Brcs Feats And Skills

[Osprey]

Here are some playtesting comments regarding my experience with some of the BRCS feats and associated skills:

Master Administrator - I've mentioned before that I revised this one in regards to seasonal domain maintenance. I have it allowing the DC for seasonal maintenance to be 10 + [1/2 x seasonal maintenance in GB). I've found that works well to keep maintenance savings within reach for a slightly longer duration. Normal DC's are [10 + GB maintenance], rather than 15 base. By the time characters level up high enough to make such a high DC, their domain expenses tend to be too high to reach without the Master Administrator feat anyways. This is especially true for landed regents with armies.

Also, this feat granting a +2 synergy bonus to all Administrate-based domain actions is EXTREMELY powerful. What regent in their right mind wouldn't try to take this feat as soon as possible? That's +2 to all Create, Rule, and Contest actions for holdings AND provinces! That's an enormous advantage for a single feat.

Similarly, Regent Focus: Rule Province has become another "must have" feat for landed regents. It grants +4 to ruling provinces, which is normally very risky (expensive) and difficult to achieve.

So here's what has become a bit too formulaic in my game: Every smart (read: competent, relative to the competition) landed regent takes Master Administrator and Regent Focus (Rule Province). A 2nd level character could then gain +7 to his/her Rule Province actions (5 ranks in Administrate = +1, +6 for the feat bonuses). Doesn't this ring of game imbalance?

Here's my suggested alternative:

Lower the advantages of the Regent Focus feat to +3 to the selected focus, making it the equivalent of the 3.5 Skill Focus feat. Alternately, make it +2 if you base domain action synergy bonuses on skill bonuses rather than ranks [see below].

Do away with the +2 domain action synergy bonus of the Master Administrator skill, but make it more useful regarding domain maintenance [see above]. Let it still give a +2 skill bonus to the Administrate skill itself, and the reduced DC for seasonal maintenance. This is quite an advantage all by itself.

Ranks vs. Bonuses: When calculating synergy bonuses for Domain Actions, give a +1 bonus for every +5 skill bonus in the key skill (rather than +1 per 5 ranks). This rewards talented rulers, and significantly raises the value of skill-enhancing feats. Talented rulers are ones who have important political attributes like Intelligence and Charisma, and who focus their skills in synergistic ways (Diplomacy is a prime example of one that can really stack up).
In my opinion, this is more realistic system that doesn't make things quite so level-dependent. Bonuses based on skill ranks are strictly limited by character levels, which is rather narrow minded and restrictive. Open up the system to talented young regents with "the right stuff," and Cerilia's competitive balance might be better represented.

Master Merchant is another "Uber-Feat" that needs to be toned down. +2 to all merchant and trade-related domain actions, including diplomacy?!? It's every guildmaster's wet dream, yet it's exclusive to Brechts and Khinasi, giving them a powerful advantage. Sorry to all you Brecht-lovers out there, but all this really encourages (in my own game) are Brecht and Khinasi merchants setting up shop in Anuire because the competition is "soft."

I would propose to drop the domain action bonuses, and instead expand the skill bonuses to include +2 to Appraise, Profession: Merchant, and Diplomacy[Bargaining]. It's already better than most feats right there, and if you use skill bonuses to calculate domain-level synergy bonuses, well worth taking. But the skills are very specific to merchants, hence the reason I'd allow 3 rather than 2 skill bonuses (comparing to other skill-enhancing 3.5 feats).

Master Diplomat: Same goes here. Drop the domain bonus (take Regent Focus for that advantage), but expand the feat to grant a +2 synergy bonus to Diplomacy and Sense Motive.

Finally, a note on establishing prerequisites: It seems a little ridiculous to have 1st level characters with feats like Master Administrator or Master Merchant. The current prerequisites are based only on attributes and race, but not at all on experience. Giving them a name with "Master" implies skill mastery and specialization. So here are a few suggestions for revised prerequisites, scaled for racial preference without making them exclusive (I think anyone can learn these kinds of specialties with time and experience, but cultures that expound these values give their people an early advantage). Note that elven and dwarven racial feats should (IMO) remain exclusive racial feats, as should the regional training feats. These are much more distinctive for each race, especially the non-human "secrets."

Master Administrator:
Int 13+
Anuireans, Khinasi: 5+ Ranks in Administrate
Others: 8+ ranks in Administrate

Master Merchant:
Int 13+, Cha 13+
Brecht, Khinasi: 5+ ranks in Profession: Merchant
Others: 8+ ranks in Prof: Merchant

Master Diplomat
Cha 13+
An, Br, Kh: 5+ Ranks in Diplomacy
Others: 8+ ranks in Diplomacy

Military Genuius
Int 13+
An, Vos: 5+ ranks in Warcraft
Others: 8+ ranks in Warcraft

Great Leader
Cha 13+
An: 5+ ranks in Lead
Others: 8+ ranks in Lead

Spymaster:
Cha 13+, Int 13+
5+ ranks in Gather Information

Conqueror:
An, Vos
-The character must have conquered at least 1 province through military force.

Regent Focus:
5+ Ranks in the key skill for the focus (Administrate, Diplomacy, etc.), and
The character must have successfully performed the chosen domain action at least 3 times as a regent or lieutenant.

How about adding Elite Regional Rogue Training (giving +2 instead of +1 to the listed skills; Prereq: Regional Rogue Training)?

That's all on that note, folks.

-Osprey

[Athos69]

Osprey:

I *love* the suggestions... I have always been an advocate for using Skill bonus instead of Ranks when determining Domain bonuses. I can create a 5th level character with +20 to Diplomacy, yet only see a +1 or +2 when it comes to a Domain action.

This rewards the characters with high INT, WIS and CHA, who show talent even at early levels, and increases the power of the Blood abilities, since some of them grant bonuses to skills.

[RaspK_FOG]

Allow me to say that there is a serious reason that is completely mechanics-related and prohibits the use of Skill Bonuses instead of Ranks in order to determine whether you are able to achieve something or not: the potential that ability scores and bonuses have to change on the spot!

Consider the following situation: two scions have the supposed requisite Skill Bonus, one due to Ranks, the other due to high Ability Scores. They both have the same feat or ability that is tied to the Skill. Now, if the two happen to be, let's say, poisoned, attacked by a monster with an ability damaging/draining ability, or otherwise suffer such effects, the first one won't have a problem, since the only way to lose ranks happens only when you lose a level (a case that can harm a character pretty badly anyway, is not so common, and is considered as one of the most violent attacks!), but the second will suffer! If his feat was supposedly achieved because of a high Ability Bonus that he now no longer had, he would no longer be able to use it!

Considering the fact that such: "Am I able to use my feat now or not?" situations are frustrating for players and can lead to hurt feelings, or feelings of unfairness, not to mention that there are too many ways to temporarily or indefinitely boost your ability scores, but no way to get extra ranks!

I think that flavour is less of a demand in such a case. Don't you?

[Osprey]

Allow me to say that there is a serious reason that is completely mechanics-related and prohibits the use of Skill Bonuses instead of Ranks in order to determine whether you are able to achieve something or not: the potential that ability scores and bonuses have to change on the spot!

Consider the following situation: two scions have the supposed requisite Skill Bonus, one due to Ranks, the other due to high Ability Scores. They both have the same feat or ability that is tied to the Skill. Now, if the two happen to be, let's say, poisoned, attacked by a monster with an ability damaging/draining ability, or otherwise suffer such effects, the first one won't have a problem, since the only way to lose ranks happens only when you lose a level (a case that can harm a character pretty badly anyway, is not so common, and is considered as one of the most violent attacks!), but the second will suffer! If his feat was supposedly achieved because of a high Ability Bonus that he now no longer had, he would no longer be able to use it!

Considering the fact that such: "Am I able to use my feat now or not?" situations are frustrating for players and can lead to hurt feelings, or feelings of unfairness, not to mention that there are too many ways to temporarily or indefinitely boost your ability scores, but no way to get extra ranks!

I think that flavour is less of a demand in such a case. Don't you?

I think you misunderstood something here. If you notice in the first post, all of the prerequisites for Feats are based on Skill Ranks, not skill bonuses. This is reasoned as being based on the idea that "Master"-type feats require a degree of actual experience in addition to natural talent. Natural talent in this case refers to ability score minimums (which already exist for these feats - I changed very little of those from their BRCS versions).

Generally, I reason that once a feat is learned, it is permanent, barring things like memory loss (i.e., permanent level loss), Feeblemind effects, or the like. And those things should happen rarely.

My proposal was specifically to make Domain Action synergy bonuses based on skill bonuses rather than ranks to reflect the [generally slight] advantages of natural talent and skill-focused feats.

Does that clarify things, and sufficiently address your concerns?

[destowe]

I would keep the Regent Focus at a +4 to the revelant ability instead of lowering it to +3.

There are many feats in the 3.5 SRD and the BRCS that give a +2 to two seperate skills. Those feats give a total of +4 to skills. I see no real difference between a +4 to one skill than a +2 to two.

[RaspK_FOG]

Rather convincing, Osprey, but you forgot one thing here: your idea is based on a, admittedly interesting, house rule. But this is still a house rule, and a house rule that defies standard allowances for feats (when you do not meet any of the prerequisites, you lose it until you meet them again). Not to mention that since they do have prerequisite ability scores, they are more readily available to talented people. Others won't get them at all; giving them to such characters faster as well is not a good idea.

On the other hand, Destowe, I have to agree with Osprey's point: a +4 bonus in one skill is better than +2 in two skills. Furthermore, while The Wheel of Time had several rules that deviated from the standard rules of 3e, there were some very interesting ones. One of them, called Skill Affinity, was a feat that replaced Skill Focus for that campaign setting, and actually gave a +3 bonus to any one skill!

Hmm, I checked it in my 3.5e PHB: Skill Focus now does give a +3 bonus instead of a +2 bonus as well!

[The Jew]

Originally posted by RaspK_FOG@Oct 8 2003, 11:33 PM
Rather convincing, Osprey, but you forgot one thing here: your idea is based on a, admittedly interesting, house rule. But this is still a house rule, and a house rule that defies standard allowances for feats (when you do not meet any of the prerequisites, you lose it until you meet them again).
You seem to be confused rasp. Ospreys suggestion does not violate stardard rules for feats. The prerequisites listed were ability scores and ranks in relevant skills. The only slight, and intriguing, derivation was requiring fewer ranks for certain cultures.

regarding regent focus, I think it should be lowered to a +2 for certain domain actions, and a +3 for the rest. Rule Province and Rule holding are both so commonly used that a bonus to either is signicantly more valuable than a similar bonus to just about any other.

;)

[Raesene Andu]

Osprey,

Thanks for your suggestions they have been noticed and will be considered during the revison of section on skills & feats in the revised BRCS. I'm not sure which, if any, of your suggestions will be used, but thanks for making them.

[RaspK_FOG]

Originally posted by The Jew@Oct 9 2003, 02:54 AM
You seem to be confused rasp. Ospreys suggestion does not violate stardard rules for feats. The prerequisites listed were ability scores and ranks in relevant skills. The only slight, and intriguing, derivation was requiring fewer ranks for certain cultures.
On the contrary, there is a breach of standard rules in Osprey's suggestions, and while I find it as a rather interesting idea, it is a house rule:


Generally, I reason that once a feat is learned, it is permanent, barring things like memory loss (i.e., permanent level loss), Feeblemind effects, or the like. And those things should happen rarely.

I, for one, disagree that such effects as ability damage (in spite of draining) should be used rarely; if PCs can do it, so can NPCs, especialoly villains or monsters! From spell to poison to special attack...

[Athos69]

Rasp, you're grasping at straws here... the discussion is not about someone's house rules, it's about how to tone down potentially overpowered feats, and change how Domain action sysnergy bonuses are calculated.

[Airgedok]

I did notice that you added regional prerequisites to master admin where not existend before and to military Genius. I find this to be a bit "out of order" Almost all regions would promote and support the value of a mster administrator except perhaps the Vos but even then a master administrater would be respected because they could field a larger army and thus a skill that the vos would try to nurture. Military Genius is again another feat that all cultures and races would nurture ant support with equal vigor. The other cultures couldnt afford not to support such an genius. And a Genius shouldnt be rank related a military genius can have little traning ans still be a genius. For the most part i agree with the rank system allowing other cultures to gain the ability at a later level but I just question these two feats changes.

I also noticed that some of the changes can really hurt some regents that are not given class skills for some of these skills. Which means they could be barred from using a feat until 7th level or 13th level. When you consider that most skill effecting feats are a show of "natural talent" not training, while combat skills are a show of training not talent. Its a dicotomy that means you have to take into effect what type of feat you are looking at. this is further "proven" by the type of prerequisites that combat type feats have base attack and level required(metamagic), But there are no prerequisites for skill based feats. This strengthens the principle that combat feats are based on improved traning but skills feats are innate "special" abilities, because increased traning for skills is represented by skill ranks. Perhaps you should eliminate the prerequists for the "prpoer" culture and reduce the skill ranks needed to 5+ for the "wrong" culture. This is more inline with teh spirit behind teh 3x edition rule sets. At least how they view skill based feats in teh core rules.

Also why the idea of "successfully" dealing with the regent action 3 times to get regent focus? When you learn more through failure than you ever do from success. It also go against the whole prinsiple of skill based feats in the core rules being about inate ability and not training.

[Osprey]

My argument concerning skill-based feats was focused around the BRCS feats called "Master xxx." And in all honesty, I think Military Genius was just a cooler name for the same class of feats. It could have just as easily been called "Master Strategist."

I think these particular skills ARE learned from experience. I was really thinking from a more realistic perspective, not from a D&D perspective. Your point concerning the 3e trend is well-taken, but I must say that I think D&D focuses on combat skills as the "important" measure of experience, whereas skills definitely take a secondary role. The designers seemed to be far more concerned with game balance in the combat area, but were basing skills and their prerequisites on an adventuring model.

The inherent conflict between D&D and the Birthright setting is that a political arena is different than an adventure setting. In politics, skills are essential, and combat ability comes into play only in the rare violent encounter or war. Unless you live in a land with violent borders, of course.

Getting back to skills: IRL, do you ever see rookies learning the advanced "tricks of the trade" and showing incredible expertise? Raw talent already has a representation: ability scores. Specialist feats are just that: specialties. And specialization at 1st or 2nd level should, IMO, be possible only after a degree of actual experience has allowed the character to learn the basics.

Rank 5 has always represented "basic competence" in my opinion. Journeyman status, if you will. And what apprentice has the the time or energy to be a Master Administrator or Master Merchant?

Military Genius: all cultures would value these, but not all cultures would cultivate them to the same degrees. Anuire and Vosgaard have always been the decidedly militant human cultures in Cerilia. While every culture has their military heroes and geniuses, they only appear more frequently in militant cultures. This seems like simple logic to me.

The same goes for Master Administrator. While every culture would love to have them around, the realistic requirements are things like mathematics, economics, logistics, etc. Now really, do you think that those are the strongpoints of the Vos or Rjurik cultures? The Khinasi and Anuireans would be the decidedly strong cultures in that respect, and the Brecht as well because of their mercantile focus.

Remember, in this proposal the feats ARE available to every culture, but higher prerequisites for cultures without predilictions for those skills means the actual frequency of those feats will be higher in some cultures than in others. It's simply harder to find the right training, academic resources, and experience to become a Master Administrator in Rjurik than it is in Khinasi.

As for Regent Focus: although failure does teach, you'll never become a specialist at something until you learn to do it right, and then learn to do it really, REALLY well. And that only happens through repetition - the right way.

[ConjurerDragon]

Osprey schrieb:

> This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.

> You can view the entire thread at:

> http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=36&t=1994



> Osprey wrote:

...

> Military Genius: all cultures would value these, but not all cultures would cultivate them to

the same degrees. Anuire and Vosgaard have always been the decidedly

militant human cultures in

Cerilia. While every culture has their military heroes and geniuses,

they only appear more

frequently in militant cultures. This seems like simple logic to me.



Not to me. Yes, both are militant. But while I see Anuireans as eager to

lead large armies into battle and employing complicated moves (Hannibals

Cannae tactics?) I just can´t see a Vos warlord doing the same.



Vos are barbarians. Brutal Warlords rule the land through their personal

ruthlessness. Perhaps comparable to china before 2nd worldwar with

warlords in every corner. More concerned that noone can challenge them

from within that leading a united army outside. No empire or even large

realm that could field a really large army comparable to that of Anuire.

The only time they really united - for a very short time - and had an

army in need of a military genius or master strategist would have been

the battle of lake ladan against the Brecht...

bye

Michael

[Airgedok]

I'm not saying that the vos are shining examples of administrators but I am saying that any Vos leader that could organise a army to a greater size than his conterpart with the same resources would be respected because his ability to field an army larger then his enemies is a desireable skill set. Almost any culture would respect the master administrator for what the master administrator can do from being better organized and that is simply more. He can do more. What exactly he does more of is based on both the culture and teh individual regent but any regent that could do more than his counter part is going to has such a skill supported.

I present that what master XXX really represents isnt special training but talant. You equate talant with ability score as do I but we all know that there are different types of geniuses. One genius is math would need a high INT but while he maybe a genius in maths doesnt mean that when he tries chemisrty he'll be a genius in that field even with teh same level of training yet he has teh same ability score. I put forward that skill feats are more representive of talent than they are with advance training. i put forward that skill levels and synergy bonuses are more along the ideas of advance training.

Neither of use in right or wrong in concept but i do say that your changes go against the spirit of how 3e views feats.

I also conceed that Birthright has major balance problems as you mentioned. Whats desireable for an adventer level play in not the same things desired in regent level play. I also conceed that D&D has given "non-combat" aspects of the game a very minor second tier rating. But unless you remove skills from the level based system you'll always have a problem with their second tier status. What makes someone knowledgeable and skilled doesnt make one a "better fighter" or rather the two are not nessisarily tied together. D&D doesnt tie skills with combat ability. They are two seperate aspects. Feats are what you use to improve your combat ability beyond the automatic level increase like base to hit bonus.

I have no problem with adding training based feats for skills so long as the talant feats are either peserved or added. Yet how do you stop doubling up in feats? Or is there perhaps a better way to show advance training with better synergy bonuses? Perhaps +2 at 5randks and +3 at 10randks and +4 15+ ranks. i dont know i just dont like the trend you are setting. Perhaps I'm too "hide bound" to the old spirit of teh core skill feats.

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by Airgedok@Oct 13 2003, 01:46 AM
I'm not saying that the vos are shining examples of administrators but I am saying that any Vos leader that could organise a army to a greater size than his conterpart with the same resources would be respected because his ability to field an army larger then his enemies is a desireable skill set. Almost any culture would respect the master administrator for what the master administrator can do from being better organized and that is simply more. He can do more. What exactly he does more of is based on both the culture and teh individual regent but any regent that could do more than his counter part is going to has such a skill supported.

Except that being a master administrator involves booking skills of some kind. It is impossible to figure out ways to shave costs unless one has a knowledge and a system that keeps track of them in the first place. Vos have no written language and generally a wary of anyone who "writes" things down as this is seen as something that wizards (and priests) do and neither is a group that the general Vos populus trusts or has much respect for. They will fear the priests but they don't respect them.

[The Jew]

adiminstrate is an int based skill, right?

[Osprey]

Yes, Administrate is INT-based.

[Osprey]

I present that what master XXX really represents isnt special training but talant. You equate talant with ability score as do I but we all know that there are different types of geniuses. One genius is math would need a high INT but while he maybe a genius in maths doesnt mean that when he tries chemisrty he'll be a genius in that field even with teh same level of training yet he has teh same ability score. I put forward that skill feats are more representive of talent than they are with advance training. i put forward that skill levels and synergy bonuses are more along the ideas of advance training

Neither of use in right or wrong in concept but i do say that your changes go against the spirit of how 3e views feats.

I also conceed that Birthright has major balance problems as you mentioned. Whats desireable for an adventer level play in not the same things desired in regent level play. I also conceed that D&D has given "non-combat" aspects of the game a very minor second tier rating. But unless you remove skills from the level based system you'll always have a problem with their second tier status. What makes someone knowledgeable and skilled doesnt make one a "better fighter" or rather the two are not nessisarily tied together. D&D doesnt tie skills with combat ability. They are two seperate aspects. Feats are what you use to improve your combat ability beyond the automatic level increase like base to hit bonus.

I have no problem with adding training based feats for skills so long as the talant feats are either peserved or added. Yet how do you stop doubling up in feats? Or is there perhaps a better way to show advance training with better synergy bonuses? Perhaps +2 at 5randks and +3 at 10randks and +4 15+ ranks. i dont know i just dont like the trend you are setting. Perhaps I'm too "hide bound" to the old spirit of teh core skill feats.

I think there is some merit to what you say. In truth, feats are a broad catch-all category of specilties and combat tricks. However, to say they represent "natural talent" is a mistake - feats are only available to chracters based on their levels of experience. That's not a coincidence. Anything based on levels in D&D is, by definition, based on experience, and thus, acquired skill rather than inborn talent. One could always argue that a 1st-level character always get 1 or 2 starting feats (representing natural talent), but I could also argue that these are the first tricks or advanced skills/specialties they learn in their class-based profession. A 1st level character isn't untrained, they represent the result of a standard period of training to turn out a baseline professional (sort of like a modern-day high school graduate who is supposedly prepared to join the workforce; never mind the reality of whether or not they're really prepared, I'm just comparing 2 theoretical constructs with similar thoughts behind both).

So in the end, Airgedok, I'm sticking to my guns on this one. I think most feats do in fact represent occupational/professional specialties and the byproducts of long, hard experience (ex: Iron Will) rather than natural talent. If you want to call a character's starting feat(s) natural talent, you're welcome to do so: that's part of a player's character background, and can generally be explained any way the player or DM likes.

-Osprey

[RaspK_FOG]

Osprey could not have put it any better: a Feat is nothing else but a feat! Feats in real life are accomplishments, and accomplishments are not repeatedly achieved through sheer luck or talent! The best example that represents this is a feat from The Wheel of Time; one kind of that world's channelers are wilders, who must reach a certain emotional state to be able to cast "Weaves", as they call spells, and that condition is called a "Block". While female wilders can take the feat Remove Block (or something like that) at 3rd level, a male wilder can take it at 1st level! In the end, it represents not talent, but the ability to achieve something others cannot. And I like the fact that male and female channelers are different from one another in that world. Another interesting adoption of such flavour and the Birthright rules, this time, is to use the theme from Ursula le Guien's Earthsea, where women cannot wizards, but men cannot become more connected to the Earthen powers (I assume you could say men cannot become clerics). Both, however, can become magicians.

[Airgedok]

Originally posted by Osprey@Oct 14 2003, 01:00 AM

I present that what master XXX really represents isnt special training but talant. You equate talant with ability score as do I but we all know that there are different types of geniuses. One genius is math would need a high INT but while he maybe a genius in maths doesnt mean that when he tries chemisrty he'll be a genius in that field even with teh same level of training yet he has teh same ability score. I put forward that skill feats are more representive of talent than they are with advance training. i put forward that skill levels and synergy bonuses are more along the ideas of advance training

Neither of use in right or wrong in concept but i do say that your changes go against the spirit of how 3e views feats.

I also conceed that Birthright has major balance problems as you mentioned. Whats desireable for an adventer level play in not the same things desired in regent level play. I also conceed that D&D has given "non-combat" aspects of the game a very minor second tier rating. But unless you remove skills from the level based system you'll always have a problem with their second tier status. What makes someone knowledgeable and skilled doesnt make one a "better fighter" or rather the two are not nessisarily tied together. D&D doesnt tie skills with combat ability. They are two seperate aspects. Feats are what you use to improve your combat ability beyond the automatic level increase like base to hit bonus.

I have no problem with adding training based feats for skills so long as the talant feats are either peserved or added. Yet how do you stop doubling up in feats? Or is there perhaps a better way to show advance training with better synergy bonuses? Perhaps +2 at 5randks and +3 at 10randks and +4 15+ ranks. i dont know i just dont like the trend you are setting. Perhaps I'm too "hide bound" to the old spirit of teh core skill feats.

I think there is some merit to what you say. In truth, feats are a broad catch-all category of specilties and combat tricks. However, to say they represent "natural talent" is a mistake - feats are only available to chracters based on their levels of experience. That's not a coincidence. Anything based on levels in D&D is, by definition, based on experience, and thus, acquired skill rather than inborn talent. One could always argue that a 1st-level character always get 1 or 2 starting feats (representing natural talent), but I could also argue that these are the first tricks or advanced skills/specialties they learn in their class-based profession. A 1st level character isn't untrained, they represent the result of a standard period of training to turn out a baseline professional (sort of like a modern-day high school graduate who is supposedly prepared to join the workforce; never mind the reality of whether or not they're really prepared, I'm just comparing 2 theoretical constructs with similar thoughts behind both).

So in the end, Airgedok, I'm sticking to my guns on this one. I think most feats do in fact represent occupational/professional specialties and the byproducts of long, hard experience (ex: Iron Will) rather than natural talent. If you want to call a character's starting feat(s) natural talent, you're welcome to do so: that's part of a player's character background, and can generally be explained any way the player or DM likes.

-Osprey
Well thats a flaw in the system of all level based systems. They create a unrealistic balance system via leveling that is 90% combat based and then add on skills. The feat system is obviously a combat oriatated system designed to provide increased combat ability. The skill feats again are add ons. You create a continued disservice to teh system by tieing skills to levels even more. Knowledge and skill isnt tied to combat prowess. And yet in D&D because they made skills tied to level they made the two artifically connected. I can be more skilled and knowlegable and not be any better in combat than i was a year ago. But any increase in level makes me better in combat. First off I'm a higher level so spells effect me differently second my saves will likely increase. By base attack again will at least have a 50% chance of increase. More hit points ect. Yet this is in no way a good representation of how knowledge/skills as presented in D&D are in the "real world". My ability to run a nation shouldnt be tied to my effectiveness on teh field of battle. Even the commoner and adept and expert all still have the combat frame work will skills added on.

You now want to increase this relationship but in so doing break against the spirit of skill based feats in teh core rules. There is not level or skill prereq feat in the game that deals with skill bonuses. The only feats that have prereq are combat based feats. Every single skill based feat has no prereq. So not only do we strengthen a flaw to level based systems we do it in a manner that ignores the conventions that govern feats. This doesnt sound like an improvement.

There must be a better way.

[Osprey]

Well thats a flaw in the system of all level based systems. They create a unrealistic balance system via leveling that is 90% combat based and then add on skills. The feat system is obviously a combat oriatated system designed to provide increased combat ability. The skill feats again are add ons. You create a continued disservice to teh system by tieing skills to levels even more. Knowledge and skill isnt tied to combat prowess. And yet in D&D because they made skills tied to level they made the two artifically connected. I can be more skilled and knowlegable and not be any better in combat than i was a year ago. But any increase in level makes me better in combat. First off I'm a higher level so spells effect me differently second my saves will likely increase. By base attack again will at least have a 50% chance of increase. More hit points ect. Yet this is in no way a good representation of how knowledge/skills as presented in D&D are in the "real world". My ability to run a nation shouldnt be tied to my effectiveness on teh field of battle. Even the commoner and adept and expert all still have the combat frame work will skills added on.

You now want to increase this relationship but in so doing break against the spirit of skill based feats in teh core rules. There is not level or skill prereq feat in the game that deals with skill bonuses. The only feats that have prereq are combat based feats. Every single skill based feat has no prereq. So not only do we strengthen a flaw to level based systems we do it in a manner that ignores the conventions that govern feats. This doesnt sound like an improvement.

There must be a better way.

The core spirit of a level-based game of any sort is experience, not combat. D&D gave great attention to the combat improvements with level advancements, and put skills as a nice "add-on." But those advancements are class-based, so that warriors gain combat abilities faster than clerics, who fight better than wizards, etc.

Tying skills to level advancement isn't directly tying them to combat abilities. It's tying them to class and experience. And experience is generally gained through overcoming challenges of any sort, be it fights, traps, puzzles, political dilemmas, etc. A good Birthright DM had better give xp on a broadly-based award system, otherwise all the PC regents will be focused on warfare and adventure as the only way to advance their personal abilities.

I agree that the combat and adventure focus of D&D is problematic for a political game, but hey: we have to work with what we've got. I don't think adding some skill prerequisites to skill-enhancing feats breaks the spirit of D&D at all, I think it improves upon the system without rearranging the core rules altogether.

I'm working within the spirit of the BRCS, which is to create a Birthright campaign setting that is based on the core 3.x D&D system while still holding to the spirit of the original setting: a mixed political/adventure game. In order to balance the political side, though, I think there need to be some changes and improvements to the basic D&D system, for reasons I've already mentioned.

The spirit of D&D, as currently written, is adventure and combat. The spirit of Birthright is adventure and medieval politics. Obviously, the spirit of Birthright is not identical to the spirit of the core game, so we cannot examine these under the same lens. They share the adventuring aspect, so they can share that aspect of the system. But never would I say that Birthright needs to be identical to the core rules in every way except for domain actions and bloodline. Every campaign setting has its own "variation on the theme," and BR requires more variation than some because skills are SO important as they aren't in other D&D campaign settings. So if you've got a better solution that really addresses this problem without re-writing the core rules, go ahead and post it. I'll be here.

[kari]

I know one hous rule relaiting to skillpoints

fyrst you have a pool of Xp, you dont have to level up until you realy wanto

you level up then you increas your skillpoint pool.

but you cant buy ranks with the points in your pool until you have tryed the skill ingame, incharacther, in some stresfull situation. Traind only skilles requier some training before one is able to try his new skill out.


and with feats thet improve some aspect of your character, like trip / improved trip. you acsuly have to trip somone in combat in order to take the improved trip skill, but before you trip somone, you have to go up level and have a awailable feat slot ready for your skill.

every time you level up. you lose all your (tryed marks)

This will encurage players to try more things with there characters.

marking things out as 'I have triped somone on this level' then I can put Improved trip in this feat slot I was saving.

[kari]

This will also eas the burden of the inexperiend player to updait all of his character at ones, you can go up level in mid adventure, only gaining the extra +1 to hitt. and extra spells per day slots. the rest goes into unused skill points and emty feat slots. and you reset the marks of what you have tryed from previus level.

[RaspK_FOG]

Well, for those of you who want to debase skills from level, I have an idea that allows for rules to still work:

Allow them to spend time training, then give them an extra rank in the trained skill; their ranks cannot increase above their limit due to their level.
To make this hurt a little, increase the time needed to gain the rank according to how many ranks they have, and apply an XP cost to train.

I hope you like it; I do, because I use this. ^_^

[Osprey]

Well, for those of you who want to debase skills from level, I have an idea that allows for rules to still work:

Allow them to spend time training, then give them an extra rank in the trained skill; their ranks cannot increase above their limit due to their level.
To make this hurt a little, increase the time needed to gain the rank according to how many ranks they have, and apply an XP cost to train.

I hope you like it; I do, because I use this.

I'm in agreeance on this one (I think I posted something along these lines in another thread). However, why the xp cost?

I think DM's shouldn't be too quick to assign xp costs to things; for magic, it makes sense, because powerful magics (like wish and magic items) actually use a part of a caster's life essence to empower the spell.

Time spent in training, however, would really gain xp (because they're learning from experience, which is the quintessential definition of experience points). In this case we're really just translating those xp directly into a skill rank. Doesn't it seem self-contradictory to lose experience for learning skills? Keep in mind that D&D doesn't use a "point-buy" xp system, unlike many other games. XP is meant to be a running total that represents the sum of one's meaningful life experiences, abstracted into a numeric value. Only powerful magics and negative energy (another force that drains one's spiritual life essence) were ever meant to be the kinds of things that could make one actually lose that experience.

I suppose if there were ever a game effect representing permanent memory loss or senility this would also be the kind of effect that might result in a permanent loss of xp.

[RaspK_FOG]

The cost would work as a reduction of gained XP for the session, and it would be just minor.

[DanMcSorley]

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003, Osprey wrote:

> I`m in agreeance on this one (I think I posted something along these

> lines in another thread). However, why the xp cost?



Because XP is spent to learn things in D&D. It`s not a very visible cost,

because it`s hidden in the levelling up process, but it`s there. Once a

character levels, the experience used to gain that level is effectively

spent- it`s not available for crafting magical items or casting spells

with an XP cost, for instance (the rule is that the XP cost from crafting

or casting something can`t take you down a level).



> I think DM`s shouldn`t be too quick to assign xp costs to things; for

> magic, it makes sense, because powerful magics (like wish and magic

> items) actually use a part of a caster`s life essence to empower the

> spell.

>

> Time spent in training, however, would really gain xp (because they`re

> learning from experience, which is the quintessential definition of

> experience points).



Then give out experience points for training, and when they gain enough,

they level, and get skill points the normal way. You can`t have it both

ways- if they`re gaining XP from training, make the rule that way. If

you want them to learn skill points "directly", it needs to cost XP,

because learning skills normally does. The cost should probably be around

25 points/target rank (for instance, learning the first rank of a skill

would cost 50, but raising your skill from 4 to 5 would cost 125).



--

Daniel McSorley

[teloft]

I fear this mgth get out of hand, where there is no limiting favtor on how much you can gain this way.

and it dosent show in the EL of your party,

I would tather like to have it so thet you can train in a skill, and the skill points traind would count agenst your potetial skillpoint gaind on the next level.


I like the system where you would only get 1x(your clas+int) on fyrst level as evry other level, then you can have somewere around 20 + wis in training points max, the average begin 5 - 7 per skill. and you would have to re-train it every time you gain Ranks. so if you bougth a rank in listen, you would lose training points in listen for the same amout as you bougth. so thows points can be retraind, in listen, or in a nother skill.

a variant to this would be to alow your players to gain one trainingpoint in a skill if thay spend a lot of time in a enviroment thet would teach them something about something,

f.x. if your characther is playing with tovak, you would gain points in history, and timetravel..perhaps even a spesific points in tovak lore, or even 'use magic divices'.

:ph34r:

[RaspK_FOG]

In order to clear up what I meant to say, I should make it clear that the idea was based on issues that I myself pointed out in a campaign I run nowin place of my friend. More specifically, some of the kiddos (good guys, believe me; one is a good strategist, the other a role-player, the other a talented player, and the last the best fighter I've ever seen) wanted to do some things and it suddenly occured to me: 'They train in things like playing music and stuff, mostly for role-playing issues - who can say otherwise when it comes to the psychic warrior who asked how to play music - but they do not have the potential to gain ranks unless they pay skill points!" So, I said that you will pay a small amount of XP (which I don't tell them before-hand), and tell them that acquiring a rank will take them a specific amount of time. Both are based on the ranks they already have.

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by RaspK_FOG@Oct 23 2003, 12:34 AM
In order to clear up what I meant to say, I should make it clear that the idea was based on issues that I myself pointed out in a campaign I run nowin place of my friend. More specifically, some of the kiddos (good guys, believe me; one is a good strategist, the other a role-player, the other a talented player, and the last the best fighter I've ever seen) wanted to do some things and it suddenly occured to me: 'They train in things like playing music and stuff, mostly for role-playing issues - who can say otherwise when it comes to the psychic warrior who asked how to play music - but they do not have the potential to gain ranks unless they pay skill points!" So, I said that you will pay a small amount of XP (which I don't tell them before-hand), and tell them that acquiring a rank will take them a specific amount of time. Both are based on the ranks they already have.
You know most of these can be handled by DM fiat. Not every skill use requires a dice roll and a lot of skills can be used untrained.

A PC might have spent time in bars and learned bar songs. Now this doesn't mean he can make any money entertaining, since his voice is probably not very good (that is where the ranks come into play, IMO) but he could teach a traveling bard the song he learned.

[kari]

I also love the suggestions...

:ph34r:

[RaspK_FOG]

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...

[kgauck]

----- 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

[RaspK_FOG]

First of all, ranks represent training. It is not reasonable to assume you can learn how to play an instrument without (at some point&#33;) 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&#33; In my campaigns, time and effort are what is important, and that&#39;s how I have my players understand it: they have to read through books for weeks to get a couple ranks in Knowledge skills.

[teloft]

I realy like the mark off system,

it entables the character to realy find a substencial reasoning for his studys.

f.x. "I realy need to learn how to jump proberly, I had such a hard time jumping over the deep stream in all this heavy armor. And the goblins almost had me ..."

:ph34r:

[Osprey]

First of all, ranks represent training. It is not reasonable to assume you can learn how to play an instrument without (at some point&#33;) 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&#33; In my campaigns, time and effort are what is important, and that&#39;s how I have my players understand it: they have to read through books for weeks to get a couple ranks in Knowledge skills.

This still seems off to me: isn&#39;t charging xp for skills redundant when you&#39;re already charging xp to gain levels, which is the only way you&#39;re giving them the "potential" to learn additional 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&#39;re charging xp for skills beyond their normal limit by class, that seems far more reasonable...otherwise all you&#39;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&#39;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&#33;

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&#39;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&#33;).

-Osprey

[RaspK_FOG]

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&#33; 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&#39;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.

[teloft]

(maximum ranks and whether a skill is a class skill or not are taken into account).


So noone can acsuly have more then there limit in ranks, acording to there level. Your only let them to buy more &#39;int&#39; when talking about ranks.

:ph34r:

[kgauck]

----- 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&#33;)

> 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

[geeman]

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

[Osprey]

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&#33;

So I guess we were on the same page all along. Thanks for clarifying. ;)

[kgauck]

I will say with some confidence that practicing musical instruments,

listening to and reflecting on music, and studying musical theory will

produce better musicians over the long run than will killing orogs and

scrupulously avoiding practice, study, and reflection. Agree or disagree.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[geeman]

At 01:14 AM 10/25/2003 -0500, Kenneth Gauck wrote:



>I will say with some confidence that practicing musical instruments,

>listening to and reflecting on music, and studying musical theory will

>produce better musicians over the long run than will killing orogs and

>scrupulously avoiding practice, study, and reflection. Agree or disagree.



Of course, but that`s not really what we`re talking about here is

it? Killing orogs doesn`t mean one is scrupulously avoiding practice,

study and reflection any more than not avoiding those things means one is

cloistered. The issue is how experience as a whole manifests in ability

and whether that connection should be direct and absolute--which is how a

lot of skill based games handle character improvement--or general like D&D

and several other systems that grant an award to be spent however the

player wants.



Gary

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----

From: "Gary" <geeman@SOFTHOME.NET>

Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2003 3:21 AM



> Of course, but that`s not really what we`re talking about here

> is it?



You certainly leave the impression that it is.



> Killing orogs doesn`t mean one is scrupulously avoiding practice,

> study and reflection any more than not avoiding those things

> means one is cloistered.



Then I should take your post as agreeing with mine, that the standard game

rules assumes a bit of study and practice with every rank, but require no

specificity with regard to its nature.



> The issue is how experience as a whole manifests in ability and

> whether that connection should be direct and absolute



You will note I said both methods were valid. It matters not to me whether

we just assume that a certain amount of practice, study, and relection was

being joined to the insights one gets going through life, or whether we must

specify that some effort is made and that some skill is gained. The

difference is slight. I suspect you have taken an interest in this because

I refered to your notion of gaining xp over time. I certainly did not

characterize your suggestion as implying a direct and absolute connection to

one particular skill rank. I quoted RaspK_FOG`s formula that it required

time and effort. In fact, I think a made an argument of the dangers between

to scrupulous an examination of what was studied and the ranks in the

example I gave. It would be ill to require that the PC state he made a

specific study of Glevum, the county it is in, or make some specific

reference before the DM grant`s that the PC knows about the lord in

question. Skill ranks best represent a Schroedigerian approach to what a

character actually studied leading up to the moment that the check is made.

Hence it cannot be prudent to be too specific with regards to the body of

study, hence no direct and abosolute connection is wisely pursued. I am not

inclined to say that this rank of perform indicated oboe, and this rank

indicates Vogon poetry, and this rank indicates the techniques for killing

orogs with garage band stylings.



It would seem to me we are in general agreement on experience.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[Osprey]

I would add that the class vs. cross-class skills seem to reflect both Gary&#39;s and Kenneth&#39;s assertions - that warrior may indeed improve his lute-playing skills, but never to the same degree of skill with which the bard would, thanks to a combination of dedicated, usually mentored training, and frequent practice.

All of this comparison would be easier if combat skills were wrapped in the same system as other skills - a dvelopment made by later games. But D&D unfortunately sticks to its original premise because EVERY adventurer fights...but other skills were originally secondary, then non-weapon proficiencies, and now in 3e they are skills, but still a seperate category from fighting ability. Slowly, resistantly, it evolves...

[teloft]

In order to make a system thet would integrade the figthing skill (base attack bonus) into the standard skilles

It would at least need 3 types of clas/ cross clas
or some other type, in order to
talk about the 3 difrent type of base attack bonus,

and then you need to grant every clas more skillpoints in order to be able to buy the ranks needed have the attack bonus.

1. Figther
2. Cleric
3. Wisard

:ph34r:

[teloft]

but then you would be better off using a difrent system all to gether lol...

:ph34r:

[geeman]

At 04:47 PM 10/25/2003 +0200, teloft wrote:



> but then you would be better off using a difrent system all to gether

> lol...



I do use a pretty much different skill system.... It`s still fundamentally

rank and ability score based, but it`s got a lot of other things too.



Gary

[geeman]

At 06:08 AM 10/25/2003 -0500, Kenneth Gauck wrote:



> > Of course, but that`s not really what we`re talking about here

> > is it?

>

>You certainly leave the impression that it is.



All I`ve talked about is the process of gaining experience over time and

how experience has a general affect rather than a particular one, so if

you`ve gotten the impression that what I _really_ meant was gaining

experience or skill ranks for study, practice and reflection factored into

that process or that those things are connected to skill ranks let me try

to clarify. What I`m talking about is gaining XP for things that one might

earn one experience in adventures. CR encounters, ad hoc awards, story

awards, role-playing awards, etc. Over time everyone deals with those

things. They just occur at a much slower pace than they do when actually

engaging in traditional, D&D adventures. Where those things might occur at

a seemingly manic pace while adventuring, they might take weeks, months or

even years to take place when not adventuring. For characters to not

accidentally encounter the kinds of things that grant XP in an adventure

they`d have to spend their lives in very strange circumstances. Some

method of addressing that is, therefore, prudent. To what specific levels,

skills, feats, etc. those XP get applied makes no difference to the process

of experience itself because learning is such a broad and general process.



> > Killing orogs doesn`t mean one is scrupulously avoiding practice,

> > study and reflection any more than not avoiding those things

> > means one is cloistered.

>

>Then I should take your post as agreeing with mine, that the standard game

>rules assumes a bit of study and practice with every rank, but require no

>specificity with regard to its nature.



Well, no, actually I don`t agree. There is text stating that assumption

outright, but that text is now in the "Access and Training" section of

"Advancing Levels" in the DMG, all of which are optional rules. One need

not assume training and study at all any more.



It`s not unreasonable to assume that characters are engaging in activities

for which they have skill ranks, and that such an assumption works as an

explanation for how one can gain ability from such an odd and seemingly

unrelated thing as XP, but the current edition of the rules does not

require that assumption, and it`s not really necessary unless one is going

to have some game mechanical expression of it. Earlier editions of D&D had

rules and methods for actually levelling up that did require weeks spent in

study, lots of gp, trainers, etc. so game mechanically there was a need for

study, practice, reflection, etc. Experience alone was insufficient in

1e. Those things are variant rules now, and very few people seem to use them.



One could argue that those things are variant rules now because they were

amongst the most oft ignored aspects of the game... or one could argue that

they were oft ignored because most players and DMs recognize that training

and study does not have the same role in life that the game seemed to

assume it did. Killing orogs can actually influence one`s overall

competence in things that would seem unrelated to the actual process of

killing orogs. It may, in fact, help at a greater rate than might plucking

strings all day since one gains a general and overall sense of competence

and personal power from more powerful and significant experiences. I`m

sure everyone can recall a time when they were blocked in their ability to

perform some activity; a hobby, a sport, Calculus, whatever. You take some

time off, go and have some new and different experiences without dedicating

any thought or energy to the aforementioned activity, yet when you do

eventually return to that activity you find yourself inexplicably unblocked

or able to do things that you were unable to do before. Because of that

dynamic XP alone are all that is required by most people in order to level up.



I`d also suggest that it might not really make a lot of sense in 3e/3.5 to

assume that training is going on constantly and that it is that training in

combination with XP that allows characters to level up.

In 3e/3.5 the pace at which levelling up occurs is so fast that the

training, practice, study, etc. can`t realistically take place between

levels. It depends, of course, on the pace of the campaign, but characters

can level up in a day, and one can have six adventures in a week. Even if

they dedicate that seventh day and all their evenings to study does that

really address the "constant training" issue of earlier editions? The game

assumes rest and recuperation more actively than it does training--we at

least have rules for getting spell slots back and hit points that aren`t

variants or optional. The levelling up process is far too manic to really

be accounted for by training and study without the rules stepping in to

mandate some time requirement like those variant rules. Since they are

variants, however, and little used the game seems to clearly no longer make

the assumption that training is a fundamental aspect of levelling up.



> > The issue is how experience as a whole manifests in ability and

> > whether that connection should be direct and absolute

>

>You will note I said both methods were valid. It matters not to me whether

>we just assume that a certain amount of practice, study, and relection was

>being joined to the insights one gets going through life, or whether we must

>specify that some effort is made and that some skill is gained. The

>difference is slight.



The methods you said were valid were "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"

which is different from what later was brought up "Obviously, its

rediculous to reward someone xp for killing orogs and then declare their

ability to learn instruments has improved." The second quote is the one

that drew these particular comments regarding the nature of skill and

experience.



>I suspect you have taken an interest in this because

>I refered to your notion of gaining xp over time.



I got interested in it before that reference... that`s why I made the

comments regarding XP gained over time in the first place.



>I certainly did not characterize your suggestion as implying a direct and

>absolute connection to

>one particular skill rank.



You did indicate in the above quoted text that a more direct link exists

between study and skill than experience and skill, and that`s not at all

what I was getting at.



>I quoted RaspK_FOG`s formula that it required

>time and effort. In fact, I think a made an argument of the dangers between

>to scrupulous an examination of what was studied and the ranks in the

>example I gave. It would be ill to require that the PC state he made a

>specific study of Glevum, the county it is in, or make some specific

>reference before the DM grant`s that the PC knows about the lord in

>question. Skill ranks best represent a Schroedigerian approach to what a

>character actually studied leading up to the moment that the check is made.

>Hence it cannot be prudent to be too specific with regards to the body of

>study, hence no direct and abosolute connection is wisely pursued. I am not

>inclined to say that this rank of perform indicated oboe, and this rank

>indicates Vogon poetry, and this rank indicates the techniques for killing

>orogs with garage band stylings.



OK, I`ll grant you that Shroedinger`s cat does not gain experience, nor

does anyone gain XP for plugging up the air holes in the box. Regardless,

the specificity of what skill ranks themselves represent hasn`t been at

issue here, so I don`t think the point is necessary.



>It would seem to me we are in general agreement on experience.



Excepting this stuff regarding study being necessary to levelling up and

that experience for one activity can`t or shouldn`t apply to a seemingly

unrelated ability, I would say we agree.



Gary

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----

From: "Gary" <geeman@SOFTHOME.NET>

Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2003 5:25 PM



> Excepting this stuff regarding study being necessary to levelling up and

> that experience for one activity can`t or shouldn`t apply to a seemingly

> unrelated ability, I would say we agree.



Once again you have it backwards. This stuff isn`t neccesary in any

mechanical sense. That is what I mean by "assume". I assume there is

study, practice, and reflection because its not mechanized. Somewhere, in

some fasion, the character exposes themselves to something they don`t know,

and after a while they come to know it. Its that simple, and making it

harder is unneccesary. The specifics of how it happens don`t need to be

mechanized because they can be assumed. There are lots of ways to learn,

from the highly formal to the highly informal. It is sufficient to say

there was learning, and leave it at that. What is known in any specific

case is handled by the dice, that`s what they do. Why make this harder than

it has to be?



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[geeman]

At 06:21 PM 10/25/2003 -0500, Kenneth Gauck wrote:



> > Excepting this stuff regarding study being necessary to levelling up and

> > that experience for one activity can`t or shouldn`t apply to a seemingly

> > unrelated ability, I would say we agree.

>

>Once again you have it backwards. This stuff isn`t neccesary in any

>mechanical sense. That is what I mean by "assume". I assume there is

>study, practice, and reflection because its not mechanized. Somewhere, in

>some fasion, the character exposes themselves to something they don`t know,

>and after a while they come to know it. Its that simple, and making it

>harder is unneccesary. The specifics of how it happens don`t need to be

>mechanized because they can be assumed. There are lots of ways to learn,

>from the highly formal to the highly informal. It is sufficient to say

>there was learning, and leave it at that. What is known in any specific

>case is handled by the dice, that`s what they do. Why make this harder than

>it has to be?



And once again, that`s still not the issue. There`s really not much to

debate about the relationship of experience to learning in its most

abstract terms. One has experience and one learns. Where we disagree is

in some of your comments about how killing orogs does not have anything to

do with improving one`s musical ability, and that study, practice and

reflection have a more direct relationship to learning than seemingly

unrelated experiences like adventuring. Those statements indicate not only

that you`re saying the nature of experience has a direct influence on the

types of things learned--which I think is an assumption that not only

doesn`t necessarily hold true, and isn`t supported in 3e/3.5`s rules for

handling XP--but also reduce the primacy of adventuring in that if it were

possible to become a high level character (or otherwise get the effects of

being one) by engaging in study rather than adventuring then actually

adventuring takes a back seat to study.



It`s also important to note that there are mechanical methods of portraying

these issues that you`re ignoring. In fact, there are several

mechanics. Aside from the previous edition rules regarding training for

levelling up and the variants of those rules in 3e/3.5 and the optional

rules regarding study to learn new spells, in BR we have the Training

domain action, there`s also the example of the College of Sorcery that

levels characters up to 3rd for attendance after several years of study and

we have game mechanics for training units of soldiers, from which we can

extrapolate information how to train individuals. In that context, what

we`re talking about here has a definite point, so "making it hard" is

really the only way to hash out the vagaries in order to come up with a

system. These issues can effect any or all of those rules.



On the whole, it`s a matter of whether one is going to attribute enough

significance to it to use those rules or come up with some other way of

reflecting the issue, so addressing the reason I`m addressing the issue is

because there are mechanical ways of portraying the distinction, as

described by the current variant rules regarding training. Because we have

mechanics for this in BR aside from those of D&D in general the issue

coalesces into game mechanics with things like regents who spend a month

engaged in the Training domain action vs. regents who spend a month engaged

in the Adventure domain action, in which the issue of gaining experience

over time is portrayed at the domain level. In 3e/3.5 there are, of

course, rules for assigning XP awards, and if one proposes as I do that one

has encounters over a period of time that would earn on XP, then it`s

possible to come up with a tweak to that to account for characters merely

going about their lives vs. characters engaging in a purposeful training

and study program.



Lastly, it`s not "harder" in this case than any other subject discussed

around here. Discuss the issues with a variety of people and everyone can

then arrive at conclusions based on input from a variety of

sources. That`s whole point of discussion the topic.



Gary

[kgauck]

I think its perfectly sufficient for DM`s to give experience for whatever

they want and for characters to gain levels from that experience.

Everything after that is unnecesary as far as I am concerned. The system is

abstract, but that is, to my mind, one of its virtues.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by geeman@Oct 25 2003, 06:18 PM
In 3e/3.5 the pace at which levelling up occurs is so fast that the

training, practice, study, etc. can`t realistically take place between

levels. It depends, of course, on the pace of the campaign, but characters

can level up in a day, and one can have six adventures in a week.
Gary, how much exp do you award in an encounter? Man, I&#39;d love to play in your game. The "rules" state that it should take about 12 average encounters to go up a level and that an average encounter is one that drains approx 25% of the party&#39;s resources. There are also strict recommendations for misc awards, including role-playing ones in the DMG. These things combined would make it real hard to level up in a single day.

This training discussion should probably be moved out of the discussion of what to do with the BRCS since these are the things that make a game individual and each DM appies differently.

[Green Knight]

Why not just get rid of XP and levels and go for a skill-based system instead? Most of the arguments are pointing in that direction.



Practice music = become better musician

Kill orogs = become a better orog-slayer



Cheers

Bjørn





Cheers

Bjørn



-------------------------------------------------

WebMail fra Tele2 http://www.tele2.no

-------------------------------------------------

[geeman]

At 10:48 AM 10/27/2003 +0100, Bjørn wrote:



>Why not just get rid of XP and levels and go for a skill-based system

>instead? Most of the arguments are pointing in that direction.

>

>Practice music = become better musician

>Kill orogs = become a better orog-slayer



I`ve been arguing that experience isn`t necessarily directly connected to

whatever it is that one learns, so killing orogs can make one a better

musician. There certainly are skill-based games that have a more direct

connection between experience and character development, but on the whole

I`ve found such games to be a bit two dimensional in their portrayal of

experience, so I keep coming back to D20 or systems in which these things

are more abstracted.



The reward for killing orogs, of course, exists in the game mechanics, but

the question to me is what might be the result of practicing music or

engaging in some other kind of training? If one were to say their

character was going to attend the Royal College of Sorcery is that a PC

performing a Training domain action over and over until s/he gets to 3rd

level and graduates? Is that why attendance takes 3-10 years? Can we come

up with a break down of what that means for other characters and maybe

apply that to a domain action for an XP award for a regent? How about one

to train a lieutenant? How about a unit of soldiers?



In the original BR domain action one could train to increase his skill with

a NWP, add a new one if there is an open slot, or--most intriguingly

IMO--add a hit point, or increase his proficiencies beyond those of his

level and class. The "hit point training" is expressed as a variant in the

BRCS Playtest, and changed so that hit points can only be added up to the

character`s "average" rather than max according to his class, level and

Constitution, and the section on increasing one`s proficiencies beyond what

would be typical for a character of that class and level is dropped. I

discussed this with a couple of players yesterday and they thought it might

be workable to keep this section in a D20 update--even allowing characters

to improve things like their ability scores in certain cases. What if one

could train to increase one`s ability scores if they were below the

standard array? It`s an interesting idea.



If one has a value for a hit point in relation to other character traits

then it`s not terribly difficult to extrapolate from that what the XP might

be for training, or how much time a character would have to dedicate to

training in order to gain either. If a hit point is worth one tenth of a

character level (its actually a bit less than that, but let`s ignore that

for the moment) then a training action might be worth around 100XP.



There are other ways of coming at this kind of thing. For instance, if the

training action is what students at the RCoS are doing, then they can earn

3,000XP in 3 years of training. A "perfect" record means such a character

would earn 3,000 / 36 = 83.3 XP a month. It needn`t necessarily be a flat

progression, but there are some interesting possibilities there.



Gary

[geeman]

At 11:12 AM 10/27/2003 +0100, irdeggman wrote:



>
In 3e/3.5 the pace at which

> levelling up occurs is so fast that the<>

> training, practice, study, etc. can`t realistically take place between<>

> levels. It depends, of course, on the pace of the campaign, but

> characters<>

> can level up in a day, and one can have six adventures in a week.

> Gary, how much exp do you award in an encounter? Man, I`d love to play

> in your game. The "rules" state that it should take about 12

> average encounters to go up a level and that an average encounter is one

> that drains approx 25% of the party`s resources. There are also strict

> recommendations for misc awards, including role-playing ones in the

> DMG. These things combined would make it real hard to level up in a

> single day.



Heh. I`m actually pretty stingy when I DM. Thirteen and a third

encounters is far too few to level up IMO. I probably award 1/3 to 1/2 of

the XP that the 3e/3.5 reward system suggests, and that`s now become the

standard for any D20 system game I run. When it comes to XP awards for

"typical" CR encounters, I divide the numbers given by the DMG by four. I

do, however, also give XP for non-combat encounters, good role-playing and

story awards, so it winds up being about 25-30 encounters to level up.



I have, however, played in campaigns where the pace was exactly like that

described, and using the XP awards in line with 3e/3.5 the characters

gained levels fast. The adventures were purposefully designed so that

there was never any (or very little) "down time" and it was a race against

time all the time. As a result, characters reached 5th and 6th level in

just a few days of game time. One of the things I like about BR is that it

is "low-level" particularly in comparison to other campaign worlds. In my

first BR campaign using 3e rules, however, I found it pretty difficult to

keep things low level because the CR system awards XP so quickly. Hence,

the 1/4 awards.



What I was getting at in that text, though, was just that 3e/3.5 no longer

assumes characters are training all the time as previous editions did, and

that`s supported by the pace of levelling up.



Gary

[teloft]

the hig power paranoid adventure, takse 3 encounters to go up level. and you run until you have gotten the recourses to take it on.

And the balor is in the next room to the 1-4th level characters. and thay can hear him... Do thay charge in to there doom, or try to do there tasks.

If you die, witch hapens often, you have to bring a new character, at 2 levels lower then the average party level.

the trade off is thet you dont have the knowledge of what is hapening as the oldest character dos. So dont die, run, but not alone for then your doomed.

:ph34r:

[Osprey]

I`ve been arguing that experience isn`t necessarily directly connected to
whatever it is that one learns, so killing orogs can make one a better
musician. There certainly are skill-based games that have a more direct
connection between experience and character development, but on the whole
I`ve found such games to be a bit two dimensional in their portrayal of
experience, so I keep coming back to D20 or systems in which these things
are more abstracted.


One of my favorite systems was skill based for all things: fighting skills, non-weapon skills, spells and schools of magic. Any time a PC successfully used a skill during an adventure, they gained 1 XP in that skill (with a limit of 1 xp per game session). In addition to these use-based xp awards, a DM could also award a certain number of free XP at the end of an adventure that could be spent in any skills desired. I didn&#39;t find this at all 2-dimensional, in fact it approached a level of realism that D&D doesn&#39;t really touch. I rather liked it, too bad it isn&#39;t printed in English...

I should add that most practical skills were on a D20 scale; a skill rating of
1-20, where you try to roll your skill value or less on a D20 to succeed on an average skill check (attack, spellcasting, performance, sneak, etc.). It cost (new level x XP) to rise one rank in the skill, so progression slowed as your skill increased.

[Green Knight]

What game was it, and in which language? One of my favorites is EON, a

Swedish game. Among skill-based fantasy games, it is numero uno on my

list.



What makes it unique is that a skill of 12 with Swords and a skill of 12

with Fire Magic are comparable in lethality. Makes it easier to balance

the "CR" of various encounters in a skill based system.



Should have been translated.



Cheers

Bjørn



-----Original Message-----

From: Birthright Roleplaying Game Discussion

[mailto:BIRTHRIGHT-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM] On Behalf Of Osprey

Sent: 27. oktober 2003 15:59

To: BIRTHRIGHT-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM

Subject: Re: Brcs Feats And Skills [36#1994]



This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.

You can view the entire thread at:

http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=36&t=1994



Osprey wrote:


I`ve been arguing that experience isn`t necessarily directly

connected to

whatever it is that one learns, so killing orogs can make one a better

musician. There certainly are skill-based games that have a more direct

connection between experience and character development, but on the

whole

I`ve found such games to be a bit two dimensional in their portrayal of

experience, so I keep coming back to D20 or systems in which these

things

are more abstracted.





One of my favorite systems was skill based for all things: fighting

skills, non-weapon skills, spells and schools of magic. Any time a PC

successfully used a skill during an adventure, they gained 1 XP in that

skill (with a limit of 1 xp per game session). In addition to these

use-based xp awards, a DM could also award a certain number of free XP

at the end of an adventure that could be spent in any skills desired. I

didn`t find this at all 2-dimensional, in fact it approached a level of

realism that D&D doesn`t really touch. I rather liked it, too bad

it isn`t printed in English...



************************************************** **********************

****



Birthright-l Archives:

http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html

[teloft]

IM now thinking of the old &#39;call of cathulu&#39; system

:ph34r:

[irdeggman]

All of this discussion of training for skills and not training for skills seems rather house-rules-ish. IMO, Character training should be left in the background and up to the individual GM for how he/she wants to incorporate it into his/her campaign.

3.5 DMG, pg 197 “Research and training aren’t a part of the standard rules. They’re assumed to be going on in the background.”

BRRB pg 60 “Training. Training for level: If the optional rules for training to gain new levels are being used, the character can spend a character action to do so. He must find a mentor or instructor and pay any costs.”

BRCS pg 104 “If optional rules for training are being used, then character actions may be required to advance in level, learn new skills, feats, or languages and other such activities. This training does not provide experience points or bonus skill ranks; it simply represents time characters spend getting their level-based abilities. Characters may not generally gain skill ranks or experience through training alone.”


Key phrases are the use of the word "optional" whenever refering to training rules, hence they are just that "optional".

Someone also said that in 3.0/3.5 character are no longer assumed to be training continuously,

pg 58 of 3.5 PHB "training and practice: Characters spend time between adventures training, studying or otherwise practicing their skills. The work consolodates what they learned on adventures and keeps them in top form."

[RaspK_FOG]

It seems that a lot has been discussed over a single suggestion I made. That means I should either feel fluttered (a small study in psychology or philosophy could easilly explain you why) or go and hide as quick as possible, afraid of my life&#33; :lol:

Really now, I understand that what I proposed was a house rule. What annoys me, though, is the fact that most jumped to conclusions even if I said otherwise&#33; For example, I never said I want people to train for all their skill points to apply - I am one of those people who like to set rules to stone, as long as they can form them up, and assigning vague skill points would be a far greater problem to me than assigning vague XP awards&#33; Furthermore, I made an effort to explain that I was suggesting an alternative for those of you who liked the idea of giving a reward to characters who trained on their skills, just for that small bit of realism; me and my DM even allow characters to "pay" XP for feats, provided they don&#39;t go above 5, and that an appropriate cost is assigned to feats. I do not suggest such a thing, knowing how many people would go overboard, yet still you quarrel over-it. I suggest you got that in another thread, where you could explicitly disgust on that subject?

[geeman]

At 07:02 PM 10/27/2003 +0100, irdeggman wrote:



> All of this discussion of training for skills and not training for

> skills seems rather house-rules-ish. IMO, Character training should be

> left in the background and up to the individual GM for how he/she wants

> to incorporate it into his/her campaign.



There is an awful lot of stuff on training in both the core rules and the

BR materials.... A bit more attention to the issue in an update might be

appropriate. But if all anyone gets out of it is some ideas for their

house rules that`s OK too. Not everything has to make it into the BRCS.



Gary

[Osprey]

What game was it, and in which language? One of my favorites is EON, a
Swedish game. Among skill-based fantasy games, it is numero uno on my
list.

What makes it unique is that a skill of 12 with Swords and a skill of 12
with Fire Magic are comparable in lethality. Makes it easier to balance
the "CR" of various encounters in a skill based system.

Should have been translated.

Cheers
Bjørn


I was referring to Drakkar och Demoner - also Swedish, and no doubt an inspiration for EON (maybe by the same designers/company?). It was kinda&#39; the original Swedish fantasy RPG, no? I got introduced to it spending a year there back in &#39;93-94, and a few years later did my best to reproduce it in English for my own campaign, mainly from memory. Hmm, I wonder where all those notes got to?

[RaspK_FOG]

I am also looking forward to formulating a set of rules that would make combat prowess a matter of skills, but I don&#39;t have the time right now: I go to university, run a campaign, play in in another campaign, and design a whole new campaign that, with a little luck, will run for a few years at least (I hope it goes beyond 5), and still have to manage a few other things, so I am not sure if I could do this as well... Does any of you have made up any such rules? I would be really grateful for a copy&#33;