Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Drachasor 03-27-05, 04:08 PM	Last night at gaming my friends and I were discussing the problems with the current skill system. Basically there are a few problems with it, in our minds: 1. Some classes simply don't get anywhere near enough skills (Fighters for instance). 2. Some character concepts are impossible to make (Fighter-Generals...they can't have good diplomacy scores) 3. Some skills are just plain weaker than others, and basically are never used in the game (Professions, Crafts, etc). So, I was pondering these things, and I have a few possible solutions. 1. Every class gets 2 more skill points per level. 2. Every class can add 3 skills to their class list when first taking the class. This is chosen from a list of 8 or 9 skills....or perhaps all skills except UMD, Tumble, and/or some others. 3a. Some skills (crafts, professions, swim, jump, and some others) are "secondary skills" and for each point you put into them you get two ranks (or you can put half a point into two such skills and get a rank in each). 3b. Or, there are various background feats one can choose (each character gets one bonus background feat at first level). They could be such things as: Craftsman [Background] Benefit: You practiced creating things from an early age, and even now you still keep up your skills from time to time. At first level and every odd level thereafter, you gain 3 bonus skill points. These may only be spent in crafts. 4. Whenever you gain a level you can choose not to spend some or all of your skill points. You may use these points before you gain another level to increase or learn new skills you would logically be aquiring during your current travels. For instance, if you are level 3 you might hold back 2 points...and it so happens you spend a few weeks in a foreign land, you may now use these points to learn the language, without needing to gain a level. I don't see the 3s as being broken because such feats are relatively useless most of the time. As for 1, I think everyone could use more useful skills, especially the fighter. I know, of course, that some Prestige Classes are balanced with the current system in mind, and they would have to be adjusted. I think that's worth it to have a more satisfying skills system. What does everyone think? (I realize some of this could use some work, perhaps). -Drachasor
HailSpork 03-27-05, 05:33 PM	You may not want to put jump on the secondary list. Jump is fairly useful by itself, not to mention its synergy to tumble. For the fighter-general concept, you may want to consider other methods to building it. For 1, multiclassing (warmarshall from the miniatures book comes to mind). #2, cross-class ranks in diplomacy. Honestly, diplomacy isn't even that important to a general; the leadership feat and a decent leadership score are. Tactics are useful, but I can't really think of any skill that corresponds to it. Diplomacy is one method to "rally troops", but far from necessary. Personally, I've run games where I provided bonus skill points per level that can only be used on craft or profession skills. (essentially a combination of 3b and 1) For #2, may I suggest basing the skill list to choose from by race? IE, each race has a list of skills that can be added as class skills. Another alternative would be to merely limit the choices to skills that can be used untrained. I use #4 a little bit, though I tend to purchase a language slot at level-up rather than just leaving them open. If the party comes across a cryptic message, the mage shouldn't be able to spend some time "brushing up" on decipher script just because he left a few skill points open...
Lina_Inverse 03-28-05, 02:56 AM	Last night at gaming my friends and I were discussing the problems with the current skill system. Basically there are a few problems with it, in our minds: 1. Some classes simply don't get anywhere near enough skills (Fighters for instance). agreed.non int-casters need 4+intmod skill points minium.int casters have an 18int at creation and a casters anyways. 2. Some character concepts are impossible to make (Fighter-Generals...they can't have good diplomacy scores) general isnt a fighter concept,its a bard concept.perform(oratory) 3. Some skills are just plain weaker than others, and basically are never used in the game (Professions, Crafts, etc). noted,but i dont think its a huge deal. 1. Every class gets 2 more skill points per level. this is a stealth nerf to rogues.as well as the int stat.simply pump fighters/paladins to 4+intmod skills. 2. Every class can add 3 skills to their class list when first taking the class. This is chosen from a list of 8 or 9 skills....or perhaps all skills except UMD, Tumble, and/or some others. no,another stealth nerf to highly skilled classes. and giveing all pcs spot/listen is a bad idea. 3a. Some skills (crafts, professions, swim, jump, and some others) are "secondary skills" and for each point you put into them you get two ranks (or you can put half a point into two such skills and get a rank in each). i dont like this,my personal change is as follows. craft/perform.you get 1type,+1type/5ranks.you may spend 1 skillpoint to get a new type. swim+jump become athletics. proffession does what its ment to do.model npc income for boring jobs. 4. Whenever you gain a level you can choose not to spend some or all of your skill points. You may use these points before you gain another level to increase or learn new skills you would logically be aquiring during your current travels. For instance, if you are level 3 you might hold back 2 points...and it so happens you spend a few weeks in a foreign land, you may now use these points to learn the language, without needing to gain a level. i dont like this.pcs suddenly getting a needed skill scares the lina.
MadBlue 03-28-05, 04:33 AM	Some character concepts are impossible to make (Fighter-Generals...they can't have good diplomacy scores)The Marshal (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20030906b), that HailSpork mentioned makes a perfect general. 3. Some skills are just plain weaker than others, and basically are never used in the game (Professions, Crafts, etc).I'm planning on giving characters an extra 4 skill points at 1st level that have to be spent on one Craft, Knowledge or Profession skill as a background skill. Granted, some Knowledge skills are generally taken by certain classes anyway (Knowledge (Arcana) for a Wizard, for example), but it helps to round out characters who would otherwise not put points into Craft, Knowledge or Profession. MadBlue
Art_Tillary 03-28-05, 07:42 AM	While this more appliciable to NPCs, you might want to consider handing out skill points from your secondary list based upon time. People would get skill points from a skill they use or such based upon just doing the job. For ex: A fighter who starts working for the King's army as an officer gains soft skills like diplomacy, tactics, etc for every year they are in service. They'd still gain level skills and feats of course. AT
Drachasor 03-28-05, 10:04 AM	You may not want to put jump on the secondary list. Jump is fairly useful by itself, not to mention its synergy to tumble. For the fighter-general concept, you may want to consider other methods to building it. For 1, multiclassing (warmarshall from the miniatures book comes to mind). #2, cross-class ranks in diplomacy. Honestly, diplomacy isn't even that important to a general; the leadership feat and a decent leadership score are. Tactics are useful, but I can't really think of any skill that corresponds to it. Diplomacy is one method to "rally troops", but far from necessary. Well, perhaps change my example to the Fighter-Diplomat, such as Tanis Half-Elven. Basically impossible to make and remain true to the concept. Sure, you can make a PrC for it, but that's a dirty fix, imho. Personally, I've run games where I provided bonus skill points per level that can only be used on craft or profession skills. (essentially a combination of 3b and 1) Did it work out well? For #2, may I suggest basing the skill list to choose from by race? IE, each race has a list of skills that can be added as class skills. Another alternative would be to merely limit the choices to skills that can be used untrained. Hmm, interesting idea. I think, actually, 4 or 5 skills might do with this implementation. I use #4 a little bit, though I tend to purchase a language slot at level-up rather than just leaving them open. If the party comes across a cryptic message, the mage shouldn't be able to spend some time "brushing up" on decipher script just because he left a few skill points open... Well right, but if there happens to be 2 weeks of off-time, and the mage didn't level, then he could put the points in. As with all things, how closely one monitors and manages this is up to the DM. In some campaigns you might want it a bit looser than others (and some groups might just prefer it that way). That doesn't stop others from being more strict and sensible. -Drachasor
Drachasor 03-28-05, 10:14 AM	agreed.non int-casters need 4+intmod skill points minium.int casters have an 18int at creation and a casters anyways. I think even Wizards should get the 4 sp/level. Sure, they then get a lot of points, but I don't have a problem with that. It lets them have decent to good ranks in a lot of knowledges, if desired. They shouldn't get a sp shaft just because they need a good intelligence, imho. general isnt a fighter concept,its a bard concept.perform(oratory) It can be, but not always. Afterall, Bardic Knowledge and other abilities (spellcasting) aren't always appropriate. More flexibility with this isn't a bad thing. this is a stealth nerf to rogues.as well as the int stat.simply pump fighters/paladins to 4+intmod skills. Well Rogues could get 4 more then. However, what's wrong with a Figher with a high int getting better skill points/level than a Rogue with an average or low int? That Fighter still won't be able to do the Rogue's job, and the int should count for something. no,another stealth nerf to highly skilled classes. and giveing all pcs spot/listen is a bad idea. I wasn't advocating those as choices for everyone. i dont like this,my personal change is as follows. craft/perform.you get 1type,+1type/5ranks.you may spend 1 skillpoint to get a new type. swim+jump become athletics. proffession does what its ment to do.model npc income for boring jobs. Swim + Jump becoming Athletics is good, I think. Note sure about the idea for Craft/Perform. Maybe they don't need any change if everyone has some more skill points to toss around...but to me it still seems like if you are going to invest in them, you might as well get more bang for your buck. NPC classes still benefit. Afterall, that Blacksmith can now afford to be good in all sorts of smithing (weapon, armor, black, etc) and know how to do several other things too, such as running a store (which would be a profession), knowing a bit about the world (a knowledge), etc. -Drachasor
Drachasor 03-28-05, 10:33 AM	I really like the idea of each race being able to choose 2-3 skills as class skill for the rest of their career. From a list unique to each Race. Humans get to choose one more skill than the other races (so perhaps each race except human chooses 2 skills, and humans choose 3). Haven't decided wether this replaces the racial bonuses to checks or not. All races would have Perform as an option....perhaps Speak Language too? Elves would have: Spot, Listen, Seach, Athletics (Jump + Swim), Balance, Handle Animal, Knowledge(Nature), and Survival Should I add Move Silently and Hide...that seemed to good with the Spot, Listen, and Search... Dwarves would have: Appraise, Climb, Concentration, Disable Device (?), Intimidate, Knowledge (Architecture and Engineering), Knowledge (Dungeoneering), Knowledge (Heraldry and Royalty), Listen, Search Should they get Sense Motive? Gnomes would have: Appraise, Craft (Alchemy--Can be taken without spellcaster levels), Listen, Spot, Speak Language (if everyone doesn't get it), Bluff, Sense Motive, Decipher Script, Forgery, Disguise, Handle Animal, Athletics Haven't done the rest. Hmm, perhaps when selecting a race you can sacriface two choices to pick one skill from another race's list? Of course, no race should have UMD. -Drachasor
HailSpork 03-28-05, 01:59 PM	I would give the races the choice of 2 skills from: Humans: Any (except UMD?) Dwarves: Appraise, Concentration, Disable Device, Intimidate, Open Lock, Search, Knowledge(Architecture) Elves: Spot, Listen, Search, Survival, Spellcraft, Knowledge(Arcana), Knowledge(History) Gnomes: Listen, Craft(Alchemy)*, Speak Languages, Handle Animal, Ride, Knowledge(Nature), Sense Motive *Craft is already a class skill for all classes, this would let them take it without being a spellcaster. Afterall, they have spell-like abilities... Half-Elves: Gather Information, Diplomacy, Speak Language, Listen, Search, Spot, Knowledge(Nobility and Royalty) Half-Orcs: Intimidate, Climb, Swim, Jump, Knowledge(Geography), Ride, Handle Animal Halflings: Move Silently, Listen, Climb, Jump, Knowledge(Local), Sleight of Hand, Forgery Note that aside from humans, I've given each race 7 choices, and each includes a knowledge. If you give too many choices it completely defeats the purpose of a cross class system. I've also made sure to give each race the choice of any skill they get a racial bonus to. DO NOT PUT SPEAK LANGUAGE ON EVERY RACIAL LIST!!! Speak Language is even more exclusive than UMD. I don't see anything wrong with giving perform to all the races. If you want to give humans 3 choices, then you would want to limit their list. Either is a nice benefit, but both is just broken. If you do swim==jump, than perhaps give Half-Orcs disguise? I'm sure a lot of half-orcs don't want to show their half-heritage to one side of their family... Btw, the bonus skill point per level for profession/craft worked out well. For your fighter-diplomat, I'm sure you can find plenty of PrC's that have full BAB and diplomacy as a class-skill. Again, if he takes one level of rogue/bard/monk/cleric/druid/paladin, he can cross-class the skill up to max. Also, if you use the system above... I would like to point out that the system above severely undermines the status quo of the skill point system. With all the races with bonuses to spot and listen, rogues will have a hard time being stealthy. You can now accomplish much more without a rogue in the party. I don't think clerics or sorcerers need 4+int skill points. Clerics already get a ton of abilities aside from full spellcasting progression. There's no explanation for why a sorcerer would get more, aside from competition with wizards. Here's the thing, if a sorcerer and a wizard each had an int of 18, the wizard would get 6 sp per level and the sorcerer gets 8. That doesn't make sense to me. It does make sense that the wizard's been studying (and learning) while the sorcerer just has innate ability. I've heard the complaint that a wizard with an 18 int should get more skill points than a fighter with an 18 int because he spends more time studying; but remember, while the wizard is studying (and gaining ranks in knowledge skills), the fighter is climbing trees, jumping over stuff, etc. There's a reason the wizard has 8 more class skills than a fighter.
Lina_Inverse 03-28-05, 06:02 PM	I think even Wizards should get the 4 sp/level. Sure, they then get a lot of points, but I don't have a problem with that. It lets them have decent to good ranks in a lot of knowledges, if desired. They shouldn't get a sp shaft just because they need a good intelligence, imho. because wizards have 6sp a level to begin with?because wizards arent ment to be the knowledge kings?because full casters are broken and need SOME form of penalty? It can be, but not always. Afterall, Bardic Knowledge and other abilities (spellcasting) aren't always appropriate. More flexibility with this isn't a bad thing. but bardic music is a nessisity to a commander.a commander who cant inspire the troops isnt a good commander.and i fail to see how CLW isnt helpful. Well Rogues could get 4 more then. However, what's wrong with a Figher with a high int getting better skill points/level than a Rogue with an average or low int? That Fighter still won't be able to do the Rogue's job, and the int should count for something. ever play 2E?thats why. no matter how you slice it,a flat bonus to skillpoints/level is a buff for wizards/clerics/fighters/paladins and a nerf for int/high skill classes.youd have to make any increase in skillpoints percentile based. I wasn't advocating those as choices for everyone. those will be the choices everyone takes.giveing 2 free class skills and +2skillpoints/lvl really IS saying.all charecters get spot/listen free. Swim + Jump becoming Athletics is good, I think. Note sure about the idea for Craft/Perform. Maybe they don't need any change if everyone has some more skill points to toss around...but to me it still seems like if you are going to invest in them, you might as well get more bang for your buck. NPC classes still benefit. Afterall, that Blacksmith can now afford to be good in all sorts of smithing (weapon, armor, black, etc) and know how to do several other things too, such as running a store (which would be a profession), knowing a bit about the world (a knowledge), etc. rawr.the perform thing came from my loatheing of the removal of being able to sing and dance for 1sp/lvl.i added craft because it just felt right. i see no reason to ever buff proffession though,afterall professions are for those who DONT adventure.the greatest swordsmith in the world?sure,the greats barmaid in the world?no thanks. the blacksmith has 7/splvl assumeing a int of 13(approriete for the NPC array) thats more than enough to grab some other skills.
Drachasor 03-28-05, 11:02 PM	Good point about limiting the options to just a few. I don't think clerics or sorcerers need 4+int skill points. Clerics already get a ton of abilities aside from full spellcasting progression. There's no explanation for why a sorcerer would get more, aside from competition with wizards. Here's the thing, if a sorcerer and a wizard each had an int of 18, the wizard would get 6 sp per level and the sorcerer gets 8. That doesn't make sense to me. It does make sense that the wizard's been studying (and learning) while the sorcerer just has innate ability. I've heard the complaint that a wizard with an 18 int should get more skill points than a fighter with an 18 int because he spends more time studying; but remember, while the wizard is studying (and gaining ranks in knowledge skills), the fighter is climbing trees, jumping over stuff, etc. There's a reason the wizard has 8 more class skills than a fighter. Well, perhaps I am looking ahead too much, but I'd like to balance out the core classes too. I hate how the balance works out at higher levels (and it could use some tweaking at low levels too). Part of this is to make people able to make the character they want without having to have a PrC for it. At least for a number of concepts. I really don't think a Fighter-diplomat should need a PrC. Hmm, perhaps the system could work out as follows: You pick 2 or 3 skills from the racial list. Those skills don't become class skills for every class, but they do lose the cross-class penalty. So you are limited in max ranks as a cross class skill, but you can raise ranks by spending just 1 point. (For humans that pick the Able Learner feat, your racial skills become class skills). How does that seem? Rogues don't get nerfed then because you still are limited to cross-class max ranks, but you still are able to perform such things very well. -Drachasor
HailSpork 03-29-05, 12:43 AM	So, you'd be limiting those skills to level+3, but still cross class? That would be much more balanced. Just remember as a GM that not all npc's will take spot or listen (unless they're dungeon crawling or paranoid), otherwise rogues will have a lot of troubles. Even guards and such will have to choose between spot and listen unless they get 4 sp per level.
Vahenir 03-29-05, 01:28 AM	but bardic music is a nessisity to a commander.a commander who cant inspire the troops isnt a good commander.and i fail to see how CLW isnt helpful. Actually, for many gaming groups/settings, a bard as a commander is a TERRIBLE choice. Spellcasting and singing/playing instruments are very anti-thetical to the standard gruff warrior general wearing half-plate and carrying a longsword and shield. Most people envision the general as the wisened warrior, a great soldier. Not a flitty, annoying bard. Bard's may have ABILITIES that would make for good commanding, but bards do not have the same presence or appeal that a real warrior has. And the fact is, in many military structures, it's the imposing renowned WARRIOR that commands troops. Not the guy who can buff people with a +1 to their AC. Anyway.. to the original poster: Here are some ideas I've used to great extent: No one is left with 2 skill points +Int. Everyone has to have at least 4. Trust me, it's not overpowering for a Fighter to get an average of two extra skill points per level. Professional skills: One shot deals. You are either a professional _____ or you're not. So one rank in "Profession: Sailor" is enough - you're a sailor. Any situation that requires or can benefit from a Profession check is dealt with by rolling the check as if you had full ranks possible in that Profession. So let's say you play a Fighter-sailor. You take one rank of Profession: Sailor. You never invest a single skill point in Profession: Sailor again. At level ten you need to make a Profession: Sailor check to see if you can identify a kind of boat formation. You are treated as though you have 13 ranks in Profession: Sailor (the maximum amount of ranks possible at level 10). Bonus skills: Bonus skills are skills based on your Profession. Every other level you gain after choosing a Profession skill (you may not exceed 3 professions) grants you 1 free skill point in a pre-determined Skill. For example: You choose Profession: Captain/Soldier/Whatever at 3rd level. At 5th level you gain one free rank in Diplomacy. At 7th level, another free rank, and so on. It may seem powerful, but the trick is to never equate a Profession to a REALLY important skill like Tumble or Climb. These alternates have worked out well for me in previous games I've run and make for far more interestingly made, and far more skill-heavy characters capable of doing more socially than just standing quietly behind the party Bard/Rogue.
HailSpork 03-29-05, 02:15 AM	If you don't want to be a "flitty" bard, don't play a flitty bard. Just because you have levels in bard doesn't mean you have to act in some pre-determined way. It's not a far stretch to use profession(oratory) instead of playing an instrument or such. Nowhere in the bard description does it say they have to be annoying. There is nothing stopping a bard (particularly a multi-class bard) from wearing half plate and a shield, it just means they can't cast (well, not easily) Also, buffing your allies (particularly buffs without a set limit) is far more useful than being able to swing a sword yourself. While the marshall is a much better fit, the bard can still fill the role. Honestly, I envision a general as a tactician. His ability to fight is irrelevant.
Drachasor 03-29-05, 02:47 AM	So, you'd be limiting those skills to level+3, but still cross class? That would be much more balanced. Just remember as a GM that not all npc's will take spot or listen (unless they're dungeon crawling or paranoid), otherwise rogues will have a lot of troubles. Even guards and such will have to choose between spot and listen unless they get 4 sp per level. Other way around. (Level + 3) / 2 is the limit (unless you take a class that has this skill as a class skill), but they only cost 1 skill point per rank. Kind of like a limited Able Learner. Ideally all classes get 2 more skill points a level (except those with 8 skill points get 12, perhaps). Naturally some rebalancing might need to be done with some classes...but that's been the case for a while. As for Fighter-Generals/Diplomats/Whatever, I think I just really feel that a pure Fighter should have a number of ways he can go beyond just how he allocates his feats. Right now there is very little skill-wise for him to do, so I think the racial-skill idea will alleviate this. With my idea he won't be as good a diplomat as a Bard of equal level whose focused in it, but he can do a good job thanks to the number of ranks he can cheaply aquire. Is there room for other types of military leaders? Of course there is. You can have your Wizard-Generals, the rousing speech-but-mediocre-fighter bard-general, and many other things. All this without any prestige class required. I think the system would benefit from that. Of course a PrC might make you exceptionally good at such a thing, but that PrC should only be a natural evolution of where the character already is...not as a means to get there. Vahenir, your profession idea is an interesting one. I sort of like my idea of making one skill point buy 2 ranks though. Hmm, but if I combine what you said with what Lina and I said.... How about Perform, Craft, and Profession work as follows: You buy ranks in Perform, Craft, and Profession as normal (or 1 point every 2 ranks....which do you think is better with this variant?*). These are called Primary Ranks. For one skill point, you may add half your primary ranks (rounded down) to a subcatagory of your choice from now on. So if you spend 1 skill point on Profession (Sailor), you may add half your Profession ranks to your Sailor checks. If you spend two skill points on a subcatagory, you may add your full Primary Ranks to checks in that. You do not buy ranks in these subcatagories; they either have 0, 1, or 2 points spent in them, giving them 0, half, or full Primary Skill ranks. When you first buy Primary Skill ranks in one of these skills (Profession, Perform, or Craft), you get two free skill points to spend on subcatagories, however you wish. This allows a Master Craftsman to quickly learn other crafting methods. So a Blacksmith could quickly learn weapon and armor smithing, or even a very different craft. Once you are good at making one thing it becomes very easy to learn the skills of making other things (that's the reasoning, anyhow). It also allows a Bard to be very good at multiple types of performing, without making an insane sacrifice. -Drachasor *I am still not sure if the Craft/Perform/Profession varient is good enough though, Perhaps the ranks should still be half-cost (2 primary ranks are bought with 1 skill point, subcatagory costs unchanged).
HailSpork 03-29-05, 03:37 AM	For your perform thing, there's a feat like that in complete adventurer. Applying it to craft seems logical enough. If you're allowing this ability for free, I wouldn't do this *and* make craft and perform skills 2 ranks for 1 point. As for profession, I just don't see how 4 ranks in profession(sailor) gives me a +2 for profession(hunting) unless I'm fishing. As for the diplomatic warrior, the system of making it cheaper to purchase the cross-class skills won't allow you to make a fighter any more diplomatic than he can be already, it just makes it cheaper.
Vahenir 03-29-05, 03:40 AM	HailSpork: I'm not saying Bards can't be commanders. I'm not saying they shouldn't be. I'm saying the classical image of the great commander is of a warrior, and a lot of people -enjoy- that image. Just because D&D made it a sub-optimal choice doesn't mean the vision of it isn't there. The guy who can cast spells (and does so poorly in armour), generally can't stand up to a good fight, and isn't all that fantastic with a weapon doesn't earn the respect needed to become a commander, from a setting perspective, not a rules perspective. The bard just doesn't "click" with the classical image of the mighty general, that's all. Spellcasters of any sort generally aren't great warriors, and great warriors are usually the ones who gain the combat experience to become commanders and captains. D&D doesn't use this, because anyone can have ranks in Knowledge (Warfare) and a Bard's ability to buff his soldiers is statistically better than a Commander's ability to inspire his troops by example and war cries. But just because D&D has made magic the answer to everything doesn't mean everyone plays their games that way. Drachasor: I don't know about your idea. Either I'm too tired for it to sink in.. or it's just hard to wrap my head around. Maybe when I get up I'll look again and see what I see, eh?
Lina_Inverse 03-29-05, 04:03 AM	Actually, for many gaming groups/settings, a bard as a commander is a TERRIBLE choice. Spellcasting and singing/playing instruments are very anti-thetical to the standard gruff warrior general wearing half-plate and carrying a longsword and shield. Most people envision the general as the wisened warrior, a great soldier. Not a flitty, annoying bard. Bard's may have ABILITIES that would make for good commanding, but bards do not have the same presence or appeal that a real warrior has. And the fact is, in many military structures, it's the imposing renowned WARRIOR that commands troops. Not the guy who can buff people with a +1 to their AC. first perform(oratory) is your bardic perform.ie barking orders to the troops. secondly,good generals are RARELY good warriors.ask yourself,how many 4star generals would do well on the front lines?a bard is a skilled warrior in a way.he has average BAB and will prolly outlevel most of his army,assumeing a distributation of 1-5 for his troops and a level 10general.he will have 2more combat feats than his most skilled grunts,ontop of that his BAB is 2 points higher,not to mention much higher hp. sure a purely combat oriented commander would be a better warrior.but would be a worthless general who cant inspire his troops.
Vahenir 03-29-05, 06:20 AM	Perhaps, Lina, you missed the point of what I was saying entirely. I'm NOT saying a Bard makes a BAD commander. I'm saying he's not the archetypical "gruff warrior commander" that many people are more comfortable with. Spellcasters are generally not generals or captains in fantasy in general (or at least, commanders or captains of grunt soldiers). And perhaps you also missed the part where I said D&D is irritating because it answers everything with "magic." Everyone is better at mundane things like being a commander because they have access to the magic to make them better. But if you want to go with something more believable than "he gets to be captain because he can make our AC increase by +1" - a Fighter-type is much more sensical. Again, I'm NOT saying a bard makes a bad commander. I'm saying bards are spellcasting characters and don't fit with many people's image of the archetypical medieval general/knight. As for your question: Many generals were soldiers. As a matter of fact, it's extremely difficult in the modern military to go from civilian to general. You have to be a soldier. And many of those guys, while plumper with age and desk-work, would still be a force to be reckoned with on the battlefield. As for medieval concerns - most commanders and generals were, in fact, older soldiers who'd survived. Because SOLDIERS know how to COMMAND soldiers. Someone without a lot of functional knowledge of warfare makes a terrible commander. But D&D ignores these concerns by allowing anyone to pick up Knowledge (Warfare), and magic makes spellcasters better everythings than anyone else. Why even have the Fighter? With wands of Fireball, Chain Lightning..etc... you never have to put soldiers on the battlefield.. just line up spellcasters... It's stupid, really. There's nothing wrong with wanting a more mundane feel rather than have spellcasters be the almighty characters because they have more skills and spells that can make them "good commanders." Actually, I already said all this, but your post didn't seem to take any of what I said into account: As a matter of fact, I pretty much just repeated myself because you apparently didn't bother to read my post... the one right above yours: I'm not saying Bards can't be commanders. I'm not saying they shouldn't be. I'm saying the classical image of the great commander is of a warrior, and a lot of people -enjoy- that image. Just because D&D made it a sub-optimal choice doesn't mean the vision of it isn't there. The guy who can cast spells (and does so poorly in armour), generally can't stand up to a good fight, and isn't all that fantastic with a weapon doesn't earn the respect needed to become a commander, from a setting perspective, not a rules perspective. The bard just doesn't "click" with the classical image of the mighty general, that's all. Spellcasters of any sort generally aren't great warriors, and great warriors are usually the ones who gain the combat experience to become commanders and captains. D&D doesn't use this, because anyone can have ranks in Knowledge (Warfare) and a Bard's ability to buff his soldiers is statistically better than a Commander's ability to inspire his troops by example and war cries. But just because D&D has made magic the answer to everything doesn't mean everyone plays their games that way.
Drachasor 03-29-05, 04:23 PM	As for the diplomatic warrior, the system of making it cheaper to purchase the cross-class skills won't allow you to make a fighter any more diplomatic than he can be already, it just makes it cheaper. It makes it so the Fighter-diplomat can afford to have diplomacy and sense motive though, and another skill, perhaps bluff, to add in this activity. Diplomats don't just have diplomacy, afterall. At the very least they need Sense Motive. *and* the fighter can still have other skills beyond these with this varient...which is more than sensible. -Drachasor
Drachasor 03-29-05, 04:24 PM	secondly,good generals are RARELY good warriors.ask yourself,how many 4star generals would do well on the front lines?a bard is a skilled warrior in a way.he has average BAB and will prolly outlevel most of his army,assumeing a distributation of 1-5 for his troops and a level 10general.he will have 2more combat feats than his most skilled grunts,ontop of that his BAB is 2 points higher,not to mention much higher hp. This is a fantasy game. Many a good general in fantasy settings are good warriors too; without magic. -Drachasor
Lina_Inverse 03-29-05, 05:14 PM	I'm NOT saying a Bard makes a BAD commander. I'm saying he's not the archetypical "gruff warrior commander" that many people are more comfortable with. Spellcasters are generally not generals or captains in fantasy in general (or at least, commanders or captains of grunt soldiers). and im saying fighters make BAD commanders no matter how you slice it.to armys go head to head,the bard lead one will always have the upper hand. And perhaps you also missed the part where I said D&D is irritating because it answers everything with "magic." Everyone is better at mundane things like being a commander because they have access to the magic to make them better. dude,D&Ds answer to everything SHOULD be magic.thats like complaining about earths answer to everything being technology. But if you want to go with something more believable than "he gets to be captain because he can make our AC increase by +1" - a Fighter-type is much more sensical. hes captain because hes a skilled leader and commander.who inspires the troops to fight and win even against hopeless odds. Again, I'm NOT saying a bard makes a bad commander. I'm saying bards are spellcasting characters and don't fit with many people's image of the archetypical medieval general/knight. medieval?NOTHING medieval about D&D war/combat.an eldritch knight on the battlefield is like a tank,near impossible to damage and with a big ass gun. no D&D combat is by nessisity more modern than youd like.the D&D rules+intelligent leaders guarente it. As for your question: Many generals were soldiers. As a matter of fact, it's extremely difficult in the modern military to go from civilian to general. You have to be a soldier. And many of those guys, while plumper with age and desk-work, would still be a force to be reckoned with on the battlefield. most offciers go though offciers training and come out lieutents.then work up from there. As for medieval concerns - most commanders and generals were, in fact, older soldiers who'd survived. Because SOLDIERS know how to COMMAND soldiers. Someone without a lot of functional knowledge of warfare makes a terrible commander. most commanders were born into it.there called knights. But D&D ignores these concerns by allowing anyone to pick up Knowledge (Warfare), and magic makes spellcasters better everythings than anyone else. a bard even gets knowledge(warfare) built in! and magic does tend to do that.afterall no soldier with a sword can stand upto a tank can it? Why even have the Fighter? With wands of Fireball, Chain Lightning..etc... you never have to put soldiers on the battlefield.. just line up spellcasters... to die so the casters can live? There's nothing wrong with wanting a more mundane feel rather than have spellcasters be the almighty characters because they have more skills and spells that can make them "good commanders." actully there is.its called logic. if the army who uses more casters to win battles.and more bards to lead troops.ALWAYS WINS,even outnumbered 10 to 1.every OTHER ruler is immeditly going to follow. and no matter how you slice it,it wont take long before some ruler says "hey fireball hits closely packed people,im gonna hire some mages in my next caimpaign" hence,warfare will adapt.
Vahenir 03-29-05, 06:30 PM	Jesus, Lina. You really don't get it do you? You cannot see beyond what is statistically superior in the rules, can you? Do you have absolutely no sense of flavour or personal taste? Is it, with you, just a matter of what is better by numbers? and im saying fighters make BAD commanders no matter how you slice it. Yes, they do! I'm saying a properly designed Fighter would have more opportunities to deal with skills like Diplomacy and Knowledge (Warfare). I'm saying it makes more logical sense for Fighters to BE good commanders, and D&D screwed that up by making magic the default answer to everything. If you think that it's fine that the people who are supposed to know the most about war - don't. Then fine. But your rationale about numbers and magic doesn't hold up with me and a lot of other people (like every one of my players). to armys go head to head,the bard lead one will always have the upper hand. Don't make blanket statements. I could easily make a general with any class that could trump a bard, depending on levels. The Rogue would have more skill points to spend in Knowledge (Warfare) for example, and so would always out-maneuver the Bard. A Cleric would have superior healing, and possibly a good amount of Knowledge (Warfare) ranks. The Paladin has special abilities akin to what you're saying about the Bard (ability to inspire and all that). The Wizard has skill points and lots of spells, etc etc. The only class that doesn't make a STATISTICALLY good commander is the one class that should make the best commander. Even Wizards of the Coast agrees with me on this - because they decided it was necessary to make the Marshal base class for the MH. Basically a Fighter who sacrifices some of his Fighter-ness to better lead troops. That's an admittance than warriors should make the best commanders, but in D&D - don't. dude,D&Ds answer to everything SHOULD be magic. No, it shouldn't. Look at the inspirations for D&D, what it was built from. Howard, Tolkien, Lovecraft, Cook, Mallory - whether you like it or not, D&D was built on stories of PEOPLE, not of magic and the people around that magic. Aragorn was a commander and a King - he was a warrior and not a spellcaster. Conan could lead and terrify men because he was a tremedous warrior and knew how to do battle. The Black Company were fierce warriors and their captain lead by example, not by buffing their AC. Arthur was a man of intelligence and just causes - he lead by example, battle-prowess, and love - not by radiating magical aura and casting buff spells. Want more examples? Fingolfin, Turgon, Turin, Theoden, Eomer, Faramir, Boromir, Lancelot, Galahad, Tristan, Charlemagne.... none were spellcasters, none could buff their men with AC bonuses and improved saves. All were great captains. D&D was NEVER built as a world around magic, it was built as a world WITH magic. Meaning, the magic doesn't overshadow the characters and the mundane. Great commanders are great commanders because of presence, intelligence, and tactics, not because they cast buff spells. The problem is that the more 3E is played, the more it's realized that you can do more with magic than you can in mundane existance. If you want to play a game where magic is the all-powerful factor and normal people can't do anything nearly as good - play Ars Magica. In Ars Magica, fighters are literally NPCs - they're bodyguard meatshields.. that's it. That's not the intention behind D&D and unfortunately, the rules have fallen short there by making magic just too good. But the spirit still survives so long as D&D's influences survive. And if you can't understand that, I pity you. thats like complaining about earths answer to everything being technology. I do. I think the end of civilization will be when technology becomes more important than humanity - when machines are doing more than we are. hes captain because hes a skilled leader and commander.who inspires the troops to fight and win even against hopeless odds. Precisely. A Fighter -should- be more skilled in war, and should inspire his troops with his very presence. Your argument is the Bard is better because he gets the spells and special abilities that allow him to do things like that. My argument is the Bard was never meant as a martial commanding type and it's coincidental and unfortunate that he does make a statistically better commander. medieval?NOTHING medieval about D&D war/combat. Are you out of your mind? Everything EXCEPT things like magic and monsters are VERY Medieval. Longswords, shield-walls, plate armour, mail, cavalry charges, javelin-throwing... how is D&D NOT Medieval? You'd have to ignore practically the entire game to say it's not Medieval. no D&D combat is by nessisity more modern than youd like.the D&D rules+intelligent leaders guarente it. No, actually you're wrong. D&D combat is exactly what you make of it. Some people choose to use very modern tactics - divebombing Dragons, casks of Alchemist's Fire being launched from pseudo-cannon trebuchet, entire platoons of casters with Fireball and Chain Lightning prepared... And others (probably more, judging from what I've seen on the boards and read of designer's websites) are Medieval + magic. You know, troops marching and then scattering to the sides as the Troll runs through - cavalry charges against gnoll raiders, Dragon-riders making charges against Griffon-riders.. Just because YOU do it in a very modern fashion doesn't mean everyone else does as well, and D&D supports both styles. most offciers go though offciers training and come out lieutents.then work up from there. Actually, if you read bios on many of the U.S.'s top officers in the Marines, Navy, and Army - they were soldiers. Many of them served in Vietnam and some of the younger ones served as soldiers in Desert Storm. And in a Medieval culture - there are no real "schools" for officers anyway. You become a commander through experience on the battlefield. most commanders were born into it.there called knights. Wrong again. Most Medieval Knights were - not - commanders or captains. They were high born men who could afford to enter the army in its upper ranks - the cavalry. You see, peasants couldn't afford the expensive armour, weapons, and horses necessary to join the cavalry, in most cases. So lesser nobles filled those roles. And true Knights were the richest of the lesser nobility - often fighting for their own reasons but under the command of whomever was in charge of the cavalry. That commander may very well have been a Knight. But Knights as a group were soldiers - not commanders until they earned it and there was a place for them (Medieval armies didn't have many commanders). a bard even gets knowledge(warfare) built in! By default a bard gets all knowledge skills because he's supposed to be a jack-of-all-trades, sort of like the Rogue. Of course he gets Knowledge (warfare) in that case. That is not proof he was ever meant as the archetype of the battlefield captain. and magic does tend to do that.afterall no soldier with a sword can stand upto a tank can it? By your logic.. D&D shouldn't even have a Warrior NPC class.. or militaries, for that matter. I mean.. no battalion of 1st level warriors can stand up to 90% of the creatures in the Monster Manual... so why bother keeping a military? Like I said, it's a world with magic.. not a world build around magic. to die so the casters can live? I hope you seriously don't believe that. That's probably the most pathetic way to game I've ever seen. Fighter = meat shield is typical of people with no imagination who only understand that D&D has magic.. and equate that with magic trumping everything else in the game. If you want to play a game where magic-users are the most important and useful characters - go play Ars Magica. D&D is built so that everyone shines.. not just the fireball-tossers hiding behind their meat-shields. actully there is.its called logic. So it's illogical to desire a more fundamental approach? It's illogical to play games similar to the stories that D&D is BASED on? You can't seriously believe that. if the army who uses more casters to win battles.and more bards to lead troops.ALWAYS WINS,even outnumbered 10 to 1.every OTHER ruler is immeditly going to follow. Once again you have missed the point ENTIRELY. and no matter how you slice it,it wont take long before some ruler says "hey fireball hits closely packed people,im gonna hire some mages in my next caimpaign" Do you happen to recall the MULTIPLE instances where the Core books note that PC classes should be very rare? It says that a lot. The PCs and a few handfulls of other people advance in PC classes. Everyone else are NPCs or Monsters without classes. In a D&D game based off the text of the Core Books.. there shouldn't be ENOUGH Wizards and Sorcerers in any given area to supply a ruler with enough of them to create any useful battalion. But that's irrelevant because you've somehow managed to miss the ENTIRE point of what I'm talking about. You can't seem to get passed the ridiculous notion "Magic is better than everything so only things involving magic have any place in the world outside of meat-shield or revenue." I have no interest in continuing a conversation with someone so incredibly narrow-minded and narrow-focused.
Vahenir 03-29-05, 06:57 PM	I realize my last post was a bit too confrontational and over-the-top. I apologize for that. It happens. Please take it at face value - a post made while extremely frustrated. That said, I find it extensively frustrating when someone cannot seem to see any position or point beyond their own. I understand what you're saying Lina - and I agree with you on the statistical points, but not on anything else, and it's frustrating that you cannot seem to see the side -I'm- coming from, or you're refusing to. Whichever. I suggest dropping the conversation altogether. And you're welcome to PM me if you wish. But we're just going to drag this thread down if we keep going. And for the record, I won't hold it against you if you report my behaviour to the Mods, as I probably deserve it for the outburst.
Lina_Inverse 03-29-05, 09:51 PM	Jesus, Lina. You really don't get it do you? You cannot see beyond what is statistically superior in the rules, can you? Do you have absolutely no sense of flavour or personal taste? Is it, with you, just a matter of what is better by numbers? were discussing warfare.it would only matter to those involved what was more effective. Yes, they do! I'm saying a properly designed Fighter would have more opportunities to deal with skills like Diplomacy and Knowledge (Warfare). I'm saying it makes more logical sense for Fighters to BE good commanders, and D&D screwed that up by making magic the default answer to everything. fighters get feats.not classes abilitys to buff/inspire/whatever troops.therefore there clearly not intended to lead troops.however the marshall is a 20level class BUILT around that.and the bard can also pull its weight.both of which have those skills. a fighter is just that,a fighter.nothing else,they fight.they take orders.they absorb punishment.they arent there to lead. If you think that it's fine that the people who are supposed to know the most about war - don't. Then fine. But your rationale about numbers and magic doesn't hold up with me and a lot of other people (like every one of my players). they know how to fight in war,not lead it.big diffrence. Don't make blanket statements. I could easily make a general with any class that could trump a bard, depending on levels. The Rogue would have more skill points to spend in Knowledge (Warfare) for example, and so would always out-maneuver the Bard. A Cleric would have superior healing, and possibly a good amount of Knowledge (Warfare) ranks. The Paladin has special abilities akin to what you're saying about the Bard (ability to inspire and all that). The Wizard has skill points and lots of spells, etc etc. The only class that doesn't make a STATISTICALLY good commander is the one class that should make the best commander. your not gonna trump a bard with any other core class for army control.high charisma+troop inspireing abilitys+right skill list. the only ability the paladin has to inspire is aura of courage.i get bard song. Even Wizards of the Coast agrees with me on this - because they decided it was necessary to make the Marshal base class for the MH. Basically a Fighter who sacrifices some of his Fighter-ness to better lead troops. That's an admittance than warriors should make the best commanders, but in D&D - don't. the marshal is a specilist.and hes no fighter type,he afterall has rogue BAB. D&D was NEVER built as a world around magic, it was built as a world WITH magic. Meaning, the magic doesn't overshadow the characters and the mundane. Great commanders are great commanders because of presence, intelligence, and tactics, not because they cast buff spells. no its a magic world face it.earth discovered technology and abuses it as far as it can.humans are still human.if D&D magic was discovered tomorrow you can bet we would start useing it just like technology. That's not the intention behind D&D and unfortunately, the rules have fallen short there by making magic just too good. But the spirit still survives so long as D&D's influences survive. intention shension.whats done is done.in D&D theres no viable reason not to have humanity liveing off mass amounts of casters. I do. I think the end of civilization will be when technology becomes more important than humanity - when machines are doing more than we are. fear of change?heh.change is all that is constant. Precisely. A Fighter -should- be more skilled in war, and should inspire his troops with his very presence. Your argument is the Bard is better because he gets the spells and special abilities that allow him to do things like that. My argument is the Bard was never meant as a martial commanding type and it's coincidental and unfortunate that he does make a statistically better commander. yet they included no fighter abilitys to improve troops.hell they made it damn near impossible to get decent troops.charisma is a dumb stat for fighters(the average fighter has an EIGHT) and leadership is based off charisma. Are you out of your mind? Everything EXCEPT things like magic and monsters are VERY Medieval. Longswords, shield-walls, plate armour, mail, cavalry charges, javelin-throwing... how is D&D NOT Medieval? You'd have to ignore practically the entire game to say it's not Medieval. magic.changes.everything. how many dms actully think how much magic would rewrite history.apparntly you dont. And others (probably more, judging from what I've seen on the boards and read of designer's websites) are Medieval + magic. You know, troops marching and then scattering to the sides as the Troll runs through - cavalry charges against gnoll raiders, Dragon-riders making charges against Griffon-riders.. Just because YOU do it in a very modern fashion doesn't mean everyone else does as well, and D&D supports both styles. let me at your caimpaign world with a lvl18 party.i bet i could conquer half of it in a game year. By default a bard gets all knowledge skills because he's supposed to be a jack-of-all-trades, sort of like the Rogue. Of course he gets Knowledge (warfare) in that case. That is not proof he was ever meant as the archetype of the battlefield captain. i ment bardic knowledge,which functions as knowledge(everything).so they dont even have to burn SKILLPOINTS to have knowledge of warfare. By your logic.. D&D shouldn't even have a Warrior NPC class.. or militaries, for that matter. I mean.. no battalion of 1st level warriors can stand up to 90% of the creatures in the Monster Manual... so why bother keeping a military? Like I said, it's a world with magic.. not a world build around magic. so the world doesnt work logically?1st level warriors ARE useless and cant stand up to CR18 creatures,even by the hundreds.thats how D&D works. I hope you seriously don't believe that. That's probably the most pathetic way to game I've ever seen. Fighter = meat shield is typical of people with no imagination who only understand that D&D has magic.. and equate that with magic trumping everything else in the game. ever played high level D&D games?fighter=meat shield. If you want to play a game where magic-users are the most important and useful characters - go play Ars Magica. D&D is built so that everyone shines.. not just the fireball-tossers hiding behind their meat-shields. D&D is built so casters are demigods.with fighters pitifully tossed a few scraps.play a lvl18 game with GOOD players.the only people that will matter are the casters. So it's illogical to desire a more fundamental approach? It's illogical to play games similar to the stories that D&D is BASED on? You can't seriously believe that. i do.logic dictates the actions we would take.to ignore those actions is to ignore logic. and to make it easy for a lvl18 bard to take over the world. Do you happen to recall the MULTIPLE instances where the Core books note that PC classes should be very rare? It says that a lot. The PCs and a few handfulls of other people advance in PC classes. Everyone else are NPCs or Monsters without classes. page numbers? what i have seen though.is the stats of how many high level charecters are in citys. the average city,has epic level COMMONERS.and multible lvl13+ members of EACH class. a flock of raptorians is led by a lvl9 cleric.thats 100people,led by a lvl9 cleric. PC classes are not rare by the rules,they are merely uncommon.
Vahenir 03-29-05, 10:06 PM	Once again, I'm frustrated. Because you disgust me, Lina. Your perceptions are hideously simplistic without any thought. You're just concerned with numbers. And you display the same idiotic belief that a high level game is "all about the spellcasters" and everyone else is just a meat-shield. You will never see any point but your own and for that, I'm placing you on ignore. It's not even worth knowing you exist if you aren't going to be a part of actual discussion - you're just going to spout off what you think you know and refuse to accept any other ideas as valid, and you're either too beligerent, or too stupid to even SEE any other side to a matter. It's sad.
HailSpork 03-29-05, 10:31 PM	So, I only glossed over the last few posts, but I think I have a solution. When Vahenir thinks of a general, he thinks of a fighter. When Lina thinks of a general, she thinks of a bard. What I just said may be accurate, it may not be. It doesn't matter. Honestly, build your general how you want. Both builds have the potential to be a potent military commander. Just as a bard doesn't have to be annoying or fit into a predesigned mold, the fighter doesn't have to be tactically impaired. Just because a bard has spells doesn't mean he has to use them. Just because a fighter doesn't have as much to gain from a high int (because of the few class skills), doesn't mean that there aren't smart fighters. (http://www.giantitp.com/ootsChars.html) At any rate, if you guys want to continue arguing which build is more fit for building a general, it probably shouldn't be in a thread designed to tweak the skill point system. Make a thread of General Fighter vs. General Bard. Maybe this can be the new Pirate vs. Ninja.
HailSpork 03-29-05, 10:51 PM	And for the record, I won't hold it against you if you report my behaviour to the Mods, as I probably deserve it for the outburst. Don't beat yourself up that much. While it is fairly obvious you were angry when you wrote the post, you hardly need to be reported for it. I mean, it's not like you were cursing or posting links to obscene images. And Lina, a level 18 caster could conquer most worlds were it not for resident casters of the same level or higher. I think my friends and I figured out that a symbol of fear+permenancy only requires a level 14 caster and could conquer most of Eberron (well, the main continent) without breaking a sweat. Level 1 warriors hold off orcs and such. Level 3 warriors do it better (just because it's not a PC class doesn't mean they're level 1). When the CR 18 monsters come to a city, you better have some people with high level PC classes.
Vahenir 03-29-05, 11:15 PM	Don't beat yourself up that much. While it is fairly obvious you were angry when you wrote the post, you hardly need to be reported for it. I mean, it's not like you were cursing or posting links to obscene images Yeah, but I know I have a pretty severe temper over little things. It's something I've never really been able to rectify. And whether or not I posted obscene images or swore - I think my behaviour was probably against the CoC. I'll leave the posts. If a Mod reprimands me, it won't be a big deal, I expect it. I thought about having my posts just deleted and forgetting the argument even happened. I'm still debating that.
HailSpork 03-29-05, 11:49 PM	I just read the CoC over, you have nothing to worry about.
Vahenir 03-30-05, 12:22 AM	Oh, whew. Okay.. so before we hijacked this thread.. what were we talking about?
Drachasor 03-30-05, 12:39 AM	For what it is worth, Vahenir, I agree with your stance almost 100%. In fact, I do want to work out a more balanced class system in the long run both at low and high levels. This will involve tweaking classes and probably the spell system, as well as adding/modifying existing feats and perhaps some rules. -Drachasor
Vahenir 03-30-05, 01:48 AM	Thanks. It's not so much wanting people to agree but at least for them to see the other side of things, you know? As opposed to being so involved in what they're saying that they see nothing else. Oh well. In fact, I do want to work out a more balanced class system in the long run both at low and high levels. This will involve tweaking classes and probably the spell system, as well as adding/modifying existing feats and perhaps some rules. Way ahead of you. I've been doing this for awhile now. I do happen to like the class system, so instead of going with a classless system, which I considered, I decided to keep classes. Then I upgraded the Fighter with some more stuff and even more feats (because at later levels, a feat every other level sucks and isn't nearly as good as the various class abilities of others). Then I started slowly toning down the spellcasters. Spells in my gaming worlds tend to be more in the scrying, conjuring, illusion veins. There are very few offensive spells.. Fireball, for example, isn't even available until you can cast 9th level spells. Spellcasters just aren't meant to be the equivalent of machine-guns with ammo crammed in their skulls.. so I took that away from them. My spellcasters will be far more flavourful and definitely enjoyable to play.. but not as uber-ized as core spellcasters were made. I also decided to make BAB a skill. As is Defense. You get so many points for your 'Combat' skills (Unarmed Combat, Armed Combat, Ranged Combat, Defense). For example, spellcasters and non-combatants get 1. So technically, they could have full BAB in some form - like Armed Combat. But they'd also have no defense, no ability with ranged attacks, and no ability to grapple. So it keeps spellcasters in line while still allowing them to focus a bit more on being able to physically attack things, because they can't do the spell-gunslinging anymore. Of course everyone got more skill points. I ditched the Rogue completely and made Sneak Attacking a combat action instead of a special ability (as it -should- be). Created some new classes I felt were necessary. Created a bunch of new skills, mostly knowledge skills, and I'm currently thinking of a way to separate skills into more specific functions. So someone who's good at lying (Bluff) won't necessarily be good at combat deception (feinting). You can check out the progress of my rules and lots of new feats and crap in the "Axe Feats" thread in the Feats board. It may be a couple pages back because neither I nor Shadowslayer (my partner in crime) have posted there for about a week, as I am currently working on Combat Specialty skills like Formation fighting and stuff. You may want to check out that thread.. if nothing else - it may give you some ideas.
HailSpork 03-30-05, 02:18 AM	Your ideas are interesting. Mind starting a new thread to explain them?
Vahenir 03-30-05, 04:31 AM	I could, if you like. But they're all posted in the thread I mentioned (Axe Feats). But I can understand if you don't want to sift through the 10 or so pages we've spent discussing game changes. I'll try to pull it all out of my notes and that thread, organize it into something resembling neat, and post it up in this very board.