksmith has a +4 or +9 to his craft skill. Stat'ing out the Blacksmith (unless he's somehow a PC-playable character or a villain) is wholly unnecessary (and really a waste of GM prep time). If the fellow does happen to be a playable character (whether a PC or NPC), he's going to have at least some PC class levels anyway and the whole question becomes moot.
The NPC classes presented in the 3.5 SRD/PRD should really only be used to reinforce the backstory of a character (PC or NPC) that matters to the campaign. Lavinia from Savage Tide comes to mind; I think she had a couple of levels of Aristocrat, which made sense given her background and the fact that there were a couple points in the campaign where she actively traveled with the PCs and could stand-in for a dead character if needed.
-Skeld
Yes, but when players start to realize that they are lvl 7 and are better at crafting than the best smiths in the area, without doing more than spending a skill point in it, and are totally beating out everyone else, you run into problems. That lvl 7 wizard can trivially have a +15 to any craft skill, without spending a feat, and this disparity only grows. If you keep your players in line with the mundane people, you get lots of high level NPC craftsmen who could have trivially done the adventures the PCs did at low levels and make more money than their day job. If you don't keep mundane people in line with your players, they trivially become the best in the world by mid levels without speciallizing in it. There is a huge discrepency here that does cause problems.
Why do you even need stats (and levels) for the Blacksmith to begin with? If it becomes important for your characters to know about him, just tell them the local Blacksmith is highly skilled. The players certainly don't need to know whether the Blacksmith has a +4 or +9 to his craft skill. Stat'ing out the Blacksmith (unless he's somehow a PC-playable character or a villain) is wholly unnecessary (and really a waste of GM prep time).<snip>
The NPC classes presented in the 3.5 SRD/PRD should really only be used to reinforce the backstory of a character (PC or NPC) that matters to the campaign. Lavinia from Savage Tide comes to mind; I think she had a couple of levels of Aristocrat, which made sense given her background and the fact that there were a couple points in the campaign where she actively traveled with the PCs and could stand-in for a dead character if needed.
There's a balance to be struck here, I think. I don't typically stat out every NPC. That is a waste of time. But I'll often pick a level for them to be and maybe jot down a couple of likely skill modifiers for skills likely to come up in NPC/PC interactions (oddly enough, sense motive ends up being used a lot in opposing PC bluff checks). I will, however, keep a standard stable of NPC guard and officer stats since PCs often do come into conflict with them.
Ultimately, it's the players who determine just how they're going to interact with NPCs and a DM should be reasonably well prepared and/or able to make the NPC believable on the fly. Having a few notes on significant NPCs or boilerplate NPCs around can really help.
Yes, but when players start to realize that they are lvl 7 and are better at crafting than the best smiths in the area, without doing more than spending a skill point in it, and are totally beating out everyone else, you run into problems. That lvl 7 wizard can trivially have a +15 to any craft skill, without spending a feat, and this disparity only grows. If you keep your players in line with the mundane people, you get lots of high level NPC craftsmen who could have trivially done the adventures the PCs did at low levels and make more money than their day job. If you don't keep mundane people in line with your players, they trivially become the best in the world by mid levels without speciallizing in it. There is a huge discrepency here that does cause problems.
I'm not sure I'm seeing the problem. The PC may be pretty good at crafting, sure, but he's probably not going to be pursuing it as his main source of income nor is he likely setting up a shop to compete with the local franchise-holders (and if he does but doesn't belong to the guild, just wait until he tries to buy his supplies and faces an embargo).
If it's a question of finding a particular craftsman for some kind of quest, you could always say that he knows a particular necessary technique and make that one of the non-optional requirements for whatever has to be made or repaired.
I just don't see much need for keeping the PCs in line. Usually their own goals and tendency to run off to adventure are enough to do that.
My answer is "No" - not inherently over-codified. It's codified, all right, but that's a very good thing AFAIC.
The best part of d20 is that it's codified when it needs to be, and can be ignored when codification isn't necessary (which is probably most of the time, actually).
For example - statting out a 'master blacksmith'. Why? One of the few reasons you'd ever need to stat something like that out is:
1) combat
2) cohorts/followers.
And if your blacksmiths and weavers are getting into combat all the time, there may be larger problems...
(Of course, with all that said, I, personally, have no issue with a Master Blacksmith (Exp8) being able to beat up a lowly Ftr3... sounds just fine to me!)
|
|
I'll often pick a level for them to be and maybe jot down a couple of likely skill modifiers for skills likely to come up in NPC/PC interactions (oddly enough, sense motive ends up being used a lot in opposing PC bluff checks).
If it becomes important, I'll make something up on the fly and write it down in the margin. If I need it again for that character, at least it'll be internally consistent with what I used the time before.
-Skeld
For systems that support raising skills versus raw power of the character, they typically shy away from levels and implement some type of point buy system, so you can choose how to develop your character or NPC. Using that same logic, perhaps there should be an avenue to spend experience in different ways, in regards to character class adventuring, and NPCs classes that are pretty much stationary.
But the end result is, you may have to create special NPC classes, that allow experience earned in crafting or profession, or have some type of variant experience rules just to modify skills.
Yes, but when players start to realize that they are lvl 7 and are better at crafting than the best smiths in the area, without doing more than spending a skill point in it, and are totally beating out everyone else, you run into problems. That lvl 7 wizard can trivially have a +15 to any craft skill, without spending a feat, and this disparity only grows. If you keep your players in line with the mundane people, you get lots of high level NPC craftsmen who could have trivially done the adventures the PCs did at low levels and make more money than their day job. If you don't keep mundane people in line with your players, they trivially become the best in the world by mid levels without speciallizing in it. There is a huge discrepency here that does cause problems.I'm not sure I'm seeing the problem. The PC may be pretty good at crafting, sure, but he's probably not going to be pursuing it as his main source of income nor is he likely setting up a shop to compete with the local franchise-holders (and if he does but doesn't belong to the guild, just wait until he tries to buy his supplies and faces an embargo).
If it's a question of finding a particular craftsman for some kind of quest, you could always say that he knows a particular necessary technique and make that one of the non-optional requirements for whatever has to be made or repaired.
I just don't see much need for keeping the PCs in line. Usually their own goals and tendency to run off to adventure are enough to do that.
The problem is that the PC is going arround having never practiced a skill and is better than people who have been doing it all their life, simply because he is higher level. You get the same problem with social stats. You quickly hit a point where the PCs can con any NPC out of their life savings in a matter of minutes with easy rolls brining them from hostile or indifferent to friendly. Normal people don't stand a chance. SOme games it doesn't really effect, but I have definetely played in games where it has completely derailed everything.
The problem is that the PC is going arround having never practiced a skill and is better than people who have been doing it all their life, simply because he is higher level. You get the same problem with social stats. You quickly hit a point where the PCs can con any NPC out of their life savings in a matter of minutes with easy rolls brining them from hostile or indifferent to friendly. Normal people don't stand a chance. SOme games it doesn't really effect, but I have definetely played in games where it has completely derailed everything.
That seems like a problem of understanding for the player--if he's putting a rank in Craft every time he levels, then he is practicing that skill, whether it occurs on-screen or not. Any PC that passes 9th level or so should be able to do whatever they are focused on (by choosing a class, spending skill points, and selecting feats) much better than normal folks. Perhaps I'm biased because 9th level = "Name Level" to me from the "good old days" and so I don't consider 20th level to be the ultimate goal for every game. By 9th level, PCs should be some of the greatest people on the planet. Once the PCs pass 13th-15th, normal folk would basically consider them like unto demi-gods compared to themselves.
Shift the perspective of the game like this, where anything above 9th level is special, and you'll find a much better fit for the NPCs.
To the OP: On the face of it, I can see what you're getting at. However, I think NPCs getting hit dice are there primarily to facilitate hirelings and cohorts through high level play. BAB and hit dice indicate luck and favor, just as much as skill and I can see a legendary commoner or expert and so on having it.
It's also an inherent problem of a game versus a story. Just take the example of the iconic old wizard. Let's say he's a 15th level wizard, one of the most powerful in the land. He lives in a tower and trains your new PC as his apprentice. Your 1st level wizard PC then begins his adventuring career at the age of 18. He adventures for 2 or 3 years and now at the age of 20-21 returns as a 20th level wizard, maybe even an Epic level character.
Make sense? Not really, but it's what happens when you play a game.
Hell, 6 months ago we started the current game I'm running. The PCs were village kids having their coming of age ceremony. (Crypt of the Everflame.) They're now 8th level. Real time it's been 6 months, but in the game it's been 2, maybe 3 months since they left for the Crypt. Yeah I'm using Fast progression but even that doesn't make sense if you look at it logically.
Hyrum.
Super Genius Games
"We err on the side of awesome."
It's also an inherent problem of a game versus a story. Just take the example of the iconic old wizard. Let's say he's a 15th level wizard, one of the most powerful in the land. He lives in a tower and trains your new PC as his apprentice. Your 1st level wizard PC then begins his adventuring career at the age of 18. He adventures for 2 or 3 years and now at the age of 20-21 returns as a 20th level wizard, maybe even an Epic level character.
Make sense? Not really, but it's what happens when you play a game.
Hell, 6 months ago we started the current game I'm running. The PCs were village kids having their coming of age ceremony. (Crypt of the Everflame.) They're now 8th level. Real time it's been 6 months, but in the game it's been 2, maybe 3 months since they left for the Crypt. Yeah I'm using Fast progression but even that doesn't make sense if you look at it logically.
Hyrum.
Super Genius Games
"We err on the side of awesome."
I'm glad Pathfinder introduced the medium and slow progressions for this very reason. It's nice to see that as a GM, you actually can make the players have to work to get to a new level now.
It's also an inherent problem of a game versus a story. Just take the example of the iconic old wizard. Let's say he's a 15th level wizard, one of the most powerful in the land. He lives in a tower and trains your new PC as his apprentice. Your 1st level wizard PC then begins his adventuring career at the age of 18. He adventures for 2 or 3 years and now at the age of 20-21 returns as a 20th level wizard, maybe even an Epic level character.
Make sense? Not really, but it's what happens when you play a game.
Hell, 6 months ago we started the current game I'm running. The PCs were village kids having their coming of age ceremony. (Crypt of the Everflame.) They're now 8th level. Real time it's been 6 months, but in the game it's been 2, maybe 3 months since they left for the Crypt. Yeah I'm using Fast progression but even that doesn't make sense if you look at it logically.
Hyrum.
Super Genius Games
"We err on the side of awesome."
There are other ways of doing experience. D&D just uses one that is based off of what you kill, and players kill a lot, so players level very quickly. Not all systems do this. I have played in systems that give experience for hitting major plot points or for role playing. Also, some systems, like Ars Magica, use downtime to determine XP. D&D also has a large discrepency between high level and low level play. Many systems allow for starting characters to be completely effective, only having them grow a little over a campaign, like Shardowrun or Mech Warrior.
Yes, but when players start to realize that they are lvl 7 and are better at crafting than the best smiths in the area, without doing more than spending a skill point in it, and are totally beating out everyone else, you run into problems. That lvl 7 wizard can trivially have a +15 to any craft skill, without spending a feat, and this disparity only grows. If you keep your players in line with the mundane people, you get lots of high level NPC craftsmen who could have trivially done the adventures the PCs did at low levels and make more money than their day job. If you don't keep mundane people in line with your players, they trivially become the best in the world by mid levels without speciallizing in it. There is a huge discrepency here that does cause problems.
The way I view a campaign world, adventurers, particularly higher level ones, are supposed to be better than everyone else at whatever it is they choose to do. That's why they're the heroes. Yes, if you really sit down and start analyzing what the likelihood of that is, the likelihood is very small--but again, you're playing heroes. They're not supposed to be "likely" or "typical." They're supposed to be one-of-a-kind. There's a point where a little flexibility is needed to allow the PCs do do what they're capable of.
For crafting specifically, most players take Crafting for their characters because they don't want to have to rely on NPCs to create and maintain their gear. Which for gameplay purposes can make things easier all around, so I'm to handwave to a small, reasonable degree in order to get done the things that need to get done.
Besides, the level 7 Wizard who's better than the best blacksmith in town? The level 7 Wizard is probably making magic armor and amulets and things. The best blacksmith, best though he may be, is probably making nails, horseshoes, and pots. The best blacksmith doesn't need to beat the Wizard at what he does and vice versa. They have two different jobs.
Also, yes, while most NPCs in the world are low level, there are high level NPCs. I don't see a rule anywhere saying all NPCs have to be 1st level. If you use the D&D 3.5 guidelines for populating a city, you'll end up with at least a few Experts and Commoners who are level 15+. And these guys probably ARE the "best in the land" AND are probably better than your PCs at what they do, unless the PC specifically set out to be a master-craftsman (at which point you roleplay a rivalry and have some fun :) ). And high level PCs are going to have the knowledge and means to seek out the best-of-the-best. It doesn't matter in the end that there are 15,432 1st level Commoners in the city save apart from noting there are a lot of peasants around; it does matter that there's a 18th level one, because he's a guildmaster and the person that the party needs to see about their needs.
There are other ways of doing experience. D&D just uses one that is based off of what you kill, and players kill a lot, so players level very quickly. Not all systems do this. I have played in systems that give experience for hitting major plot points or for role playing. Also, some systems, like Ars Magica, use downtime to determine XP. D&D also has a large discrepency between high level and low level play. Many systems allow for starting characters to be completely effective, only having them grow a little over a campaign, like Shardowrun or Mech Warrior.
And both old school Treveller and the Marvel FASERIP game didn't have rules for advancing your character at all. :)
Hyrum.
Super Genius Games
"We err on the side of awesome."
Personally I dont see anything wrong with the system.
An exception I might make (a houserule) is that Experts are not limited by their level for maximum ranks in a skill, it would allow them to have higher than average ranks and a total modifier without really breaking the system. Thats an easy fix if your having problems with it.
Yes, but when players start to realize that they are lvl 7 and are better at crafting than the best smiths in the area, without doing more than spending a skill point in it, and are totally beating out everyone else, you run into problems. That lvl 7 wizard can trivially have a +15 to any craft skill, without spending a feat, and this disparity only grows. If you keep your players in line with the mundane people, you get lots of high level NPC craftsmen who could have trivially done the adventures the PCs did at low levels and make more money than their day job. If you don't keep mundane people in line with your players, they trivially become the best in the world by mid levels without speciallizing in it. There is a huge discrepency here that does cause problems.The way I view a campaign world, adventurers, particularly higher level ones, are supposed to be better than everyone else at whatever it is they choose to do. That's why they're the heroes. Yes, if you really sit down and start analyzing what the likelihood of that is, the likelihood is very small--but again, you're playing heroes. They're not supposed to be "likely" or "typical." They're supposed to be one-of-a-kind. There's a point where a little flexibility is needed to allow the PCs do do what they're capable of.
For crafting specifically, most players take Crafting for their characters because they don't want to have to rely on NPCs to create and maintain their gear. Which for gameplay purposes can make things easier all around, so I'm to handwave to a small, reasonable degree in order to get done the things that need to get done.
Besides, the level 7 Wizard who's better than the best blacksmith in town? The level 7 Wizard is probably making magic armor and amulets and things. The best blacksmith, best though he may be, is probably making nails, horseshoes, and pots. The best blacksmith doesn't need to beat the Wizard at what he does and vice versa. They have two different jobs.
Also, yes, while most NPCs in...
Personally, I prefer my games where my PC isn't a hero. He is just a guy, with nothing extrordinary about him. Its a style of play preference, I don't want my PC to be the big damn hero.
As for the lvl 15 NPCs that the 3.5 books have in their world, you run into major issues there. Those tables also recomend most small towns have a high level druid. Why would anyone in a small town then go to the lvl 3 PCs instead of the lvl 7-15 druid? They produce so many high level characters that your world becomes flooded with them, and it totaly drowns out your PCs. If you don't design the adventures with this in mind, it can totally destroy the story. And if there is a lvl 15 crafter in town, you go right back to the OP's orriginal complaint, where he has a +7 BAB and 5 times the HP of the town guards. He can single handedly take care of adventures the PCs would normally do at low levels, just like that druid.
Personally I dont see anything wrong with the system.An exception I might make (a houserule) is that Experts are not limited by their level for maximum ranks in a skill, it would allow them to have higher than average ranks and a total modifier without really breaking the system. Thats an easy fix if your having problems with it.
I thought about something like this in 3.5. Then I realized that PCs would take a level of the expert class to qualify for prestige classes earlier. Take 1 bad level so that you could get multiple high level prestige class abilities.
A level 1 commoner (or expert, which is what most artisans are) with an int of 10 (i.e. an average blacksmith) can have a +7 check on his craft rolls. That's not bad. It allows him to take 10 on making 'High quality' items, and succeed a reasonable amount of the time when making complex, masterwork, or exotic items.
+1 from a skill rank
+3 from the class skill bonus (in PFRPG, in generic d20 he'd just have 4 ranks at level 1)
+3 from Skill Focus (Craft (Blacksmithing)) (because skill focus is what most NPCs will spend their level 1 feat on, since a particular skill is going to be their bread and butter)
If he's human, he can probably find a +2/+2 feat that gives a bonus on blacksmithing, also, bringing his check up to +9.
The 'world's greatest' human blacksmith is probably a level 4 or 5 expert with a +10 or higher modifier and the Master Craftsman feat, allowing him to take 10 on making masterwork items and dabble in making magic items.
If I'm remebering correctly when 3rd edition first came out this very subject; tough commoners, was listed as one of the strengths of the system.
Back in the days of 1st and 2nd edition, there was the small issue of high level PC's deciding to turn rogue and kill the local towns people, or more commonly rich nobles, and take all their stuff. The designers thought, wisely at the time, we should toughen up locals so they could handle such a event, or if the PC's didn't arive in time to save a town from bugbears the town wasn't automaticaly distroyed.
I guess it's a YMMV situtation.
Caineach wrote:
the PC is going arround having never practiced a skill and is better than people who have been doing it all their life, simply because he is higher level.
SNIP
You quickly hit a point where the PCs can con any NPC out of their life savings in a matter of minutes with easy rollsThis is not true. PCs must "practice" their skills just as much as NPCs. This "practice" is reflected in Skill Point expenditure.
Mere Levels only give you a +1 bonus for each 8 levels you attain, and then only if you add your Ability Bonus points to the relevant Ability.
A high-level Fighter cannot con people out of their life savings any better than a low-level one simply by virtue of Levels. A Wizard who has never practiced Blacksmithing (i.e. spent Skill Points in it) cannot bang out masterwork swords to enchant just by virtue of being 20th Level.
OTOH, because even the most combat-oriented game still probably has more in-game DT than adventuring "up-time", the Rogue who spends that majority of their life living in bars and talking to people and dealing with all manner of bets and gambles and cons (as represented by their expenditure of Skill Points on Bluff) should be able to con the average Commoner without any trouble.
I don't know about your games, but in my experience you can get 2-3 levels in a matter of days in some campaigns. I have gained 2 levels in a single adventure multiple times. There is no way my character is practicing any skill as much as an expert in the field, with the exception of 1 of my characters who ran for mayor, and he was only practicing diplomacy, bluff, and sense motive, and not the other 6 skills he got. When you go from lvl 1 to 15 in 1 game year, which I have had happen in multiple games, your skill increase can easily hurt story immersion.
Caineach wrote:
And if there is a lvl 15 crafter in town, you go right back to the OP's orriginal complaint, where he has ...Perhaps some bad content-writers were putting 15th level Commoners and Experts in settings, but frankly, there's not enough XP around for them achieve levels like that. If they are achieving those levels then it's by killing all the monsters that commonly attack the town (i.e. they are the Reluctant Hero) and so deserve their HP and BAB (and Levels).
It's been pretty well shown that, with the proper spending of Skills and Feats, an NPC Expert doesn't need more than 5-6 levels to be nigh perfect at their craft/profession. If that's fine with you and that's the way you want your world (and it works great for me) then just chop 10 levels of the NPCs in the text (or half all their stats OTF or whatever).
The problem isn't the system, it's poor design and writing by content-providers, and a lack of ability to adapt by the GMs using said mediocre material.
R.
Perhaps you missed the point where I was talking about the world design rules in the 3.5 DMG that someone else brought up. I totally agree these rules are crap, but they were the official rules in 3.5. NPCs should be mostly going into the 3-5 range, but then once again you run into the problem where the child PCs can show up experts in the field fairly trivially.
The question of how you get high-level commoners and experts is one that's bothered me for a while. I actually came up with variant versions of those classes that try to address the problem. My system awards XP for day-to-day life, greatly de-emphasizing things like combat advancement, but allowing for greater progress in certain skill categories.
I'm sure more experienced designers would find flaws in it... maybe I'll put it online and post a link to it later this evening and see if anyone has any comments.
The problem with hand-waving is that commoners and experts have much better combat-related advancement than is plausible for their classes. If Bob the Tailor is the best tailor is his city (say, a 10th-level expert), where did he get 10d6 hit points and a +7/+2 combat bonus? Must be some pretty big cockroaches in his kitchen. Considering he spends most of his time in a workshop with scissors and tape measure, it doesn't make such sense.
Also, experts spend every day of their lives working to advance their particular skills rather than out adventuring. They should therefore advance more efficiently in things like Knowledge, Profession, and Perform than most PC's should.
Here's a rough system I came up with. It's from 6 years ago and based on the 3E rules. It would need tweaking to conform to the Pathfinder system.
I'm sure it's got a lot of flaws, but it might be an interesting starting point for those who are interested.
|
My issue (which has been already raised), the level vs aging problem. 1st PC leaves home for a year and comes back 20th level. Back in the good/bad old days of first edition we had a completely non-sensible +1 year per level just because. The age of character seems to be of zero importance unless you run across a ghost otherwise. It seemed to us back then that a 20th level fighter should be an aged grizzled warrior not an acne ridden teen.
Musings,
S.
|
|
As for the lvl 15 NPCs that the 3.5 books have in their world, you run into major issues there. Those tables also recomend most small towns have a high level druid. Why would anyone in a small town then go to the lvl 3 PCs instead of the lvl 7-15 druid? They produce so many high level characters that your world becomes flooded with them, and it totaly drowns out your PCs. If you don't design the adventures with this in mind, it can totally destroy the story. And if there is a lvl 15 crafter in town, you go right back to the OP's orriginal complaint, where he has a +7 BAB and 5 times the HP of the town guards. He can single handedly take care of adventures the PCs would normally do at low levels, just like that druid.
That is a age old problem. The "I the most powerful Archmage in the land want you minions (1st level PC's) to risk your lives to do something one wish spell would accomplish in 9 segments..." problem. Hey but what can you do.
The other is if you say high levels are rare you have to ask why are they rare? Meaning the PC's can progress to level 20 in a short span of game time with stats and abilities no different than that of a "classed" NPC can have, so why isn't the world full of 20th levelers? On the other hand if we assume 20th level is a rare occurrence then we have the issue of the PC's becoming the most powerful force in the land, again within a very short span of time. These are just thing we except when we choose to play D&D style level based games.
S.
|
|
Whatever you need to do to make the game the way you want it ... just do it.
I believe we are discussing philosophical shortcomings rather than attempting to come up with "the way to play".
We all play differently, but it's interesting to hear what people think about when they extend the D&D game to a "what if this was a real world", how would it work or not work? Tailors capable of killing giants! I know a story where one killed seven... well sort of.
+1/level to OP.
|
|
Perhaps going with weaponsmith as my example wasn't a great idea, since obviously he knows about weapons and probably should be able to function as a low-level warior. But what about the epic-level cobbler? Why should his ability to make the best damn shoes in the kingdom automatically grant him the ability to kill that dragon that he makes into a pair of gaudy dragonscale boots?
Someone brought up a case of a system that uses a different ruleset for NPC than it does for PCs. But this is an equally problematic solution, as it basically treats NPCs as monsters (which I hear is exactly how 4E works).
Ok, putting aside the amazing adventures of the epic-level peasant, what do you all think about the monster creation rules. This is one area that really supprises me. For example, in my 2nd most frequently played game, Call of Cthulhu (BRP), GMs FREQUENTLY make their own monsters. And there are no rules or even guidelines on what such creatures should entail, which is a good thing, this means that the only limits are the GMs imagination. If there were similar rules for monster creation in prior editions of D&D, I never ran across them.
Conversely, in d20 games (at least the ones I have played) the type and the HD of the creature determine the number of skill points, the number of feats, it's BAB, saves, etc. It's much more limiting.
But what about the epic-level cobbler? Why should his ability to make the best damn shoes in the kingdom automatically grant him the ability to kill that dragon that he makes into a pair of gaudy dragonscale boots?
Why would he even exist? I can't imagine a game would require the best cobbler in the land to be anything more than an Exp3 (+4 for 18 Int, +3 Skill Focus, maybe a +2/+2 feat, 6 ranks = +15) for something so mundane as shoes.
There - done and done. AFAIC, the level of Experts/Commoners is directly proportional to the complexity of what they create. A 'master cobbler' or 'master cooper' hardly need to be more than Exp3's; while I (personally) also have no problem with an Exp10 master weaponsmith.
People's MMV.
Over-codified? Are you barking mad, man?
It is woefully under-codified! Wide areas of necessary rules are missing without a trace!
Take the toilet table? What? You can't? Of course not - it doesn't exist!!! How am I to determine when the call of nature is reaching the characters, and how long they can withstand it? Should I just "wing it"? Hand-wave it??
The core rules need at least 100 pages worth of extra tables: Food taste, cooking mishaps, anatomical parameters (that's 10 pages right there), star signs and their influence on characters' personalities, crop yield, wear and tear on clothes and other gear...
How can you think this game is over-codified?
The kinds of people we get here...
But what about the epic-level cobbler? Why should his ability to make the best damn shoes in the kingdom automatically grant him the ability to kill that dragon that he makes into a pair of gaudy dragonscale boots?Why would he even exist? I can't imagine a game would require the best cobbler in the land to be anything more than an Exp3 (+4 for 18 Int, +3 Skill Focus, maybe a +2/+2 feat, 6 ranks = +15) for something so mundane as shoes.
There - done and done. AFAIC, the level of Experts/Commoners is directly proportional to the complexity of what they create. A 'master cobbler' or 'master cooper' hardly need to be more than Exp3's; while I (personally) also have no problem with an Exp10 master weaponsmith.
People's MMV.
Shoes +10 don't make themselves.
Creative Director
|
Consider the fairly common fantasy story cliche of the greatest [insert career here] in the land. For my example I'll use blacksmith. Using d20 rules, this character would need a large number of ranks in Craft (Weaponsmithing). But in order to do this, the characater would need an equally large number of levels. So we have a very high (perhaps even epic-level) commoner. To add to the silliness, this commoner is a better combatant than a medium-low to mid-level fighter, simply because his BAB and HD have grown with his level. d20 is horrible with normal people who excell in their chosen fields, because they all become amazingly tough. A king would be better off sending his epic-level palace staff out as shock troops then the pitiful knights they would replace. A Master Cobbler could pop off on the weekends to slay a tribe of giants, and still be back in time to make a pair of masterwork loafers.
Monster creation rules are likewise overly codified. Once you pick a monster type and a desired CR, you've pretty much roped in the amount of skill points and feats you get to select from.
So I have a couple of questions, one for the Paizo staff and contributers, and one general question for all of the teeming masses:
1. For Paizo: Let's say I submitted an adventure, for use a PFS scenario, or even a full module. If it contained monsters or NPCs that broke the rules, such as a 1st level commoner with 32 ranks in Craft (Weaponsmithing), or a odd creature from the Dark Tapestry that broke most of the monster creation rules, would that result in an automatic rejection or a strong inclination for rejection? Or would you still put it in the "to be considered" pile?
Whether or not the rules are "over-codified" or not doesn't really matter at all as regards creativity and adventure design for a very simple reason—there's nothing in the rules that prevents you from adding new rules.
If you submit an adventure that has a 1st-level commoner with 32 ranks in Craft (weaponsmithing) we would ABSOLUTELY reject it—it's breaking a rule. But if you submitted an adventure with a 1st level commoner who had a special ability that gave him a +32 insight bonus into Craft (weaponsmithing) and explained that he had this ability because he could remember all of the tricks and experience of all of his weaponsmith ancestors in a sort of racial memory, then that's a pretty interesting idea. We might adjust the +32 down, since +32 is pretty ridiculously high anyway, but the game can absolutely handle strange cases like this.
In fact, this is how the truly fantastic actually works. If the rules were NOT "overly-codified" then everything would be its own ruleset and there would be no baseline. You can see this happen with the 3rd edition epic rules; since they don't have a cap, there's no baseline for power and there's no way to say something is "godlike" becuase "godlike can be CR 23, CR 36, CR 50, CR 102, CR 233,402, or whatever.
By setting up a relatively detailed baseline with rules like "Your maximum skill ranks = your HD," we create a standard shared baseline so that the truly unusual stuff, like a village savant who has +32 Craft, actually FEELS and LOOKS unusual rather than just being lost in a sea of constantly changing baselines.
And let's look at it more closely.
A 1st level human commoner CAN be pretty good at crafting. He maxes his Int score, puts his +2 racial bonus for being a human there for an INT of 15. He selects Skill Focus (craft) as a feat. He puts a skill rank into Craft. Just like that, he's got a +9 bonus to Craft checks. Compared to the commoner who doesn't have any ranks in Craft and an average Intelligence, that's a pretty significant advantage even right there. And if your story required a guy who could somehow craft a suit of full plate armor in a day, you could just give him that special quality that says, "Hans Smith has a +32 insight bonus on Craft (weaponsmith) checks due to ancestral memory."
Of course, anyone, even a 1st level commoner, who can build a suit of full plate in a day (or do whatever a super high Craft check can let you do) is not going to stay a commoner for long. He's going to be a major part of events surrounding him. And at that point, making him a 1st level commoner seems kinda silly.
So, the link to The Alexandrian has been posted multiple times, and Ross summarized it as well.
Are people just ignoring that to maintain that highly-talented craftsmen must be high level, rather than Level 5 or even less?
Alright, here's the simplest way to deal with the "epic cobbler" issue...
For the commoner and expert classes, throw out levels 6-20. They become 5-level classes, with all the existing stats indicated for those levels. They should get only d4 hit dice, but the GM may award higher than average hit points to characters whose professions involve a lot of physical exertion (farmers, athletes, blacksmiths, sailors, etc.)
Experts get skill focus as a bonus feat at 1st level, and may apply it to any of these skills: Appraise, Bluff, Craft (any), Diplomacy, Handle Animal, Heal, Knowledge (any), Linguistics, Perception, Perform (any), Profession (any), Ride, Survival, Swim.
The best cobbler in the city will be no higher than a 5th level expert. He may have somewhat better combat numbers than you'd expect for a cobbler, but his very limited weapon proficiency, and the fact that his basic ability score array probably gives him few if any bonuses, should balance it out enough.
Don't worry about actual experience points -- just assume that your typical apprentice cobbler is a 1st level Exp, a journeyman would be 2nd level, and a master 3rd or higher.
It might be more realistic to restrict the other NPC classes to 10 levels. I mean, by the time you've amassed enough XP to become a 12th level aristocrat or warrior, why haven't you gone ahead and started taking levels in fighter or some more useful class? Adept might be an exception, since some cultures and communities might not have any tradition or infrastructure for the major spellcasting classes.