Oh, I get it now, Fighters /should/ have spells.

Voss · Post by **Voss** » Mon Jul 09, 2012 3:33 pm

Whipstitch wrote:Street Samurai are an exception that proves the rule when it comes to viable "martial" characters. Relying on your skills, attributes and over-the-counter equipment is much less onerous when Skill/attribute rolls are seriously the primary mechanic and you can buy jetpacks and VTOL hunter-killers. Even then, the most important part is that magic is nerfed sufficiently that there's no personal teleportation or complex object conjuration.

Oh, and I used scare quotes because optimized street samurai have a funny tendency to look more like rogues more than anything else.

I'd be pretty happy with that. 'Guy who can fight, lead and sneak' is a pretty standard concept that is all over everything, but Gary and Dave broke it up into 'guy who can do nothing but fight, guy who can do nothing but sneak and at 9th level you get some little dudes' for no reason whatsoever.

Really, better at hiding and fighting with daggers and light armor (and, sigh, being the only Trap Guy) isn't a separate concept. It is a particular style of stabbery.

OgreBattle · Post by **OgreBattle** » Mon Jul 09, 2012 4:23 pm

Has any D&D homebrew class really attempted to do that? Even the Den's creations still fit into 'fightguy' 'sneakguy' divisions.

Factotum sort of does, but he's meant to be weird in that he can do a bit of everything.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Mon Jul 09, 2012 4:50 pm

OgreBattle wrote:Has any D&D homebrew class really attempted to do that? Even the Den's creations still fit into 'fightguy' 'sneakguy' divisions.

Factotum sort of does, but he's meant to be weird in that he can do a bit of everything.

"Rogue".

-Username17

Voss · Post by **Voss** » Mon Jul 09, 2012 4:58 pm

Yeah, pretty much. A bigger hit die would be nice, as would greater weapon/armor access and maybe a couple of bonus feats.

But not having weapon specialization isn't really something anyone should ever care about.

Lokathor · Post by **Lokathor** » Mon Jul 09, 2012 7:01 pm

So, if the Rogue was given full BAB and maybe a d8 Hit Die?

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Mon Jul 09, 2012 7:08 pm

Lokathor wrote:So, if the Rogue was given full BAB and maybe a d8 Hit Die?

Or if someone made a Tome Ranger I was happy with.

-Username17

Voss · Post by **Voss** » Mon Jul 09, 2012 7:41 pm

Hrm. Rangers are one of those classes with a shit-ton of unnecessary baggage, most of which doesn't even make any sense. While taking the useful bits out and wedding it to the other orphaned classes (so you can make a 'd&d ranger' if you want to), the idea of a class still clinging to that shit makes me feel dirty.

Chamomile · Post by **Chamomile** » Mon Jul 09, 2012 7:48 pm

If I wanted to make a Ranger class, I'd go back to the original inspiration and think "what if Aragorn went past 5th level or so?"

Voss · Post by **Voss** » Mon Jul 09, 2012 7:55 pm

So, you'd carry on with all the Tolkien baggage? Elf-friends, scruffy, white-power and all?

Of course, Aragorn past '5th level' is pretty clear- he sits on his ass and tasks minions and armies to carry out his will.

Chamomile · Post by **Chamomile** » Mon Jul 09, 2012 8:24 pm

No, I'd make a guy who has stealth, tracking, swording dudes, and support magic as his primary shticks.

erik · Post by **erik** » Mon Jul 09, 2012 8:31 pm

Chamomile wrote:If I wanted to make a Ranger class, I'd go back to the original inspiration and think "what if Aragorn went past 5th level or so?"

MERPS has rules for higher level LotR characters. I am away from my books at the moment so I cannot properly describe what the top level spells are.

The answer is not just "sits on his ass and tasks minions and armies to carry out his will" as there are clearly things for higher level characters to go out and do.

One of my favorite things about MERPS is that anyone could learn spells if they felt like it. One of my least favorite things, certain races (mostly elves) are ridiculously superior to any alternative.

[edit:] MERPS spells are in spell lists with levels 1-10 in a specific discipline, kinda like domains. A high level ranger could run on water, be practically invisible, create light/darkness, mindblank vs. detection spells, be aware of any outdoor activity within 100', speak with animals and of course cover all your tracking needs up to including a past viewing of people who passed on a certain path semi-recently.

In looking at ye olde rule book it looks like my recollection on how much I should like the non-casting classes getting spells needs revisited. While other classes actually can learn spell lists, they get boned by being limited to low level spells only (scout only gets up to level 5, warriors only up to level 3, but then again, level 10 spell casters while super, are nothing like D&D spell casters.

Midnight_v · Post by **Midnight_v** » Tue Jul 10, 2012 2:10 am

I'd be pretty happy with that. 'Guy who can fight, lead and sneak' is a pretty standard concept that is all over everything, but Gary and Dave broke it up into 'guy who can do nothing but fight, guy who can do nothing but sneak and at 9th level you get some little dudes' for no reason whatsoever.

Hit Die: d10
Class Skills (Skill Points::6 + Int modifier per level, ×4 at 1st level)
Balance (Dex), Bluff (Cha), Climb (Str), Craft (Int), Diplomacy (Cha), Escape Artist (Dex), Handle Animal (Cha), Intimidate (Cha), Jump (Str), Knowledge (all skills, taken individually) (Int), Listen (Wis) Move Silently (Dex), Profession (Wis), Ride (Dex), Sense Motive (Wis), Spot (Wis), Survival (Wis), Swim (Str), Tumble (Dex), Use Rope (Dex).

I've often thought the concept of hide falling into the rogues skill list is a symptom of role protection that designers fall victim to. I kept hearing the above echoed, and went to the tome fighter cause I thought it had hide but its just move silently. I like it becaues "Knowledge" all skills taken individually, should be something that all classes should have. I've always found that to be annoying, bullshit assumptions seem to be the only reason that they DON'T have it.

Sigh. . . also, I have no problem with the "ascendant" type of fighter or whatever. If at level X you become a demigod thats fine. You still have to do something like that even if you give the fighter the skills of the rogue.

OgreBattle · Post by **OgreBattle** » Tue Jul 10, 2012 3:54 am

Ranger to me seems like a western Ninja

uses two swords. Tends to wear nothing heavier than chain.
Likes to sneak, but also good in straightup fights
animal companion
nature magic

Replace astral panthers with Astral Frogs and Drizzt is a ninja runaway from his evil clan. Mist Village is basically Mezzoberanzan, Melee Maegthere training them since kids to be killers, graduates then going on missions for the spiderkage

erik · Post by **erik** » Tue Jul 10, 2012 4:00 am

I'd say there's no good reason to role protect any skill.

Some classes may have special abilities that make them superior at some skill niche (like invisibility makes you awesome at sneaking, divinations may make you awesome at research, etc.), but on a base level, every class should be able to do any skill, and not with shitty 1/2 rank cross-class penalties like 3e tried either.

Lokathor · Post by **Lokathor** » Tue Jul 10, 2012 4:17 am

Use Magic Device is an issue. It's too good as a skill. It should just be a class feature of some classes.

Other than that, yeah, all skills as class skills for all.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Tue Jul 10, 2012 4:32 am

erik wrote:I'd say there's no good reason to role protect any skill.

That depends on what your skills do. If you have skills like 3e's "Use Magic Device" or skills like Diablo 3's Fire Mastery or Might&Magic 7's Armsmaster then you're damn right that the skills are appropriate for role protection.

-Username17

erik · Post by **erik** » Tue Jul 10, 2012 5:12 am

I am thinking of skills as a mundane type feature. Use Magic Device... is more than a bit weird as a skill, such a specialized and purely magical ability. UMD really fits better as a class power and I think should not have been incorporated into the 3e skill scheme at all. By their use of dreaded exclusive skills at the onset, it looks like that is what they had in mind, they just didn't have the wherewithall to simply stat it up as a rogue class power.

Anything like knowledge, code breaking, crafting, sneaking, languages, even weapon and armor proficiency... they're all mundane things that could conceivably be learned by someone of any class be they a warrior, mage, scout, face, woodsman, priest or whatever.

Diablo 'skills' I think of as class powers, even if they are selectable on tracks.

I suppose my argument is somewhat ontological.

Skills are things that anyone can learn to do, almost universally mundane, and as such not role protected.

Class powers are things that tend to be extra-natural and often very specific, in which case they ought be protected to varying extents.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Tue Jul 10, 2012 5:36 am

So your position is that minor mundane abilities that have little impact on the game and should be available to all characters should be available to all characters? That's not a very bold or useful statement at all.

-Username17

erik · Post by **erik** » Tue Jul 10, 2012 5:42 am

FrankTrollman wrote:So your position is that minor mundane abilities that have little impact on the game and should be available to all characters should be available to all characters? That's not a very bold or useful statement at all.

Nevertheless, that lesson was lost upon 3e DnD.

It was in response to Midnight_v's notion that all classes should be able to take Knowledge(all skills, taken individually). I hold a wider notion that any skill should be available to any class. Possible exception rider for Use Magic Device since it never belonged in skills to begin with.

Aryxbez · Post by **Aryxbez** » Tue Jul 10, 2012 6:48 am

Oh! as in like how Every skill is now a "Class Skill", and thus limiter is amount of points can allocate among them? As yeah, I can get behind that, something I'd do for my D&D games. As really, people will choose the skills that are relevant to their character anyway, fighter types take the Athletics, Intimidate and such. Just now, they'll have extra utility so they don't feel useless, like Stealth or Perception. Which was good on flexible part of Shadowrun (even if skills like Stealth, Perception and Social Skill Group were "must takes"), another good idea is the concept of Knowledge skills from that game. So everyone has free "flavor skills" they can throw on their character, even if something like "Underwater Basketweaving" will get used once (if that) during a campaign, all the same cool to have on a character in an ongoing campaign.

If by the word "Mundane" meant they have weak little effects, then I'm not sure I agree with that too much. I feel they should meaningful things throughout play, even if that means ye can "Use Rope" to lasso a tornado, or swim in clouds.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Tue Jul 10, 2012 10:27 am

erik wrote:
FrankTrollman wrote:So your position is that minor mundane abilities that have little impact on the game and should be available to all characters should be available to all characters? That's not a very bold or useful statement at all.
Nevertheless, that lesson was lost upon 3e DnD.

It was in response to Midnight_v's notion that all classes should be able to take Knowledge(all skills, taken individually). I hold a wider notion that any skill should be available to any class. Possible exception rider for Use Magic Device since it never belonged in skills to begin with.

You are embedding way too many assumptions into your declarations.

A "skill" is a thing a character can do. That is all it is. Sometimes it's a generic thing (like "stealth"), sometimes it's a specific thing (like "artisan: bronze sculpture"). Sometimes it's a numeric bonus (like "diplomacy +5"), sometimes it's just a binary tag (like "knows firebolt"). All of these things are "skills", and could be labeled as such in a hypothetical game.

As to D&D's specific skill list: it has huge problems. The fact that Use Magic Device is on the list doesn't even count as a problem, because the issues are way more fundamental than that. The fact is that the list of things that you can "do" with skills includes shit that stays level appropriate at any level (scouting, diplomacy), but also shit that doesn't matter past the first couple of levels at the outside (jumping, lockpicking). And those eat into the same ranks.

-Username17

deaddmwalking · Post by **deaddmwalking** » Tue Jul 10, 2012 10:31 am

I agree that skills should be open to everyone. The Fighter should be able to Hide and Spot, if that's what he wants to do. The Rogue should be able to Handle Animals if that's what he wants to do (nice doggy!). The cross-class bullshit doesn't add anything.

For Use Magic Device, I'm not convinced that it couldn't be a skill open to everyone. The normal DCs are 20-29. Since Charisma is the relevant ability, it's going to work best for 'face' characters. At low-levels, making those kinds of checks aren't going to be reliable. Ie, a +6 for attribute bonus and +4 for skill ranks at 1st level means activating a wand is 50/50. You could take two feats for another +5 bonus, but that's a pretty big investment if this isn't something you want to make your 'primary schtick'.

Especially since getting a spell on your 'spell list' is fairly trivial. For example, in a warrior-cleric build I was making for an online game, it made sense based on starting level to take a level of Ranger before taking levels of cleric (access to weapons, track, +1 BAB, Skills and most importantly the Ranger spell list - entangle in particular).

If Use Magic Device hadn't been a protected skill, I still don't think I would have gone that route. Having the spell I wanted on my spell list made that unnecessary.

In general, I would think the non-caster classes benefit the most from access to UMD. Sure, the wizard could pick up literally every spell, which is why the cleric tends to be so broken, but the increased 'utility' benefits everyone - and as far as combat goes, other people using level-restricted wands isn't going to be impressive as the high level spells the wizard will have access to.

Unless someone is going around giving hundreds of peasants wands of magic missile I'm not seeing the problem. There was already nothing stopping them from equipping the wizard novitiates at the local sorcery school similarly...

Midnight_v · Post by **Midnight_v** » Tue Jul 10, 2012 12:41 pm

A "skill" is a thing a character can do. That is all it is. Sometimes it's a generic thing (like "stealth"), sometimes it's a specific thing (like "artisan: bronze sculpture"). Sometimes it's a numeric bonus (like "diplomacy +5"), sometimes it's just a binary tag (like "knows firebolt"). All of these things are "skills", and could be labeled as such in a hypothetical game.

Clearly at the point I posted a skill list and commented on it, I was talking about 1 specific game. Not some theoretical game which, I respect that you'd probbably rather talk about but those posts following were clearly referencing D&D skills.
That is to say NOT bull shit like "Slice & Dice" from the Combat Rogue tree. Semanitic bullshit must stop.
I rather use D&D3.X as my main go to reference because I know most people know it. I figure if you can solve the conceptual issues you can apply them to any system though really. . .

OgreBattle · Post by **OgreBattle** » Tue Jul 10, 2012 2:55 pm

It seems like it'd be easier to define it through "what CANT a skill do?"

So D&D is a class based game. What are the things that skills CANNOT ever do, because it is only gained by class.

Even something like Sneak attack seems like 'stealth+weapon proficiency+knowledge: anatomy" or sleight of hand or perception or something that says "I know where the hurty spot on this kind of humanoid is"

Duke Flauros · Post by **Duke Flauros** » Tue Jul 10, 2012 3:52 pm

I'm guessing that at this point it would be better to use TOP as a starting point?