|
Rangers
Nov 27, 2011 15:41:34 GMT -5
Post by Scott on Nov 27, 2011 15:41:34 GMT -5
Do you think rangers should have more quantified abilities? Like hide, move silently, climb, etc. similar to a thief in natural environments?
|
|
|
Rangers
Nov 27, 2011 18:51:56 GMT -5
Post by maraudar on Nov 27, 2011 18:51:56 GMT -5
That was one of our house rules when I was a kid playing. It seemed to fit for the class. They received a 20% penalty for using them in urban and a 10% penalty for man made dungeon areas.
|
|
|
Rangers
Nov 27, 2011 22:33:14 GMT -5
Post by GRWelsh on Nov 27, 2011 22:33:14 GMT -5
Sometimes I do, yes. But that is with the condition that I think these sorts of abilities need quantified for everybody. For example, what are the chances of an ordinary human to hide, move silently, climb, etc.? Certainly, a magic-user in robes and slippers would have a better chance of moving silently than a bulky fighter in plate mail -- and even a lowly 1st level footpad would have a better chance than either -- but that is not quantified in the game.
And something else that bugs me in general... thieves are just damn lousy at thieving abilities at low levels. What good is a character with poor AC and low hit points who can hide 15% of the time? Some scout. No thanks, I'll stay at the tavern.
So, that sways me to the other side... Maybe it would be better if these abilities were primarily left up to the DM's discretion. I think I prefer to treat these things as an interaction between the DM and the player -- i.e., is this a normal situation for that ability versus an odd situation? A thief sneaking up on someone on a carpet should be nearly a sure thing, but over gravel very difficult. What precautions were taken? A thief wearing soft boots and no items that could clatter against each other would have a better chance of being silent.
|
|
|
Rangers
Nov 28, 2011 8:54:05 GMT -5
Post by Scott on Nov 28, 2011 8:54:05 GMT -5
Well, even though I think 3E has a problem with over-formulizing everything, I do like the basic 3E skill mechanic; it’s much more situational. Everything has, what amounts to, an AC. A thief wouldn’t have a 15% chance to hide, he would have +15% to his hide roll. The DM would choose the difficulty, and the thief would roll his % dice, add 15% to it, and if he beat it he was successful. If the thief was hiding from drunken, distracted guards is a dark place with lots of objects to hide behind, the target might be as low as 50%. The thief rolls his % dice, adds 15%, and if he meets or beats 50%, he’s hidden.
|
|
|
Rangers
Nov 28, 2011 11:03:58 GMT -5
Post by GRWelsh on Nov 28, 2011 11:03:58 GMT -5
I haven't read 3E, but what you are describing sounds pretty reasonable.
|
|
|
Rangers
Nov 28, 2011 16:45:53 GMT -5
Post by grodog on Nov 28, 2011 16:45:53 GMT -5
I liked the 3.x mechanics a lot for how well they handled these kinds of "physical challenges"---stuff like climbing, hiding, swimming, running, etc. I just didn't like having to crunch all of the numbers for these into stat block modifiers, while juggling other modifiers for feat trees, cross-pollination of the two (skill/feat combinations), strongly codified situational bonuses, etc.
|
|
|
Rangers
Nov 29, 2011 10:19:44 GMT -5
Post by GRWelsh on Nov 29, 2011 10:19:44 GMT -5
Sounds perfect for a video game, but less than ideal in the kind of AD&D I like to play IRL. I like an emphasis on player/DM interaction over character abilities.
|
|
|
Rangers
Nov 29, 2011 12:11:08 GMT -5
Post by Scott on Nov 29, 2011 12:11:08 GMT -5
It's not that bad for players. It can be a pain writing/running adventures. There's a lot of things that just lack sense. Nothing can be a certain way just because. There's a formula for everything, and if you can't make something fit, it shouldn't exist. Best example: drow armor no longer rots in sunlight, because that would throw the magic item formula out of whack. Another example: you can't just be a common commoner who knows how to cook good. you have to be a 10th level commoner, with 10th level HD in order to have high skill ranks in cooking.
|
|
|
Rangers
Nov 30, 2011 4:09:03 GMT -5
Post by Merkholz on Nov 30, 2011 4:09:03 GMT -5
Of course there needs to be rules in a game - why can x climb a wall but not y, how much better is x at climbing walls than y, how long will it take for x to climb the wall while y is pelting him with arrows? This is especially true when designing adventures that others might run.
I think it would be useful to have guidelines regarding average chances of resolving situations that the DM then can modify according to the circumstances, i.e. this slanting, slimy wall can only be successfully climbed 50% of the time by a skilled climber or, this well-hidden chest can only be found 25% of the time. It might be useful to quantify the descriptive terms, i.e. expertly has a 20% modifier, cunningly has a 10% modifier, etc. Hmmm, just musing randomly.
M
|
|
|
Rangers
Nov 30, 2011 9:04:05 GMT -5
Post by Scott on Nov 30, 2011 9:04:05 GMT -5
1E & 3E are pretty far apart in this aspect. While sometimes I feel 1E could use a bit more codification, I prefer to wing it based on the circumstances than trying to keep track of every possible skill feat combo, situational modifier, etc.
|
|
|
Rangers
Jan 6, 2012 18:25:32 GMT -5
Post by amalric on Jan 6, 2012 18:25:32 GMT -5
There's something to be said for the 3E skill system, and just as much against it. Perhaps one of the best systems was Runequest, where everyone could improve their skills one way or another. Of course, that removed classes entirely, and the game itself could lead to everyone charging around as Rune Lords/Priests with all ability scores and skills maxed out and loaded with spells. Winging it was the original way, and still the best.
|
|