Breaking magic away from classes

[Username17]

There s actually nothing in he D&D definition of "skill" that models "skill" in any natural English fashion. A skill in D&D isn't something that gets better because of practice or training. It does not atrophy from lack of use. It is not something that you can demonstrate or teach in any meaningful fashion.

It's just a power with an activation roll that happens to be only very weakly connected to character level. That's it. That's all it is. It might as well be called a "Waarrgarbl" or something. The barbarian's +10 movement is a power. The Rogue's Tumble Through Occupied Squares ability is a power as well. The Barbarian's ability always works. The Rogue's ability has an activation roll that gets better slowly as you go up in level and then periodically gets wildly better due to equipment changes and the like. Eventually it will always work as well, but what level that is true for is wholly unpredictable.

The word "skill" is full of meaning and import and seems like the kind of thing that you'd want to attach to things that require a lot of training and practice like hitting people with arrows or conjuring demons. But frankly, the abilities that carry the label "skill" in D&D don't actually do any of the things your mental images generate when the word skill is utilized.

D&D's use of the word "skill" doesn't mean anything more than Ron Edward's use of the word "Premise." They just aren't using the terminology in a manner that is consistent with natural English, so if you try to use their model in a manner consistent with the real words you're only setting yourself up for disappointment.

-Username17

[ckafrica]

Yes. I hate game balance because I want to keep background skills in the game.

You are just being a shit aren't you?

Because that is very much NOT what you said. You said it was OK for a player to trade profession ranks for being a fucking wizard you dick.

What's wrong? Been banned from all the other boards and this is the only place left where you can blatantly troll?

[PhoneLobster]

Give me more of your screaming shitfits, PL! Don't stop now--give me more! I need your face all scrunched up, beet red

The thing that amazes me about wankers like yourself is this amazing ability of yours to imagine such fantastical histrionics.

I called you a stupid shit and an obvious troll, which you are, it doesn't take an aneurysm to do that. I could do that in person without raising my voice, in text I can recline and put my god damn feet up.

Watching you wank so passionately over this image you conjure is really rather nauseating, but mostly I'm just fascinated that I apparently can abuse you so well that it triggers your sickening masochistic text fetish fantasies.

In the mean time I point out your entire direction of rules suggestion here, as usual, sucks. It in no way practically addresses the OPs requirements and in many ways creates vast swathes of design work and game breakage.

[Psychic Robot]

I accuse PR of text fetishes.

I’m bored, now. Can we go back to game mechanics?

[Orion]

Dude, PL, fly doesn't even come close to the actual point of tumble, which is that it *let you get away from/into melee without an AoO" There's not really any good spells for that except maybe Invisibility. It's not that wizards suck because they don't have it, obviously. But a Wizard *with* tumble would be substantially more powerful than a wizard without it.

[PhoneLobster]

Flight and Tumble are both mobility effects that let you avoid attacks. Flight is hands down better because you can avoid ALL the attacks of a non flying melee character without any rolls at all.

Also Invisibility is just ONE of many effects available to wizards that significantly raise defences against ALL attacks.

This doesn't even need arguing. Magic>Tumble you'd have to be well, as dumb as PR to think otherwise.

[Psychic Robot]

Holy shit, invisibility is overpowered! Better remove that from the game, guys.

[Roy]

Holy shit, invisibility is overpowered! Better remove that from the game, guys.

To the 4Edmobile Nerfman!

[Psychic Robot]

No, no, we can't totally remove it, or nobody will buy our game. I have an idea: let's make it totally useless so that nobody will want to use it!

[JonSetanta]

No, no, we can't totally remove it, or nobody will buy our game. I have an idea: let's make it totally useless so that nobody will want to use it!

Oooh ooh and then.... then hide the Invisibility rules in an obscure paragraph in the middle of the book so that even if someone wants to use it, they'll give up trying to find the official rule!

Then we can sell the errata online for $15 each month!

[Prak]

Prak: You do realize that the Obsidian trilogy obviously and *explicitly* uses character classes?

I suppose, the magic just seems... different. I mean, hell, I was specifically looking at d20. A knight mage class is easy, a wildmage is relatively easy, hell, even a City Mage would be fairly easy. The problem is that the magic seems, at least potentially to be possible to learn independent of a class.

[Draco_Argentum]

PL is right. You can't just graft D&D casting onto the skill system, it'll be horribly unbalanced.

"Yes. I hate game balance because I want to keep background skills in the game."

Exactly correct. If you expect people to choose between a low power background skill and spellcasting you are suggesting destroying game balance and punishing people who take background skills.

[Crissa]

It's certainly possible to segregate skills into little pools so that no one can trade fletching or pottery for spellcasting like in 2e, but no one mentioned that ahead of time.

-Crissa

[Psychic Robot]

Exactly correct. If you expect people to choose between a low power background skill and spellcasting you are suggesting destroying game balance and punishing people who take background skills.

This very idea is laughable--"destroying game balance"? It does not destroy game balance. It may leave the position of background skills in an unfavorable light--and it does--but it does not in any way, shape, or form destroy game balance.

Here's a thought: if you don't want to weaken your character, then don't waste skill points on background skills. A good litmus test is as follows: explain the skill system to a newbie player and then him what would happen if he were to put points into Craft or Profession instead of putting them into Hide. If he can tell you that the character wouldn't be able to hide as well as a character who put skill points into Hide, congratulations! You've found someone smart enough to play D&D.

This slavish devotion to balance is ridiculous. While I do not suggest a game as unbalanced as 3e, I think that there comes a time when one should be able to say, "This is more powerful than X," and leave it at that. If it does not break the game (or make another character obsolete), then it shouldn't matter.

[Elennsar]

The problem is that the question then is why would anyone in their right mind buy background skills?

D&D does not support "because its the kind of thing my character would do" with even a modicum of grace, let alone mechanical benefit.

Is this unfortunate? Yes.

It also means people who develop their character using background skills are doing worse than people who ignore them.

Now, if everyone had to spend say, 4 points on background skills, minimum, this wouldn't be so bad. But having a choice between "a skill you won't care about" and "a skill you will", without any consequences for ignoring the former...the former will be ignored.

[Psychic Robot]

Agreed: the current implementation is, unfortunately, a hindrance to people who want to take role-playing skills. This does not mean that the existence of Profession is going to fragment the game because characters are going to have 1 fewer skill point per level. (Personally, I would give characters a free Profession rank and a free Craft rank per level, if they so desired. I think 4 per level might be going a bit overboard.)

[Elennsar]

I was thinking of four total (as a everyone-must-spend-this). Either way, it is a hindrance to the point that you are better off saying that your background is "adventurer".

If you want people taking background skills, there has to be some relevance to what happens, or enough points that people don't worry about having spent a couple being good at being a sheep farmer.

[Psychic Robot]

What experience have you had with background skills in your games? In the campaign I'm in right now, we have spans of time between adventurers, usually weeks or months, so that's when Craft/Profession come up the most.

[Elennsar]

None, but short of generating gp, or mundane items (which can easily just be bought by adventurers, annoyingly), there's not much they offer.

Now, if you needed Profession: Sailor in order to get from A to B by sea (or to pay a sum you may or may not have), that would be pretty useful even without being as useful as Spot.

But Profession: Carpenter is almost certainly not going to even matter whether you have free points or not.

[Psychic Robot]

I think there was a rule introduced in the DMG II that allowed players to substitute Profession checks for skill checks, such as Profession (sailor) being used to pilot a ship, climb the masts, and the like.

[Elennsar]

I wouldn't be surprised. However, the answer to "When would you want to do that?" is unfortunately a lot closer to "Never." then "Quite frequently."

Either way, it would probably be better to say "You're (formerly) a blacksmith? Okay, you get +2 to whatever blacksmiths do."as things stand, and spellcasting skills definately don't balance with skills as is.

Then again, skills don't balance next to each other as is.

Lots of work ahead for anyone who doesn't want Captain Capable and the Useless Urchin as the resulting options.

[Psychic Robot]

To some extent, I don't think that can be helped--the ability to see someone sneak up on you is probably going to be more useful than, say, the ability to identify items.

[Elennsar]

That would imply it (learning how to identify items) was worth learning to begin with.

"Useful but limited" beats "useless".

[Crissa]

Is Elennsar taking the position that bad options shouldn't be offered, because they're traps for the unwary and otherwise not useful to the game?

That's awesome! Lay the smack down on the robot, ye converted!

-Crissa

[Elennsar]

No, I am taking the position that useless things that there's no point in taking should not be offered.

Pikes have a limited but real use.

Orc wizards are physically stronger and more intimidating than human wizards, even if they're worse at "wizardry".

More to the point:

Profession does not have any use.
It doesn't generate an income you care about
It doesn't let you do things you have any reason to wish you could do
It doesn't add to a "fully fleshed out character".


At least if it was a choice between "fleshed out" and "maximum level of being effective", I'd be willing to deal with ineffective as long as it wasn't cripplingly so.

I've done things that are more unfavorable to success things than taking ranks in Profession and been fine with it because it was worth it for the nonmechanical benefits.