Skill Based PCs

[johnlewismcleod]

Once more, it comes down to distinguishing weather the "problem" or perception of a problem comes down to just not having enough for skill based classes to do with their skills IG for profit and advancement, or weather the skill based classes are being ignored by dms who are letting PC's fudge rolls. I can testify to the former, and I really could not testify to the latter.

+1

[Keryn]

Now my personal opinion, that is backed by some of the posts here in different ways, is that sometimes, we ignore the chance to fail, and find ways, work around, to allow players to succeed.

How often has this been done that you've seen?

I don't disagree with the fact that rolls shouldn't be fudged for the sake of "progress" whatever that entails, I'm just wondering if this is a big enough problem that it warrents this much of a discussion about it. If Dergon hadn't have posted, would it even be an issue? Are we basing this HUGE problem off of his statements alone, or is there more to it? How prolific, in your play, has the issue been? Or are we making a mountain out of a molehill?

Once more, it comes down to distinguishing weather the "problem" or perception of a problem comes down to just not having enough for skill based classes to do with their skills IG for profit and advancement, or weather the skill based classes are being ignored by dms who are letting PC's fudge rolls. I can testify to the former, and I really could not testify to the latter.

I'm not referring to anyone personally, or any situation specifically. Dergon is an awesome RPer and i RP with all the Helmites and always had a blast. But I can tell you that is happens more often then not, to have my PC screwed because what he was supposed to be doing, or in other words his chance to shine is taken away from me because these basic things are totally ignored, and it often relies in skill checks, listen, spot, track, survival, etc..... And when this starts happening yes I get a bit upset, because doing it, is also stealing part of the fun of playing this game.

((And as an off topic the mobs perception range is also quite annoying ))

[HEEGZ]

While I love the direction this has gone in and the idea of static content being added for skill based PC’s, I would like to try and return it to its origin, keeping folks from using skills that their PC’s just don’t have. Now im not trying to tell the DM’s how to do their jobs, but when I look at the Standards forum I see a lot of guidelines for DM’s on how to deal with wealth, xp, blackguards, etc. What I don’t see is a standards thread on the guidelines for how to approach skill usage. If asking for such a thing as a standard way to approach a problem is telling a DM what to do then all such standards threads are likewise wrong and the DM should be able to give out as much xp/gold/PrC’s as they see fit without any sort of discussion or standard.

This information is covered in the DM101 thread, which is viewable only to DMs. The majority of this is covered by the 3.5 DMG. I am surprised that you feel there is a need "for how to approach skill usage." My only suggestion would be to ask other players or maybe make a new thread asking for help?

[kiyoti]

HEEGZ
i am surprised that you feel there is a need "for how to approach skill usage.

The past four pages of posts are what lead me to believe something might be needed. im really just trying to get an active discussion going that will give not just the DM's but the players ideas on how to approach and understand how skills work IC.

[Riotnrrd]

that will give not just the DM's but the players ideas on how to approach and understand how skills work IC.

Isn't that what source books are for?

[Ithildur]

that will give not just the DM's but the players ideas on how to approach and understand how skills work IC.

Isn't that what source books are for?

As Rotku's and others' posts make apparent, sourcebooks are not necessarily followed by every player and/or DM, either through choice or lack of familiarity. I think that's why this has come up in the first place. Sourcebook says you can't track difficult DCs without a feat/training. Some players and DMs are happy to allow folks to track without said feat/training at times. Others I'm sure are not. The question Hollis, Keryn, etc are asking then is what are the guidelines/parameters in ALFA to observe in situations like this, without making skill invested pc players feel like they wasted their time/effort/concept?

Ideally, in a multi server, multi DM concept like ALFA that attempts to be faithful as possible to canon, you do have a standard (there's that word again), a reference point that people can point to at least as a starting point for making exceptions at times. That's what the sourcebooks/SDR can and should be, along with some guidelines for DMs to keep in mind when observing or varying from the sourcebook content (which Heegz sounds like is saying is in place).

I think that while creativity should be encouraged, certainly, and fun is the goal, outright ignoring sourcebooks/dnd rules isn't necessarily a good thing for ALFA. Even if you don't do it exactly by the book, at least a nod to the book would be a good thing.

[kiyoti]

+1 Ithildur


not everyone has intrinsic knowledge of all written material (hell or the money to afford all the damn books). dont assume everyone has access to the same source material you have.

if you folks haven’t already, try and read up some on this site.

http://www.d20srd.org/indexes/skills.htm

Its not always 100% correct but its a good place to start.

[Ithildur]

if you folks haven’t already, try and read up some on this site.

http://www.d20srd.org/indexes/skills.htm

Its not always 100% correct but its a good place to start.

Just a useful FYI for everyone, if you ever run into contradictions between the SDR and 3.5 corebooks (players handbook, dmg, monster manual), go with SDR. Not only is it easily accessible to everyone, it contains updated/errataed information that the hardcover books got wrong.

FR specific content is a different matter, of course, as it overrides SDR/corebook content (i.e. FR elves are as tall as humans, FR pantheon is what we go with not corebook pantheon, etc). Thankfully, these don't affect gameplay rules so much like skillchecks.

And in case I'm misunderstood, I'm not at all saying DMs don't have the right to make alterations/tweaks/exceptions when they deem it necessary.

[Brokenbone]

DM at a Friday night, 5 ppl only PnP game, you will know pretty quickly whether they know the sourcebooks or not, and whether they follow the sourcebooks or have their own twists and things they ignore, emphasize, build on from optional splatbooks, whatever.

24/7 PW with DMs who drop in on people by chance, you never know if you'll get one who knows how to calculate the DC of say, climbing a natural cliff face at on a moonless night, in the rain without the aid of a rope (possibly bad example if "Climb" is a custom skill that may never get implemented). Ask ten DMs you may get ten different answers ("Rough natural rock wall, that's DC 25, the fact it's wet and slippery brings it up to 30, and for anyone without low light vision or darkvision, their "blindness" will give them a -4 to their rolls and their move rate is in half, so twice as many skill rolls to move the same distance as their mates who can see, plus don't forget everyone with armor check penalties" might be one guy's answer, the other guy might say "uh, DC 15 for all of you, even the ones in plate and the one legged guy too.")

Anyhow, either got to look at inconsistency like that in terms of "a bad DM may be better than no DM", or, if you think someone is completely botching their role, guess figuring out how to diplomatically give feedback (aka look a gift horse in the mouth), good luck with that.

[Ithildur]

good point BB. I think it's a good idea to have a basic lvl of respect and appreciation for DMs regardless of how mindblowing their ruleset knowledge is or not; it's not an easy job. Basicly until they start cranking out DM's with MA's in Dungeon Mastering at the local community college, it's good to be grateful for the ones that we have, especially if they are good storymakers who help us have fun even if they aren't rulemaster machines.

I think we can say that and at the same time agree it's a good idea to have some parameters, like 'don't let a guy in full plate sneak up on the mob successfully while ignoring the scout with uber stealth'.

[pangolin]

I don't think the case is "can a PC climb a wall?". The point is that this is not a hack-and-slash PW, so, why not discuss what your options are based on your skill-set? Trust me, being a second level wizard in a world of armored skull-smashers is a bit awkward at times.

[Rotku]

I think we can say that and at the same time agree it's a good idea to have some parameters, like 'don't let a guy in full plate sneak up on the mob successfully while ignoring the scout with uber stealth'.

You mean common sense?

[kiyoti]

and for the record i love all the DM's! um...can i get some xp now?

[HEEGZ]

If you are a player, I recommend reading through the PHB & NWN2 manuals.

If you are a DM and have never read the DMG, please send me a PM immediately.

There is no reason for players and DMs to not understand simple game mechanics as there is a plethora of information published already. The last thing ALFA needs is to waste time and energy recreating our own version of the published material. They are called the Core Rulebooks for a reason...

If anyone has any suggestions for the Players Guide to ALFA, please let Rotku know. The DM101 thread is pretty comprehensive and everything discussed in this thread is already addressed there for our DMs.

[mr duncan]

There is no reason for players and DMs to not understand simple game mechanics as there is a plethora of information published already. The last thing ALFA needs is to waste time and energy recreating our own version of the published material. They are called the Core Rulebooks for a reason...

At last, words of reason. The daring suggestion that we all are responsible for knowing the rules of the game we are playing. Thanks