With scheduling difficulties finally overcome, the players...all 3 of them! Nacho McChumpie has a name now!...managed to get together this Sunday night for some mayhem.
Kaloei and Sol were set to join an Orien caravan traveling from Fairhaven to Sharn, as asked by the mysterious Urik Rorham. Note, by the way, that Fairhaven to Sharn is a long way, especially by trade road. The caravan would be making many stops, bringing on new wagons and leaving others behind. Of particular note in this caravan was a small group from the Raincaller's Guild of House Lyrandar and a group from House Sivis, maintaining an appropriately gnome-sized wagon and serving as the mobile communications center by carrying a speaking stone.
The caravan was headed up by one Joreth d'Orien, an extremely well-dressed, extremely well-fed, extremely slimy sort. His head of security was Milaya d'Orien, and the players also met one Cyria Laiqua d'Lyrandar, who was traveling with the Raincallers.
The first several days were uneventful, until arriving at the town of Lathlear. A rather nondescript place, except that it is the home of a renowned Aundairian artist, the reclusive but brilliant sculptor Haradeen. The entire reason for the caravan coming to Lathlear, in fact, was to pick up his two newest pieces for transport to passage, where they would be taken by Lightning Rail to Sharn.
The two large crated statues were accompanied by their own security detachment, as well; a group of six, mixed of humans and half-orcs, led by one particularly enormous half-orc with grayish skin, keenly intelligent eyes, and an enormous longbow slung across his back. A few of them were sporting visible Dragonmarks, and it was assumed that they were a group of Tharashk mercenaries hired to provide security for the artwork.
That night there was to be a celebratory dinner on the greensward just outside the town. It wasn't every day, of course, that new works of Master Magecraft Sculptor Haradeen were unveiled. A large silk pavilion was erected, servants were liveried, etc. Due to introducing herself to the caravan master, Kaloei was invited and told she could, if she wished, bring along her 'retainers.' (Sol and Cyria were perfectly happy to melt into the background that way). Upon arriving, each guest was announced, and of course the leader of the Tharashk contingent was invited. And announced as Iyerke d'Tharashk.
Naturally, Sol and Kaloei remembered this name; it had been given to them by Urik Rorham as someone he believed connected to the rash of disappearances in Fairhaven. It being a party, there wasn't a whole lot they could do about it.
"Hello, Iyerke. Charmed. I'm Kaloei. Enjoying the wine? Kidnap anyone lately?"
See? It doesn't work.
At any rate, at the party, the new works by Master Haradeen were unveiled. The town of Lathlear itself had a few on display, including a prominent statue of Queen Aurala in the town square. They were quite lifelike. And the two statues newly unveiled were incredilby detailed. One was a farmer, good Aundarian type, wearing simple homespun and burlap and carrying a hoe slung over his shoulder. The other was a curious piece; a warrior, with shield and sword upraised, wearing Cyran livery and rank insignia. The sword itself looked so real a viewer might swear it would cut if touched.
Kal, Sol, and Cyria oohed and aahed over the statues appropriately. Also while at dinner they met the head of the caravan's Sivis detachment, Derrin Leyn D'Sivis, notably for his courtesy, erudition, and for being just about the only male at the party (besides Sol) who didn't stare at Kaloei's cleavage (remember the discussion below about being the rare zaftig elf), if only because he wasn't tall enough.
The next few days were more or less uneventful, with Sol offering his services for the caravan's security to Milaya d'Orien, especially as regarded the guarding of Haradeen's statues.
About halfway to Passage, there was some commotion one morning; one of the caravan's scout/sentries was found, about 1oo yards to the west, with his throat slit. Milaya, Sol, Cyria, Iyerke, and most of the other Tharashk mercenaries went to investigate. Neither Sol nor Iyerke were able to find any solid tracks leading away from the body, indicating the deed was done by someone with woodcraft.
Meanwhile, Kaloei had stayed behind with the bunk wagon they'd been staying in, which was on the east side of the caravan, near the wagon carrying the statues. She noticed, though it was nearing dawn, that it was suddenly much darker on that side of the caravan...as though, perhaps, a magical darkness was spreading from the treeline.
Then, suddenly, a group of nearly 30 riders burst from the treeline and began a made ride towards the wagon carrying the artwork. The alarm went up, but most of the guards- and the best of them- were on the west side scouring the woods for sign of who had killed their sentry.
As Kaloei watched, the riders immediately formed a wedge that was pointed directly at the wagon carrying the statues. They bore themselves with military precision and clearly had training; no ordinary bandits, these. Many of them were horse archers and began peppering the camp with arrows, working mostly as a kind of 'suppression' fire, trying to keep folks heads down. The Tharashk mercenaries, to their credit, immediately assumed firing positions around their wagon and began returning fire, but the two left behind were quickly cut down. Meanwhile, the group of six riders at the front of the wedge performed a running dismount, and stormed towards the wagon that was their clear target, swords drawn.
Milaya was the first to intercept them, 'bamf'ing into a position in front of the wagon. Iyerke, just on foot, wasn't far behind her, and began peppering the bandits with arrows from his enormous bow, though his aimed seemed off.
It figures; introduce a recurring villain and watch him completely crap out when it comes to combat.
Eventually Sol caught up and began hurling axes, then engaging in hand to hand. Kaloei had, in fine bard tradition, slunk away from the combat, but then found some courage (without any alcohol to hand, either- definitely a departure from true bardic form) and returned to engage the bandits with her trusty rapier.
Eventually, Milaya was felled by the man who seemed to lead the bandits, though he had help. Meanwhile, a group of horsemen had peeled off with unsaddled horses and seemed to be making to hitch them to the wagon to lead it off. Cyira then entered the fray and showed fine combat instincts, attempting to Entangle the bulk of the bandits, and she was in large part successful.
Kaloei and Sol joined together to try and guard the wagon holding the statues; two bandits managed to break down the door, but Sol dropped one with an axe to the skull, and Kaloei pursued the other to the interior, engaging him in a duel. Sol came face to face with the bandit leader, and they began fighting.
Curiously, as the bandits fought they often uttered short warcries, such as "for Cyre!" Sol eventually noticed that the leader was wearing Cyran insignia, of an elite unit known as the Queen's Blades. They spoke. The leader made some bold claims.
Namely that the statue in the wagon was, in fact, a petrified Cyran officer, their captain, and they were fighting to get him back in order to save him.
This revelation brought the fighting to a standstill, with Sol unwilling to attempt to kill his opponent, Milaya out of the fray, and neither side with a clear upper hand, as most of the guards had now been able to engage the attackers. An uneasy and undeclared truce was enacted.
The caravan master emerged and dismissed the Cyran's claims as ridiculous and unfounded. Sol asked if a wizard could be brought forth to prove or disprove. Joreth summoned the caravan's wizard. Milaya, healed of some of her wounds by the field medics, approached, as did Iyerke.
The first statue's crate was opened. All marveled at the detail of the Cyran warrior. Suddenly, Joreth reached, touched the statue with one hand, Iyerke with the other, and all 3 vanished.
There was stunned silence. The Cyrans were furious. Milaya was furious. The Cyrans retreated. Milaya told Sol that he and Kaloei were no longer welcome with the caravan, having aided and abetted bandits, and would be put off in Passage.
Cyria put in a call to her father, a highly placed Lyrandar diplomat, asking if bookings could be made for 3 on the Lightning Rail from Passage to Sharn. (Favored in House feat at work, for those keeping score at home). She got a message back that yes, it could be, but not in first class. It would do her good to mingle with the great unwashed.
Kal, Sol, and Cyria pondered things. Was the statue really a person? That'd be a great way to transport prisoners. Derrin Leyn D'Sivis came to talk with them. He was interested, as well. He didn't know much, of course, but he'd heard rumors about a half-orc matching Iyerke's description being wanted in many cities between Fairhaven and Sharn. He announced he'd be going out for a walk, and that he was a clumsy sort and may drop something.
He did. A small envelope, with one piece of paper; a copy of the bills of lading for the statues, and the names of who they were going to in Sharn. One to someone named Cavallah, the other to Lord Admiral Lyrien of the Lhazzar Principalities.
The caravan approaches Passage; the intrepid heroes await the Lightning Rail and Sharn.
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Wednesday, May 9, 2007
Paladins are Lawful Good. That is all.
Let me preface this with a few things; paladins are one of my favorite character classes to play in D&D. The allure of the class is, to me, to create a distinctive personality and background within a very rigidly defined archetype. That, and being able to whup ass on evil, in particular, better than anyone else. The paladin is a "fighter without bonus feats" against things like elementals, animals, and the like. But when fighting evil...a creature or person deliberately out to harm others...the paladin kicks ass above and beyond all others.
And when I play D&D, I want to play a hero. Usually. Playing evil characters tends to bring out facets of me I'd rather not acknowledge. Of course, any class can be a hero (excepting bards; nobody believes a bard can be a hero), but the thing about the Paladin is, he is destined to be. It isn't a choice, and it may not even be what he wants, but it is what he is on a more fundamental level than any other class.
Now, I've noticed a trend in recent supplements and such to introduce "variant" paladins. I don't necessarily have a problem with variations of paladin abilities, but most of these variations seem to be on the order of "letting people play a paladin that isn't LG." There's the CG paladin, the LE paladin, the CE paladin.
And that's all nonsense. Rot. Swill. Garbage. Stupid. Fluff. A CRUTCH FOR WEAK PLAYERS WHO CAN'T HANDLE THE GAME.
Ahem. Sorry. Was channeling Weird Pete for a second there.
Point is, Paladins are Lawful Good for a reason. For several reasons, in fact.
Let's start by examining the origins and meanings of the word "paladin." Without too much linguistic nonsense, paladin appears to have originated around 1595, referring in French literary romance to the 12 knights in attendance upon Charlemagne. Other less specific definitons; a paragon of chivalry, a determined advocate or defender of a noble cause...most of the rest of the definitions proceed from there.
Now, how does this relate to Paladins being Lawful Good only? Patience. We'll get there.
One of the arguments I often here for the variant alignment Paladins is, "Well, other gods have champions, too." Sure they do. They're called CLERICS. Or, for that matter, rangers or wizards or druids. If you want to become a super-duper CG champion, you work toward the "Holy Liberator" PrC.
Furthermore, folks, Chaotic Goodness is not a cause. Chaotic Good is the alignment that says "don't start none, won't be none," or "stay away, leave me alone, let me go my way." Mal Reynolds of Firefly is the perfect example of CG. He follows his own needs and conscience as the situation dictates, but isn't really out to change the world (not usually). He's a good man, sometimes even a very good one, but he's not a Paladin, and he'd laugh if you suggested he was. Chaotic Good is, by and large, a reactive sort of alignment, and Paladins are by their nature an active class. Their mandate is to actively hunt down evil and eradicate it. Chaotic Good characters aren't generally out to do that. They're individualists. Not crusaders.
By extension, CG gods aren't the kind who'd want their followers out championing causes, are they? I mean, combating evil where you find it, sure...but are they likely to grant significant power, like the paladin wields? I don't know, but I don't think so. Again, it's a matter of active vs. reactive. Chaotic Good beings react to threats or perceived injustices or crowding of individual freedoms; are those the kinds of things a Paladin does? Well, yes, but not as a cause. I just don't see it as possible to define "Chaotic Goodness" or CG deities as "a cause" or
As for Lawful Evil paladins? Still not buying it. Lawful Evil is not so much a cause as it is an alignment geared towards acquiring personal wealth and power. But again, anybody can do that. You don't need special abilities to make you a dominating conqueror, not really. And there's the Blackguard PrC to cover the situation of the "anointed of a dark god." And I have no problem with the Blackguard PrC filling that role, and it makes sense to me, for several reasons. For starters, dark gods aren't, I don't think, likely to grant those kinds of powers to someone who hasn't gone out and proven themselves devoted to the cause; I don't see 1st level characters in the "blackguard" role. Secondly, there are specific rules about the PrC that pertain to Fallen Paladins who take up the role, and that makes all kinds of sense to me. Nothing a dark god likes better than stealing the champion of his enemy.
I don't see a CE god granting those sorts of powers lightly, either, which is why I also don't buy the CE paladin variant. Look, imagine a dark god, d&d style. They are an eternal and inexorable and ineffable expression of all that is evil in the nature of sentient beings. They aren't going to share their power lightly, not without tremendous consequences to the sharee.
Contrast this to your typical LG god. They're exactly the opposite, and, I feel, much more likely to grant powers to someone based on their potential. Someone has to go and combat the evil out there, right? And while the representatives of LG gods can spend the time and energy to train and shepherd and educate those prospective, the deity in question needs to equip them with the ability to do what they are Called to do. I just think it's hard to make an argument that someone is Called to do evil in the way a Paladin is Called to do good. Most evil arises out of self-interest, of a desire for more personal wealth/power/magic, whatever, and rarely does it rise (or sink) to the level of proselytizing and actively seeking to spread the word and 'erdicate good.' Sure, there might be some few truly, truly devoted who act in that manner, but...are they going to go seek out and train their replacements, people they'd have to share power with?
A keen example here is the Sith (chorus of boos from all of you prequel haters; just trust me). There are 2 at a time, because otherwise, they get overwhelmed with backstabbing, plotting, assassinations and the like, and nothing gets done. The way a new Sith advances is by killing one up top. Don't share power. Don't make it easy for your replacements. Is this the kind of environment that fosters lots of individuals with potential to become great champions of evil, the way most Campaign Settings seem to picture Paladinhood?
No. But it is a way to foster the role of something like the Blackguard, a champion of evil who has proved himself by...being a champion of evil. I have no problems with the concept of an "anti-paladin" being applied to a PrC. But not a base class.
There's a game balance issue here, too. Paladins (along with Monks) get the most class-centric abilities, things no one else can effectively do. Most of these, for the Paladin, come at relatively early levels. By level 6, a paladin has gotten all of the abilities he's going to get; Aura of Good, Smite Evil 2/day, Divine Grace, Lay on Hands, Turn Undead, Special Mount, and Remove Disease 1/day. If you don't want the remove disease too badly, you can just go to 5. If the paladin doesn't have severe alignment restrictions, then min-maxxers might just take 5 levels and never go back. Some of them will do that anyway. But if they're a Chaotic Good Paladin, they can go and take levels in, say, Bard or Barbarian. The former, being so Charisma based, stacks especially well in a numbers way, but doesn't make any damn sense in a roleplay manner.
Finally, there's the challenge of playing a Paladin. Making a Paladin CG removes the very challenge that makes playing a unique Paladin so compelling. Look, I've played many a CG character in my life, but let's be honest; it's the easiest good alignment to play well, and might be the easiest in the game to effectively manage. You don't have carte blanche, but it's close.
The thing is, most people picture the Paladin as "Lawful Stupid," inevitably losing their life in a foolish cause, or being a prig who has no sense of humor and lives on bread and water. The fun of playing a Paladin is challenging that assertion. Lawful Good doesn't offer nearly as much latitude as anything else does, but that doesn't mean you can't have personality or that you have to be a stiff-necked prig. For example, one Paladin I played for a long time spent a fair amount of free time at a brothel. Not as a customer, mind you, nor in a paid position, but he hung around because, fairly often, the women there needed protection, or a little 'cure disease,' or someone to help them out in a number of ways. Maybe what they were doing wasn't legal, but the goddess he followed stressed caring for the younger, the weaker, those without means to protect themselves, etc. He saw that he was doing that, didn't accept money for it, didn't sleep with any of the girls (though Paladins don't have to be celibate, far from it) and all in all, helped make it so that the lives the women in that brothel had were better than they otherwise would've been. Maybe he preached a little bit...if he saw an opening...but not too much.
Anyway, enough character reminiscence. The point; Paladins are Lawful Good for a reason. For several reasons. They shouldn't be anything else.
And when I play D&D, I want to play a hero. Usually. Playing evil characters tends to bring out facets of me I'd rather not acknowledge. Of course, any class can be a hero (excepting bards; nobody believes a bard can be a hero), but the thing about the Paladin is, he is destined to be. It isn't a choice, and it may not even be what he wants, but it is what he is on a more fundamental level than any other class.
Now, I've noticed a trend in recent supplements and such to introduce "variant" paladins. I don't necessarily have a problem with variations of paladin abilities, but most of these variations seem to be on the order of "letting people play a paladin that isn't LG." There's the CG paladin, the LE paladin, the CE paladin.
And that's all nonsense. Rot. Swill. Garbage. Stupid. Fluff. A CRUTCH FOR WEAK PLAYERS WHO CAN'T HANDLE THE GAME.
Ahem. Sorry. Was channeling Weird Pete for a second there.
Point is, Paladins are Lawful Good for a reason. For several reasons, in fact.
Let's start by examining the origins and meanings of the word "paladin." Without too much linguistic nonsense, paladin appears to have originated around 1595, referring in French literary romance to the 12 knights in attendance upon Charlemagne. Other less specific definitons; a paragon of chivalry, a determined advocate or defender of a noble cause...most of the rest of the definitions proceed from there.
Now, how does this relate to Paladins being Lawful Good only? Patience. We'll get there.
One of the arguments I often here for the variant alignment Paladins is, "Well, other gods have champions, too." Sure they do. They're called CLERICS. Or, for that matter, rangers or wizards or druids. If you want to become a super-duper CG champion, you work toward the "Holy Liberator" PrC.
Furthermore, folks, Chaotic Goodness is not a cause. Chaotic Good is the alignment that says "don't start none, won't be none," or "stay away, leave me alone, let me go my way." Mal Reynolds of Firefly is the perfect example of CG. He follows his own needs and conscience as the situation dictates, but isn't really out to change the world (not usually). He's a good man, sometimes even a very good one, but he's not a Paladin, and he'd laugh if you suggested he was. Chaotic Good is, by and large, a reactive sort of alignment, and Paladins are by their nature an active class. Their mandate is to actively hunt down evil and eradicate it. Chaotic Good characters aren't generally out to do that. They're individualists. Not crusaders.
By extension, CG gods aren't the kind who'd want their followers out championing causes, are they? I mean, combating evil where you find it, sure...but are they likely to grant significant power, like the paladin wields? I don't know, but I don't think so. Again, it's a matter of active vs. reactive. Chaotic Good beings react to threats or perceived injustices or crowding of individual freedoms; are those the kinds of things a Paladin does? Well, yes, but not as a cause. I just don't see it as possible to define "Chaotic Goodness" or CG deities as "a cause" or
As for Lawful Evil paladins? Still not buying it. Lawful Evil is not so much a cause as it is an alignment geared towards acquiring personal wealth and power. But again, anybody can do that. You don't need special abilities to make you a dominating conqueror, not really. And there's the Blackguard PrC to cover the situation of the "anointed of a dark god." And I have no problem with the Blackguard PrC filling that role, and it makes sense to me, for several reasons. For starters, dark gods aren't, I don't think, likely to grant those kinds of powers to someone who hasn't gone out and proven themselves devoted to the cause; I don't see 1st level characters in the "blackguard" role. Secondly, there are specific rules about the PrC that pertain to Fallen Paladins who take up the role, and that makes all kinds of sense to me. Nothing a dark god likes better than stealing the champion of his enemy.
I don't see a CE god granting those sorts of powers lightly, either, which is why I also don't buy the CE paladin variant. Look, imagine a dark god, d&d style. They are an eternal and inexorable and ineffable expression of all that is evil in the nature of sentient beings. They aren't going to share their power lightly, not without tremendous consequences to the sharee.
Contrast this to your typical LG god. They're exactly the opposite, and, I feel, much more likely to grant powers to someone based on their potential. Someone has to go and combat the evil out there, right? And while the representatives of LG gods can spend the time and energy to train and shepherd and educate those prospective, the deity in question needs to equip them with the ability to do what they are Called to do. I just think it's hard to make an argument that someone is Called to do evil in the way a Paladin is Called to do good. Most evil arises out of self-interest, of a desire for more personal wealth/power/magic, whatever, and rarely does it rise (or sink) to the level of proselytizing and actively seeking to spread the word and 'erdicate good.' Sure, there might be some few truly, truly devoted who act in that manner, but...are they going to go seek out and train their replacements, people they'd have to share power with?
A keen example here is the Sith (chorus of boos from all of you prequel haters; just trust me). There are 2 at a time, because otherwise, they get overwhelmed with backstabbing, plotting, assassinations and the like, and nothing gets done. The way a new Sith advances is by killing one up top. Don't share power. Don't make it easy for your replacements. Is this the kind of environment that fosters lots of individuals with potential to become great champions of evil, the way most Campaign Settings seem to picture Paladinhood?
No. But it is a way to foster the role of something like the Blackguard, a champion of evil who has proved himself by...being a champion of evil. I have no problems with the concept of an "anti-paladin" being applied to a PrC. But not a base class.
There's a game balance issue here, too. Paladins (along with Monks) get the most class-centric abilities, things no one else can effectively do. Most of these, for the Paladin, come at relatively early levels. By level 6, a paladin has gotten all of the abilities he's going to get; Aura of Good, Smite Evil 2/day, Divine Grace, Lay on Hands, Turn Undead, Special Mount, and Remove Disease 1/day. If you don't want the remove disease too badly, you can just go to 5. If the paladin doesn't have severe alignment restrictions, then min-maxxers might just take 5 levels and never go back. Some of them will do that anyway. But if they're a Chaotic Good Paladin, they can go and take levels in, say, Bard or Barbarian. The former, being so Charisma based, stacks especially well in a numbers way, but doesn't make any damn sense in a roleplay manner.
Finally, there's the challenge of playing a Paladin. Making a Paladin CG removes the very challenge that makes playing a unique Paladin so compelling. Look, I've played many a CG character in my life, but let's be honest; it's the easiest good alignment to play well, and might be the easiest in the game to effectively manage. You don't have carte blanche, but it's close.
The thing is, most people picture the Paladin as "Lawful Stupid," inevitably losing their life in a foolish cause, or being a prig who has no sense of humor and lives on bread and water. The fun of playing a Paladin is challenging that assertion. Lawful Good doesn't offer nearly as much latitude as anything else does, but that doesn't mean you can't have personality or that you have to be a stiff-necked prig. For example, one Paladin I played for a long time spent a fair amount of free time at a brothel. Not as a customer, mind you, nor in a paid position, but he hung around because, fairly often, the women there needed protection, or a little 'cure disease,' or someone to help them out in a number of ways. Maybe what they were doing wasn't legal, but the goddess he followed stressed caring for the younger, the weaker, those without means to protect themselves, etc. He saw that he was doing that, didn't accept money for it, didn't sleep with any of the girls (though Paladins don't have to be celibate, far from it) and all in all, helped make it so that the lives the women in that brothel had were better than they otherwise would've been. Maybe he preached a little bit...if he saw an opening...but not too much.
Anyway, enough character reminiscence. The point; Paladins are Lawful Good for a reason. For several reasons. They shouldn't be anything else.
Monday, May 7, 2007
How did it come to this?
I quote from the AD&D Dungeonmaster's Guide, page 20, the rules for creating new character classes:
"[A] factor to consider...is whether a new class is really needed. Some players want to create a class for every profession or ability--jesters, witches, vampire hunters, mountaineers, etc. They forget that these are really roles, not classes.
What is a viking but a fighter with a certain outlook on life and warfare? A witch is really nothing but a female wizard. A vampire hunter is only a title assumed by a character of any class who is dedicated to the destruction and elmination of those loathsome creatures...
Before creating a character class, stop and ask yourself, "Is there already a character class that can fill the niche?" Think of ways an existing class could fulfill the desired goal through role-playing and careful choice of proficiencies. A mountainer could easily be a fighter or anger born and bred in hte mountains...[c]learly there is no need for a mountaineer class."
A quick look at the number of "base" classes in 3.5 reveals upwards of 60, perhaps more than 70. The veteran player can only respond with a hearty "what the hell?"
The sad fact is, most if not all of those base classes are covered by applying a concept to one of the core classes. As I see it, all you need are the 11 old standbys, the psionic classes (if you choose to use psionics, which will be another post) and the artificer. Perhaps one or two of the others, but I'm not buying that idea cheap. Most, if not all of these classes, violate the exact statements I quoted above; don't make a class for every role or title.
Let's take a look at a few; witch, ninja, samurai, warmage, dread necromancer, swashbuckler, spellthief. What is a witch but a female wizard, or sorceror, or for that matter, a druid, or a druid/sorceress or druid/wizard? A ninja is a rogue who goes nuts with the Hide/Move Silently and picks up some Craft: Alchemy. A samurai is a fighter (or, for that matter, a paladin or ranger or monk or any combination of the above) who is Lawful, and sworn to a lord/code of behavior; a great example of this (well, ok, not so great, but still) is Miko from the Order of the Stick webcomic. She's a monk/paladin but goes by the title "Samurai." No need for a class, nor even the prestige class.
Continuing the trend; what's a warmage but a wizard who specializes in useful battlefield spells? A "dread necromancer" is a bit of a fancy title for a freakin' base class, init?
"Oh, you're a dread necromancer, are you?" says Joe the 1st level fighter, sneering.
"Why yes, yes I guuuuhrk," says Jalortho the now dead dread necromancer, realizing with his last thought that "dread" should be a title only applied to people who've freakin' earned it, which excludes all 1st level chumps. Meanwhile, Joe cleans his sword and rifles Jalortho's pockets.
A swashbuckler is a rogue, or bard, or pirate, or fighter, or ranger, who arranges his skills, fighting style, background, and attitude a certain way. That's all. It doesn't need a class.
And don't get me started on the variant paladins. That's a whole other can of worms I will address in time. Suffice to say, Paladins are lawful good, period, end of story. I will explain why they should be another time.
EDIT:
I realize that 3.x is a new edition of the game, and many years removed from the quote I opened this post with. But I don't think that changes anything. The point is still valid; 3.x keeps violating some of the best principles of AD&D. Now, don't get me wrong; 3.x is a better system. I don't deny that. I don't see why the principles behind things couldn't have been the same, but they aren't. It used to be, "If you don't like a rule, or have trouble interpreting it, or want to change it, go ahead." The Golden Rule was: there are no rules. Now, if you have trouble understanding a rule, you go read "Ask the Sage" or any of the online FAQS, and if you ignore the Sage's advice (most of which I think is egregiously stupid, especially in regards to PrCs, but I'll address that later) then you draw the wrath of rules lawyers! Which is why I don't want rules lawyers at my table. I said it before, I'll say it again; Skip Williams isn't going to come to your table to audit you and then decide to take your books away.
"[A] factor to consider...is whether a new class is really needed. Some players want to create a class for every profession or ability--jesters, witches, vampire hunters, mountaineers, etc. They forget that these are really roles, not classes.
What is a viking but a fighter with a certain outlook on life and warfare? A witch is really nothing but a female wizard. A vampire hunter is only a title assumed by a character of any class who is dedicated to the destruction and elmination of those loathsome creatures...
Before creating a character class, stop and ask yourself, "Is there already a character class that can fill the niche?" Think of ways an existing class could fulfill the desired goal through role-playing and careful choice of proficiencies. A mountainer could easily be a fighter or anger born and bred in hte mountains...[c]learly there is no need for a mountaineer class."
A quick look at the number of "base" classes in 3.5 reveals upwards of 60, perhaps more than 70. The veteran player can only respond with a hearty "what the hell?"
The sad fact is, most if not all of those base classes are covered by applying a concept to one of the core classes. As I see it, all you need are the 11 old standbys, the psionic classes (if you choose to use psionics, which will be another post) and the artificer. Perhaps one or two of the others, but I'm not buying that idea cheap. Most, if not all of these classes, violate the exact statements I quoted above; don't make a class for every role or title.
Let's take a look at a few; witch, ninja, samurai, warmage, dread necromancer, swashbuckler, spellthief. What is a witch but a female wizard, or sorceror, or for that matter, a druid, or a druid/sorceress or druid/wizard? A ninja is a rogue who goes nuts with the Hide/Move Silently and picks up some Craft: Alchemy. A samurai is a fighter (or, for that matter, a paladin or ranger or monk or any combination of the above) who is Lawful, and sworn to a lord/code of behavior; a great example of this (well, ok, not so great, but still) is Miko from the Order of the Stick webcomic. She's a monk/paladin but goes by the title "Samurai." No need for a class, nor even the prestige class.
Continuing the trend; what's a warmage but a wizard who specializes in useful battlefield spells? A "dread necromancer" is a bit of a fancy title for a freakin' base class, init?
"Oh, you're a dread necromancer, are you?" says Joe the 1st level fighter, sneering.
"Why yes, yes I guuuuhrk," says Jalortho the now dead dread necromancer, realizing with his last thought that "dread" should be a title only applied to people who've freakin' earned it, which excludes all 1st level chumps. Meanwhile, Joe cleans his sword and rifles Jalortho's pockets.
A swashbuckler is a rogue, or bard, or pirate, or fighter, or ranger, who arranges his skills, fighting style, background, and attitude a certain way. That's all. It doesn't need a class.
And don't get me started on the variant paladins. That's a whole other can of worms I will address in time. Suffice to say, Paladins are lawful good, period, end of story. I will explain why they should be another time.
EDIT:
I realize that 3.x is a new edition of the game, and many years removed from the quote I opened this post with. But I don't think that changes anything. The point is still valid; 3.x keeps violating some of the best principles of AD&D. Now, don't get me wrong; 3.x is a better system. I don't deny that. I don't see why the principles behind things couldn't have been the same, but they aren't. It used to be, "If you don't like a rule, or have trouble interpreting it, or want to change it, go ahead." The Golden Rule was: there are no rules. Now, if you have trouble understanding a rule, you go read "Ask the Sage" or any of the online FAQS, and if you ignore the Sage's advice (most of which I think is egregiously stupid, especially in regards to PrCs, but I'll address that later) then you draw the wrath of rules lawyers! Which is why I don't want rules lawyers at my table. I said it before, I'll say it again; Skip Williams isn't going to come to your table to audit you and then decide to take your books away.
Thursday, May 3, 2007
Thoughts About Skills and Skill Points
Ok, so ever since the first session of this new campaign(see details below) I've been thinking about the role of skills in D&D, and ultimately, whether there are just enough skill points going around for everyone; after all, nobody in the party (granted, it is only a party of two) knew how to swim or use rope.
Now, before anyone gets their nuts in a knot, I'm not just going to start handing out skill points (and jeez, anyone who has played in one of my campaigns ought to know I don't just hand stuff out).
First of all, I think the skill point system is one of the best innovations in D&D 3.x- and for those of us who played AD&D, or old Basic or 1st Edition, it is an innovation. Back in the day, you had non-weapon proficiencies and you liked them. And you were just as good a basketweaver, or tracker, or leatherworker, or firebuilder (yes, there was a proficiency for firebuilding) at 1st level as you were at 43rd. Remind me why we ever thought AD&D was a good system?
But let's look at this from the inside, with my favorite class and yours, the Ranger. Let's call him Bob.
Bob is a half-elf with, we'll say, an above average intelligence of 12. This gives him a +1 bonus to skill points. As a ranger, he starts with 6x4; add to this his Int. bonus and this means, basically, Bob gets to pick seven skills if he wants to max them out. Bob should max out his skills, because he wants to be useful to the party beyond 1st level; spread those skill points out too much and he won't actually be good enough at any of his chosen skills to succeed at any checks.
So what skills should Bob take? He gets seven choices; he has seventeen class skills to choose from. Let's say Bob wants to be a real "nature-y" ranger. Here are the skills he definitely ought to take:
Survival (a no brainer- a ranger pretty much has to have this)
Knowledge, Nature- (I've never been too clear on why this isn't covered by Survival, but I suppose there are arguments to be made that they are separate skills)
Knowledge, Geography (Bob is a traveler, after all)
Handle Animal (if Bob ever wants to train his animal companion)
That's 4 skills gone; Bob wants to take advantage of the Ranger's ability to hide and move silently, so
Hide
Move Silently
That's 6. He gets one more pick. He doesn't want to be easily snuck up on, so he can take Listen or Spot. One or the other, if he wants to max it out. Say he splits 'em up, since he's a half-elf, and he gets a +2 to spot and listen anyway, that ameliorates it somewhat. I strongly advise not splitting skills up, but there you go. Now, let's look at all the things Bob the Ranger can't do;
Climb, Jump, Use Rope, Swim, Know about Dungeons (Dungeoneering) , Search, Heal, or Ride.
Sure, he can try to do them, but he has no expertise in any of them. A ranger that can't climb, jump, or swim is kind of a lame ranger, isn't he? I mean, isn't that part and parcel of the ranger archetype; Aragorn, Hawkeye from Last of the Mohicans, Drizzt Do'Urden- they could Climb, or Swim, or Use Rope, right?
Let's say Bob even has a super Int, 18. That gets him 3 more skills to pick from. Say he takes Climb, Jump, and Swim, to complete his vision of what a ranger ought to be. Fine, that seems more or less complete.
Here's the point I'm getting to; shouldn't a Ranger be able to track stuff (Survival) move undetected in the wilderness (Hide, Move Silently) be aware of his surroundings (Spot, Listen) overcome natural obstacles (Jump, Climb, Swim) know what animal/monster is what (Knowledge: Nature), know where in the world he is (Knowledge: Geography) and maybe have another skill or two for color&personality (Craft: Leatherworking or Bowyer- making him more self-sufficient, or Use Rope or Profession Sailor). So, even if you exclude the "color" skills that's 11 skills that a Ranger probably should have: Survival, Spot, Listen, Hide, Move Silently, Knowledge: Nature&Geography, Jump, Climb, and Swim.
The only ranger that's able to effectively get all those skills at 1st level is a human with an 18 Intelligence. I'm all for concepts and RP, but unless I rolled God's own stats, I'm not going to put an 18 into Intelligence when I'm creating a Ranger. A Rogue, maybe...but not a Ranger.
But a Sorceror gets 2 skill points, plus his Int. Say you're a human. As a Sorceror, you probably don't have a stellar intelligence; maybe a 12? That'll give you 4 skill points if you're maxing out. As a spellcaster, you've got to have Concentration and Spellcraft, and probably Knowledge: Arcana. So then you can take your skill for color, background, and depth, or you can take Bluff (why do Sorcerors get Bluff and not Diplomacy or Gather Information or Intimidate or any of the other Charisma-based skills?) or Craft: Alchemy, which might be more advantageous for you.
Now, I don't want to just derail into bitching about how D&D doesn't support roleplay. As long as I'm GMing (God willing, a long time) there will be roleplay at the table. I'm not so worried about that, really. I'm worried about giving the characters a fair shake and making sure their character matches their vision. What's great about the skill system in 3.x is the widespread customization it gives you, not only in min-maxxing terms, but in character development terms (which should be at least as important).
So, what to do? Is the skill system completely fine? Should I stop my bitching? Bump up every class's number of skill points by 1 or 2? Should there be fewer skills? I mean, you can easily make a case for lumping Climb, Balance, and Jump into one skillset, and perhaps the same with Bluff, Diplomacy, and Intimidate, or Listen and Spot. And sure, there are feats you can take to add to certain skills- but who is going to waste a feat on skills when you can do much cooler things with them?
So, enough of my yakkin'. Comments away.
Now, before anyone gets their nuts in a knot, I'm not just going to start handing out skill points (and jeez, anyone who has played in one of my campaigns ought to know I don't just hand stuff out).
First of all, I think the skill point system is one of the best innovations in D&D 3.x- and for those of us who played AD&D, or old Basic or 1st Edition, it is an innovation. Back in the day, you had non-weapon proficiencies and you liked them. And you were just as good a basketweaver, or tracker, or leatherworker, or firebuilder (yes, there was a proficiency for firebuilding) at 1st level as you were at 43rd. Remind me why we ever thought AD&D was a good system?
But let's look at this from the inside, with my favorite class and yours, the Ranger. Let's call him Bob.
Bob is a half-elf with, we'll say, an above average intelligence of 12. This gives him a +1 bonus to skill points. As a ranger, he starts with 6x4; add to this his Int. bonus and this means, basically, Bob gets to pick seven skills if he wants to max them out. Bob should max out his skills, because he wants to be useful to the party beyond 1st level; spread those skill points out too much and he won't actually be good enough at any of his chosen skills to succeed at any checks.
So what skills should Bob take? He gets seven choices; he has seventeen class skills to choose from. Let's say Bob wants to be a real "nature-y" ranger. Here are the skills he definitely ought to take:
Survival (a no brainer- a ranger pretty much has to have this)
Knowledge, Nature- (I've never been too clear on why this isn't covered by Survival, but I suppose there are arguments to be made that they are separate skills)
Knowledge, Geography (Bob is a traveler, after all)
Handle Animal (if Bob ever wants to train his animal companion)
That's 4 skills gone; Bob wants to take advantage of the Ranger's ability to hide and move silently, so
Hide
Move Silently
That's 6. He gets one more pick. He doesn't want to be easily snuck up on, so he can take Listen or Spot. One or the other, if he wants to max it out. Say he splits 'em up, since he's a half-elf, and he gets a +2 to spot and listen anyway, that ameliorates it somewhat. I strongly advise not splitting skills up, but there you go. Now, let's look at all the things Bob the Ranger can't do;
Climb, Jump, Use Rope, Swim, Know about Dungeons (Dungeoneering) , Search, Heal, or Ride.
Sure, he can try to do them, but he has no expertise in any of them. A ranger that can't climb, jump, or swim is kind of a lame ranger, isn't he? I mean, isn't that part and parcel of the ranger archetype; Aragorn, Hawkeye from Last of the Mohicans, Drizzt Do'Urden- they could Climb, or Swim, or Use Rope, right?
Let's say Bob even has a super Int, 18. That gets him 3 more skills to pick from. Say he takes Climb, Jump, and Swim, to complete his vision of what a ranger ought to be. Fine, that seems more or less complete.
Here's the point I'm getting to; shouldn't a Ranger be able to track stuff (Survival) move undetected in the wilderness (Hide, Move Silently) be aware of his surroundings (Spot, Listen) overcome natural obstacles (Jump, Climb, Swim) know what animal/monster is what (Knowledge: Nature), know where in the world he is (Knowledge: Geography) and maybe have another skill or two for color&personality (Craft: Leatherworking or Bowyer- making him more self-sufficient, or Use Rope or Profession Sailor). So, even if you exclude the "color" skills that's 11 skills that a Ranger probably should have: Survival, Spot, Listen, Hide, Move Silently, Knowledge: Nature&Geography, Jump, Climb, and Swim.
The only ranger that's able to effectively get all those skills at 1st level is a human with an 18 Intelligence. I'm all for concepts and RP, but unless I rolled God's own stats, I'm not going to put an 18 into Intelligence when I'm creating a Ranger. A Rogue, maybe...but not a Ranger.
Speaking of Rogues, let's take a look at them. The ultimate D&D skill user, right? Okay, say you want to make the typical guild thief Rogue. A staple of D&D games and fantasy literature since time immemorial. Or, at least, since Fritz Leiber.
So, you want to be a guild rogue. You're a halfling. You have 8 Skill Points, an Intelligence of 14, letting you pick 10 skills to max out. You've simply got to have the following: Hide, Move Silently, Search, Disable Device, Open Lock, Sleight of Hand, Climb, Spot, and Listen. That's 9. Want to know what your plunder is worth? Take Appraise. Aaaaaand you're done. You can't talk your way out of trouble. You can't use Decipher Script (and you're one of only 2 classes that can take it in the first place), you don't know much about your city (no Knowledge: Local or Gather Info) Use Rope, break out of the hoosegow (Escape Artist) you can't duck and dive in combat (Tumble)...it goes on.
Now, it's hard to make a case that a Rogue doesn't get enough skills, but I think the point remains; the archetypal things we expect a certain kind of rogue to be able to do are beyond the reach of the average rogue. Or even the above average rogue, usually. Is this appropriate for a game of heroic fantasy?
So, how does this work out for other classes? Rather less well. Many of them don't necessarily need lots of skills, but the thing is, skills are one of the quantifiable ways D&D offers, a system, to really customize your character and add depth, personality, color, and backstory. Maybe your Sorceror was an apprentice Bowyer when he accidentally incinerated the bowstave he was working on, which set him off to try and discover something about himself, and this led him to a life of adventuring. So you want to put ranks into Craft: Bowyer and keep up with the skill; make bows for the party, or to pick up some extra cash. Why not? It adds color and personality and depth; all the things skills can do.So, you want to be a guild rogue. You're a halfling. You have 8 Skill Points, an Intelligence of 14, letting you pick 10 skills to max out. You've simply got to have the following: Hide, Move Silently, Search, Disable Device, Open Lock, Sleight of Hand, Climb, Spot, and Listen. That's 9. Want to know what your plunder is worth? Take Appraise. Aaaaaand you're done. You can't talk your way out of trouble. You can't use Decipher Script (and you're one of only 2 classes that can take it in the first place), you don't know much about your city (no Knowledge: Local or Gather Info) Use Rope, break out of the hoosegow (Escape Artist) you can't duck and dive in combat (Tumble)...it goes on.
Now, it's hard to make a case that a Rogue doesn't get enough skills, but I think the point remains; the archetypal things we expect a certain kind of rogue to be able to do are beyond the reach of the average rogue. Or even the above average rogue, usually. Is this appropriate for a game of heroic fantasy?
But a Sorceror gets 2 skill points, plus his Int. Say you're a human. As a Sorceror, you probably don't have a stellar intelligence; maybe a 12? That'll give you 4 skill points if you're maxing out. As a spellcaster, you've got to have Concentration and Spellcraft, and probably Knowledge: Arcana. So then you can take your skill for color, background, and depth, or you can take Bluff (why do Sorcerors get Bluff and not Diplomacy or Gather Information or Intimidate or any of the other Charisma-based skills?) or Craft: Alchemy, which might be more advantageous for you.
Now, I don't want to just derail into bitching about how D&D doesn't support roleplay. As long as I'm GMing (God willing, a long time) there will be roleplay at the table. I'm not so worried about that, really. I'm worried about giving the characters a fair shake and making sure their character matches their vision. What's great about the skill system in 3.x is the widespread customization it gives you, not only in min-maxxing terms, but in character development terms (which should be at least as important).
So, what to do? Is the skill system completely fine? Should I stop my bitching? Bump up every class's number of skill points by 1 or 2? Should there be fewer skills? I mean, you can easily make a case for lumping Climb, Balance, and Jump into one skillset, and perhaps the same with Bluff, Diplomacy, and Intimidate, or Listen and Spot. And sure, there are feats you can take to add to certain skills- but who is going to waste a feat on skills when you can do much cooler things with them?
So, enough of my yakkin'. Comments away.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
