3e skills

[Birthright-L]

The new skills listed in the 3e conversion should have been done a little
different. Two of them are knowledge skills (arguably all Int skills are
Knowledge skills by another name, and it`s not such a big deal), but
another is blatent skill proliferation and shouldn`t exist.

`Administrate` (stated to be a Wisdom skill on page 23, though listed
correctly as Int in the Noble class for instance) should have been a use
of Knowledge- Nobility, which in standard 3e includes law and government,
and is the relevant skill for barristers and clerks. It`s more general
than just knowledge about the rulers, but also includes knowledge about
the rules and the ruling methods.

This is much more explicit in the Modern version of the rules, where it is
listed as Knowledge- Civics and includes "law, legislation, litigation and
legal rights and obligations. Political and governmental institutions and
processes."

`Lead` is no more than a new use for Bluff and Diplomacy, and occasionally
Intimidate, and there`s no reason to add another Cha skill that people
have to buy. It would be better off as a "new uses for old skills"
listing. This is the worst offender. I`m not going to go into the
arguments against skill proliferation here, they`re easily found
elsewhere, but I will if people have to ask.

`Warcraft` is the same as Knowledge- Tactics, which is in d20 modern and
will probably find its way back into 3.5e.

Other notes from the newer versions are that Appraise is being folded into
Knowledge- Business, Pick Pockets becomes Sleight of Hand, and Wilderness
Lore will be Survival, but those are easy to fix in revision.

If you take out the skill proliferation, the Noble class becomes
redundant. It really already is, since it`s essentially an aristocrat
with two more skill points and some bonus feats. It would be better off
as a listing to the effect "BR encourages playing noblemen, so to make the
aristocrat more playable as a PC class, we suggest adding bonus general
feats at levels w,x,y, and z."

On to the feats.
--
Communication is possible only between equals.
Daniel McSorley- mcsorley@cis.ohio-state.edu

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[irdeggman]

One has to remember that knowledge skills are not the application of them in common use. I think that Skip did a work up on knowedge-nature versus wilderness lore in a sage advice awhile ago and covered this topic.

Another example is the use of knowledge-arcana and spellcraft. The knowledge skill doesn't help in a field situation, spellcraft checks are used to determine what a specific spell being used is (and if it can be countered), etc.

So knowledge is indicative of scholarly understanding whereas other skills are the practical application of the subject matter.

Not to say your arguements aren't sound but we need to keep in mind that knowedge based skills aren't supposed to be used for practical application.

[Birthright-L]

On Wed, 5 Feb 2003, irdeggman wrote:
> One has to remember that knowledge skills are not the application of
> them in common use. I think that Skip did a work up on knowedge-nature
> versus wilderness lore in a sage advice awhile ago and covered this
> topic.
>
> So knowledge is indicative of scholarly understanding whereas other
> skills are the practical application of the subject matter.
>
> Not to say your arguements aren`t sound but we need to keep in mind
> that knowedge based skills aren`t supposed to be used for practical
> application.

This is untrue, and if the sage said that he was wrong. There are many
types of knowledge for which the application of said knowledge is
insignificant if you have the knowledge itself. Mathematics is an
example- if you know the rules, you can do it trivially.

In gaming particular, Appraise is an example of how this has been
rethought. It was originally its own skill, but they realized that the
act of appraising something is pretty much exclusively dependant on
knowledge of valuable stuff. Appraise has been put under
Knowledge-business for the d20 modern version, and will be done similarly
for 3.5.

Knowledge- civics (nobility in 3e) covers law and governing. Knowledge-
business covers running guild activity. Knowledge- tactics is directly
equivalent to the warcraft skill.

But all these new knowledges created in the BRCS aren`t even really the
problem. `Lead` is the problem. It is already covered by Bluff (tricking
someone to follow you), Diplomacy (convincing someone to follow you), and
Intimidate (having someone follow you by threat of implied or overt
force). These are perfectly good and useful charisma skills, and there`s
no reason to create another one.
--
Communication is possible only between equals.
Daniel McSorley- mcsorley@cis.ohio-state.edu

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[doom]

On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 12:06:07AM -0500, daniel mcsorley wrote:
> The new skills listed in the 3e conversion should have been done a little
> different. Two of them are knowledge skills (arguably all Int skills are
> Knowledge skills by another name, and it`s not such a big deal), but
> another is blatent skill proliferation and shouldn`t exist.

Skill proliferation is a serious danger and one in which the team spent
significant effort to avoid. Regent characters have a requirements
for sets of skills which may be argueably different than the "Back to
the Dungeon" character. Thus, some small number of new skills was felt
to be both necessary and appropriate.

> `Administrate` [snip] should have been a use of Knowledge- Nobility
> `Warcraft` is the same as Knowledge- Tactics

These could certainly be legitimate approaches. I would personally
argue that there is a lot more to either of these skills that simple
"book knowledge"; being a book expert on theoretical military tactics,
for example, does not make one necessarily able to be an able commander
in the field.

>From a more "Meta" perspective, however, there are some very
fundemental reasons why using Knowledge skills might not be the best
approach in this instance. Fighters and Paladins seems to be the sorts
of characters who would find it easiest to develop skill in Warcraft
(for example). Making Warcraft a Knowledge skill (and adding it to the
Fighter/Paladin list, one would assume) would make this skill equally
accessable to wizards (for example). Does it make sense that wizards
would find it as easy (or even easier, given their relatively high
number of total skill points with INT bonus) to lead troops into mass
combat as a fighter-general?

> `Lead` is no more than a new use for Bluff and Diplomacy, and occasionally
> Intimidate, and there`s no reason to add another Cha skill that people
> have to buy.

Again, this could be a legitimate approach. All skill-based decisions
are inherently tricky. Personally, I don`t see "too much" difference
between Search and Spot or Bluff and Indimidate; certainly one could be
used in place of the other in many circumstances - but there are very
good reasons to have multiple skills.

The meta perspective questions that must be addressed here include
issues such as: Is a master diplomat likely to be able to rouse a mass
of peasants against/for their leader? Would such a character be able
to inspire soldiers under their command during times of strife? It was
felt that Diplomacy and Bluff did not cover the "importance" of Lead in
the BR campaign. Also note that the "Lead" skill has significant impact
on several BR specific issues (such as mass warfare) which gives some
real "bite" to the skill. Also note that Bluff and Diplomacy are not
generally class skills for warrior-type characters; who are the amoung
the most likely Regent characters to take "Lead".

- Doom

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Birthright-L]

On Wed, 5 Feb 2003, Dr. Travis Doom wrote:
> > `Administrate` [snip] should have been a use of Knowledge- Nobility
> > `Warcraft` is the same as Knowledge- Tactics
>
> These could certainly be legitimate approaches. I would personally
> argue that there is a lot more to either of these skills that simple
> "book knowledge"; being a book expert on theoretical military tactics,
> for example, does not make one necessarily able to be an able commander
> in the field.

Right, but that`s covered by other skills, notably the charisma ones
which govern interactions between people.

> From a more "Meta" perspective, however, there are some very
> fundemental reasons why using Knowledge skills might not be the best
> approach in this instance. Fighters and Paladins seems to be the
> sorts of characters who would find it easiest to develop skill in
> Warcraft (for example). Making Warcraft a Knowledge skill (and adding
> it to the Fighter/Paladin list, one would assume) would make this
> skill equally accessable to wizards (for example). Does it make sense
> that wizards would find it as easy (or even easier, given their
> relatively high number of total skill points with INT bonus) to lead
> troops into mass combat as a fighter-general?

Yes, because fighter is not equivalent to general. Fighters wield
weapons. Generals do this very rarely. There`s not much overlap in
domain expertise between the two, Musashi notwithstanding.

> The meta perspective questions that must be addressed here include
> issues such as: Is a master diplomat likely to be able to rouse a mass
> of peasants against/for their leader? Would such a character be able
> to inspire soldiers under their command during times of strife?

Yes, since diplomacy involves "changing others` attitudes". Rousing
peasants would be moving them from Indifferent to Helpful (to the
diplomat, their attitude toward the leader would depend on the diplomat`s
attitude). Pretty much the same for soldiers, though scared or
demoralized soldiers might fall more under `unfriendly` in the terminology
of D&D character attitudes.

> It was felt that Diplomacy and Bluff did not cover the "importance" of
> Lead in the BR campaign. Also note that the "Lead" skill has
> significant impact on several BR specific issues (such as mass
> warfare) which gives some real "bite" to the skill. Also note that
> Bluff and Diplomacy are not generally class skills for warrior-type
> characters; who are the amoung the most likely Regent characters to
> take "Lead".

Again, there`s no correllation between ability to wield a sword and
ability to lead. Class- and theme-wise, aristocrat would be a better
model for historical generals than fighter, and aristocrats do have these
as class skills.
--
Communication is possible only between equals.
Daniel McSorley- mcsorley@cis.ohio-state.edu

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----
From: "daniel mcsorley" <mcsorley@CIS.OHIO-STATE.EDU>
Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2003 11:06 PM


> (arguably all Int skills are Knowledge skills by another name,
> and it`s not such a big deal),

I think Knowledge skills are skills that can be grouped by the name
"Knowledge (All Skills)", which convieniently excludes other INT skills,
like Appraise, Decipher Script, Disable Device, and Forgery, which are class
skills for discreet classes.

> `Administrate` should have been a use of Knowledge- Nobility,

I`d say thats fine for a normal 3e situation, but BR takes place in in
courts, where you can either increase the the DC difficulties of tests
(requiring spending more skill ranks) or you can create specialized skills
and use more typical DC`s. The deciding issue for me is whether I think
that low level characters of certain backround (represented by a specialized
skill buy) can participate in any but the most routine DC`s. I would allow
anyone with Knowledge (Nobility) to make checks about adminsitration and
politics type skills, but I`d rather focus on Knowledge (Nobility) as the
kind of things any courtier might know, such as how to dance the latest
volta, how to dress fasionably, how to address an ambassador who is both a
count and member of the Knights of Cuiraecen. This is especially true in
cases where skills effect domain effects. I`d prefer people can`t walk off
the street (or wander off the dance floor) and get reliable Agitate, Rule,
or Espionage bonuses.

> `Lead` is no more than a new use for Bluff and Diplomacy, and occasionally
> Intimidate, and there`s no reason to add another Cha skill that people
> have to buy. It would be better off as a "new uses for old skills"
> listing. This is the worst offender.

Lead focuses on public charisma, rather than personal charisma. I`d say it
merits a different skill with the caveat that someone with Bluff or
Diplomacy could make an attempt at a DC penalty. Because of the specific
courtly nature of the BR setting, I have basically renamed Diplomacy as
Bargain, and use the name "Diplomacy" for the specialized activity of
inter-state negotiation.

> `Warcraft` is the same as Knowledge- Tactics, which is in d20 modern and
> will probably find its way back into 3.5e.

Again, the real question is, is it a Knowledge skill (wizards, for example
get all knowledge skills).

> Other notes from the newer versions are that Appraise is being folded into
> Knowledge- Business, Pick Pockets becomes Sleight of Hand, and Wilderness
> Lore will be Survival, but those are easy to fix in revision.

I think these also reflect the difference between how education is done in
the modern world, where business and economics are just as easily learned in
the academy as they are on the job. Things should only be Knowledge skills
if they are routinely taught formally, by tutors, schools, etc. Other name
changes are either cosmetic, or reflect social differences, that won`t
neccesarily translate back into a fantasy world.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[doom]

On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 12:09:39PM -0500, daniel mcsorley wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Feb 2003, irdeggman wrote:
> > One has to remember that knowledge skills are not the application of
> > them in common use. I think that Skip did a work up on knowedge-nature
> > versus wilderness lore in a sage advice awhile ago and covered this
> > topic.
> >
> > So knowledge is indicative of scholarly understanding whereas other
> > skills are the practical application of the subject matter.
>
> This is untrue, and if the sage said that he was wrong. There are many
> types of knowledge for which the application of said knowledge is
> insignificant if you have the knowledge itself. Mathematics is an
> example- if you know the rules, you can do it trivially.

I, for one, hope that this matter is addressed with more care in 3.5.
The distintions between Knowledge (Mathematics) and Profession
(Mathematician) are rather ill defined. As stated, one "knows of" math
with the knowlege skill and can "make a living using" math with the
profession skill. For many tests, either skill would seem to be
equally applicable.

The common theme on skills seems to be based on an effort to provided
relatively equitable "bang for the buck". There certainly was no need
for "Wilderness Lore" per se (as opposed to Knowledge(Nature)) but it
was decided that Wilderness Lore was important enough (and provided
enough utility, character-wise) to merit its inclusion as a stand-alone
skill.

- Doom

- Doom

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Malice3679]

> Again, there`s no correllation between ability to wield a sword and
> ability to lead. Class- and theme-wise, aristocrat would be a better
> model for historical generals than fighter, and aristocrats do have these
> as class skills.

Of course, in a fantasy world, people are gonna rally behind the guy in the
armor who is raising his sword in the air and leading his men into battle
before they will they guy who`s getting fat off of their taxes and has never
seen combat in his life.

Someone made reference to BR being "Arthurian"...and in Arthurian legends,
Arthur was never portrayed as the kind of leader who hung way, WAY in the
back...

Tommy

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tommy Brownell" <tommyb@SSTELCO.COM>
Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2003 4:53 PM


> Of course, in a fantasy world, people are gonna rally behind the guy in
the
> armor who is raising his sword in the air and leading his men into battle
> before they will they guy who`s getting fat off of their taxes and has
never
> seen combat in his life.

That`s true, but you haven`t mentioned the Aristocrat. You don`t get a d8,
+0.7 BAB per level, and full access to weapons and armor at the fat house.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.