Goblin Squad Member
|
My favorite 3.5 character was a Gnome Paladin Valley Girl on a riding dog that use to have fly cast on her mount and Ride-by-Attack indoors.
She died doing it one day and reincarnated as a wood elf.
One of the stupidest things Wizards did in 4th ed was getting rid of gnomes and replacing them with idiotic dragonborn in an effort to suck in warhammer and WoW kiddies.
4E is, and I should note I did play it for over a year to give it a fair chance, just a table top version of WoW. After the year plus I played it every week, I can truly say it sucks. Since I can't say much about D&D Next due to the NDA, all I will say about it is it can be described much as the 4E version can be... I'll be sticking to PFRPG for a long time (though I am trying to get my hands on a copy of the old Dranquest RPG SPI first put out) :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...lumping several of it into one group...
I've never understood the appeal of finely-detailed skill systems; isn't generalisation--and thus flexibility--a better choice? If you don't want to know about the rest of nature, just make that part of your character, rather than requiring the rules system to limit you.
Generalised skills also provide the DM more flexibility. If the only thing you can do is train animals in the city, then your know what you adventures are going to include, and that can become boring for everyone.
If the DM burns down the city, however, and turns the survivors into refugees, you might be able to help your fellow townsfolk survive :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm not sure how generalisation adds flexibility. I would class flexibility as having the ability to allocate your skill training to specific skills, generalisation I would class as more restrictive.
Do you mean that generalisation gives your character flexibility, or that it give the player flexibility?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Do you mean that generalisation gives your character flexibility, or that it give the player flexibility?
Generalisation in this case is, to me, "The narrower Animal Handling skill lets you handle animals. The more-general Nature skill lets you handle animals and do other things besides."
A given player's not required to take advantage of the extras Nature gives him if all he wants to do is handle animals, but his DM's going to be limited in what situations he can throw at that player. A player with Nature can handle a broader variety of adventures; to me that's more likely to avoid falling into a rut.
To stay closer to this thread's topic, I'd prefer to have a Millinery skill, rather than a Gnome-Hat-Making skill. I'd actually prefer to make clothing of all types, as hat-wearing seems tragically lacking since Kennedy's inauguration :-).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Well in tabletop, if generalization was inherently better you could just drop the skill system altogether and simply work out which attribute (STR, DEX etc) a particular ability applies to and do a check based on that. A bit like the "untrained" mechanic in current Pathfinder.
Sounds like in PFO there will be no skill/feat distinction of the familiar sort - you simply train the right thing and gain the ability to do something.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Jazzlvraz, I think I understand what you're trying to get across. It's like how Pathfinder generalized the Stealth skill by combining Hide and Move Silently. Sometimes you don't need to break a skill down into it's bitty bits.
As for the comment about a DM being limited in what they can throw at the party, I'd say you're looking at it wrong. Putting characters in situations they don't necessarily have the skills for creates great opportunities for improvisation. Some of the best gaming moments are born of these.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
For me 'General' refers to genera, broad classifications, categories that support more than one specialization. It is through generality that specificity is attained and without those genera special meaning is lost. From the basis of generality, then, the player and character gains the flexibility to focus, specialize, and create.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'd certainly prefer to specialise and focus. Yes, if I'm a druid-type then I'll want a broad range of outdoor skills, but I will also want to specialise. I might want to be the best tracker, best herbalist or (something I'm really looking at) the best animal trainer.
Now whilst it is possible to raise your 'Generic Outdoor Skill' package to level 20 and be the best, it rather misses the point of specialising. Everyone else with that package at level 20 will be just as good as you at tracking, herbalism and animal training. You aren't the best, you don't stand out, and there is little to distinguish you from any one else at an equivalent level of experience. This is obviously also true if you have brought your Animal Training to level 22 and there is another character with level 22 Animal Training, but the likelihood of that happening is far less with specialised skills than with a general package deal.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You aren't the best, you don't stand out, and there is little to distinguish you from any one else at an equivalent level of experience.
I know this won't be everyone's view, but "being the best" has always seemed too meta-gamey to me, as it's only measurable, and thus "proveable", in-game. In real life, I offer my resume (CV) to a potential client promising them that I can contribute to solving whatever problem they're looking for assistance with; there are few opportunities that are open only to a measurable and provable "best", as many positions would sit empty with such a requirement.
I aim for solid competence in my skill-set (IRL and in-game), and a track record that proves I can accomplish what I'm trusted to do. I hope PFO's reputation system will assist in modelling that latter, so I can stand out based on others' opinions of me.
But none of that has anything to do with gnomes...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yes, it did sound as though I was desperate to 'win', didn't it?
Not really what I meant by 'the best' (oddly enough). I meant gaining a reputation as 'the best'. To do that you need to have skill levels amongst the highest and consistently demonstrate them. I can have a mediocre skill level but get a lucky critical and so gain a temporary reputation as a great herbalist, but that's not going to be enough to carry it off for long.
I don't want to be a solid and dependable herbalist who you'll go to if you are nearby. I want to be a herbalist that other herbalists recommend. I want to be a herbalist that you'll visit despite the strange smell, creepily intelligent cat and badly stuffed badger. I want to known as a herbalist of distinction, a leader in the field (and in the herb garden).
So no, it's not like I want to compare my numerical skill level with someone else's and then sulk because mine isn't better. Rather, I want to consistently demonstrate that my skills are superior within the game, and gain a reputation for doing so.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...it's not like I want to compare my numerical skill level with someone else's and then sulk because mine isn't better.
Thanks for clarifying. I became suddenly surprised that you seemed to be one of the WOW-style "my shoulderpads are bigger than yours, so I'm the best" people, which hasn't been my impression to date :-p.