Results 31 to 40 of 65
Thread: Brcs Feats And Skills
-
10-23-2003, 02:07 PM #31
- Join Date
- Sep 2003
- Posts
- 19
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
I also love the suggestions...
h34r:
-
10-24-2003, 10:16 AM #32
I know, Irdeggman, but such a solution is not sound in my case: memorising a song by listening to it in a bar (and having a bad/not-so-good voice) and learning how to play an instrument (even a primitive percussion) under the tetulage of a bard are two very different situations...
-
10-24-2003, 11:17 AM #33
----- Original Message -----
From: "RaspK_FOG" <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET>
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 5:16 AM
> I know, Irdeggman, but such a solution is not sound in my case:
> memorising a song by listening to it in a bar (and having a bad/
> not-so-good voice) and learning how to play an instrument (even
> a primitive percussion) under the tetulage of a bard are two very
> different situations...
These tasks may be different, but their DC`s are probabaly the same, and I
think that`s what Irdeggman was getting at. The DC guidelines suggest that
anything that almost anyone could do given time have a DC of 16-20.
Learning a song and learning an instrument are things that almost anyone
could do given time. Learning a song or an instrument under the tutelage of
a bard would probabaly have a DC of 11-15.
Its certainly within the pervue of the DM to allow a PC to take 20 (the
standard for of fiat in such cases) and assign an amount of time to
acomplish the task of learning the song or instrument.
I am not quite sure what this has to do with spending xp to aquire skill
ranks, however.
Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com
-
10-24-2003, 11:25 AM #34
First of all, ranks represent training. It is not reasonable to assume you can learn how to play an instrument without (at some point! getting a rank; I use the class skill table and assign them more like skill points that they then alocate to their ranks. The aforementioned psychic warrior got half a rank for the same time of training a monk, rogue, or bard would need, because Perform is a cross-class skill for him. Furthermore, the XP cost represents the effort he places in learning something; if he could also progress normally, he could get maximum ranks for nothing! In my campaigns, time and effort are what is important, and that's how I have my players understand it: they have to read through books for weeks to get a couple ranks in Knowledge skills.
-
10-24-2003, 11:35 AM #35
-
10-24-2003, 02:47 PM #36First of all, ranks represent training. It is not reasonable to assume you can learn how to play an instrument without (at some point! getting a rank; I use the class skill table and assign them more like skill points that they then alocate to their ranks. The aforementioned psychic warrior got half a rank for the same time of training a monk, rogue, or bard would need, because Perform is a cross-class skill for him. Furthermore, the XP cost represents the effort he places in learning something; if he could also progress normally, he could get maximum ranks for nothing! In my campaigns, time and effort are what is important, and that's how I have my players understand it: they have to read through books for weeks to get a couple ranks in Knowledge skills.
Training time and expense in gp seems fine; it was suggested in as an optional rule in the 3.0 DMG (probably in 3.5, too) when character level up.
Now, if you're charging xp for skills beyond their normal limit by class, that seems far more reasonable...otherwise all you're doing is saying: "those of you with many skills require more xp per level to fulfill your skill potential. But combat abilities and class abilities don't cost any more than in the PHB."
At this point, you might as well just charge a flat rate of more xp per level - at least it gives credit to the fact that combat skills are just as hard to improve as any other skill!
The skill points per class were meant to be balanced by the class feature and combat skill progression of the various classes. The idea was that a level represented a roughly equivalent amount of training and experience: those with high skill points get less combat ability (represented by BAB, hp, and combat feats) or spellcasting ability.
I still think that allowing characters to train extra skills beyind their normal class limits is reasonable, so long as the normal limits for ranks by level and class/cross-class designation is observed. And there charging xp is appropriate, because it effectively slows their overall level advancement as they spread themselves more broadly instead of remaining focused in their profession.
You want to require training for all skill advancement? Fine. But require training for all level-up features, especially spellcasting and feats. And don't penalize the high-skill classes further, as they already lose out in other ways (ask any rogue, who bemoans his lack of bonus feats through his first 10 levels!.
-Osprey
-
10-24-2003, 06:27 PM #37
I knew I had to improve my communication skills...
Well, Osprey, you got most of what I meant to say; without me really getting it through to you, which is really fascinating, since I failed giving the message! Anyway, to make it clear:
- I allow players to gain more skill points than the ones normally gained by level.
- I use the standard PHB rules when they don't.
- However, if they do use this ruling, they can train for some time, spending XP (a very small amount) and time, and sometimes even money (bying books, maps, being tutored, such things), and then allow them to allocate a number of skill points according to their devotion to what they try to achieve (the amount of expenditure), which are set with the regular limits and skill progression for each character (maximum ranks and whether a skill is a class skill or not are taken into account).
- The costs are proportional to their level of proficiency.
-
10-24-2003, 08:46 PM #38
h34r:
-
10-24-2003, 08:49 PM #39
----- Original Message -----
From: "RaspK_FOG" <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET>
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 6:25 AM
> First of all, ranks represent training. It is not reasonable to assume
> you can learn how to play an instrument without (at some point!)
> getting a rank;
Oh, it is reasonable. The skills section clearly states that we have
aptitudes with are of the general knowkledge variety, and that skill ranks
represent specialization. If a character learned an instrument without
aquiring skill ranks, they would be limited in ability and would frequently
fail checks. Consider other kinds of knowledge. We routinely aquire
knowledge without adding skill levels. A character is confronted with lord
Glevum, does the charatcer know his reputation? Maybe, maybe not, mack a
check and see. We don`t assume that this kind of aquisition of knowledge
must have been accompanied by a skill rank in Knowledge (Nobility).
There are two ways to handle this, and both, I think are valid. One is the
more simple and abstract. Too allow the aquistion of knowledge to be
assumed, and use checks to determine performance. The other is to take
Gary`s notion that the PC should get xp for time and effort, and then apply
your system of taking that xp back for the reward of skill ranks.
Obviously, its rediculous to reward someone xp for killing orogs and then
declare their ability to learn instruments has improved. The standard game
assumes a bit of study and practice with every rank, but is content to
assume. If one wanted to mechanicalize the whole process one could make
Gary`s argument that things are learned outside the campaign trail, this
merits xp, and then make them spend that xp on something specific and reward
them with that. But this system, however desirable one finds it, is not
neccesary. Once can get along perfectly well with the abstract and simpler
method described in the previous paragraph.
Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com
-
10-25-2003, 12:47 AM #40
At 03:18 PM 10/24/2003 -0500, Kenneth Gauck wrote:
>Obviously, its rediculous to reward someone xp for killing orogs and then
>declare their ability to learn instruments has improved.
I`ve listened to enough garage bands to say with some authority that it is
entirely possible to kill orogs with one`s musical talents....
That aside, it is important I think to note that learning is a weird
amalgam of things. Skill points are abstracted to a large degree, as are
character levels and experience itself. I`m sure we`ve all had an
experience where we learned subject ABC and suddenly found it applicable to
subject XYZ. Musashi said, "From one thing, know ten thousand things" by
which he meant that one should focus on a single subject or POV and use
that as the basis for understanding the world, everything in it and several
things that aren`t. It works because competence is a broad, general
thing. It functions within certain limits, of course, but in the same way
XPmakes for generally more competent characters with higher capacity to
learn and a generally superior ability to perform tasks, so too does real
life experience make for a generally more confident, less easily shaken
person which is at least half the battle when tackling any particular
task. Kill orogs, of course, doesn`t have any direct connection to playing
the lute, but after a long day of gore and guts a person might not only put
the significance of plucking the strings into perspective, but also allow
them to recognize that hitting a particular combination of notes isn`t
particularly more difficult than hitting chink in an opponent`s armor, and
gain the ability to play music that had previously eluded him/her with that
realization.
Gary
Thread Information
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks