Freshman Year - Adventuring 101

via IMs

Alright, you're all students enrolled at Lorinel U. Courses are a thousand gold each for tuition and materials. Those of you with less than five thousand gold in starting money are able to get Financial Aid in the form of loans, which will need to be repaid after you are no longer a student. Here's the course catalog. Choose your classes.

Since you're all new students, you end up in the same required courses with each other. During Adventuring 101, the professor is droning on and on about the merits of having the proper tools, when you get an illusory note passed to you, asking if you're interested in some shiral hunting this weekend.

xD
nuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

heh
wait is this a start of game or just how your opening it?

Good question.

After a moment, the illusory script swirls and reassembles: No? Good choice. Welcome to Lorinel. -PDL

WIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIN

PDL?

That's what it said. I guess I could have you roll an Intelligence or Perception check... except you don't have character stats rolled yet.

lol no i dont

All of a sudden the professor's droning stops, and he looks up at the class and lets out a much more lively, animated 'Well, let's see who's left then.' Looking around, you notice there seem to be a number of students gone, though you don't remember anyone getting up to leave.

lol. The people who thought it was a good idea.
poof.

"Excuse me professor. Not to be rude.... but what just happened?"

"What's that?"

"I saw some note... asking me a question about shirals."

"Oh did you? Passing notes in class isn't the best way to get an education... most of the time. Those of you still here are here because you passed the Dean's pop quiz, intended to cut the wheat from the chaff as it were."

"OOOHHHhhhhhh....." thinks about it for a moment.... probably b/c we are in an adventure class... some probably thought it was part of that.

The rest of the class continues as normal, except now in a far more interesting, often hands-on fashion.

Cunning is Confusing

In reconsidering a skill system, I'd come across the fact that I don't have a lot tied to the Cunning stat, and so was considering whether it should be kept. It plays a part in Psionics, and I had previously set it to determine how many fighting skills a Fighter would get per level. After some review, and re-reading the dictionary definition, I'm not sure the latter use is appropriate.

Cunning is this strange conglomeration, made up of aspects of the other mental attributes: Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma. Bluffing or conning someone, or feinting in combat are good examples of using Cunning. Seducing someone could be Cunning mixed with Charisma, as would (potentially) disguising yourself or acting out a role. A master tactician would be intelligent (having learned about tactics and studied them in history), wise (know your enemy, know yourself), and also cunning (applying strategies in unpredictable ways, developing new techniques). Cunning seems to be concerned with the application of these other abilities (Int, Wis, Cha) in base, predatory ways, while preventing others from knowing what you're up to.

Despite the closely-tied nature of these stats, though, it's obvious that a highly developed Cunning can exist even without Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma. Goblins and Bugbears are frequently considered cunning, despite not being the brightest or most beautiful. Captain Jack Sparrow showed a great deal of cunning, and had some Charisma to back it up, but was not portrayed as the most wise or intelligent individual.

As a character stat, it's difficult to pin down what exactly Cunning should (or should not) affect. I considered the option of having Cunning directly affect the amount of extra damage dealt by a Sneak Attack, but one of my players expressed the opinion that the ability to strike vulnerable areas is a learned skill and should therefore be improvable. I could make another Combat Proficiency which would allow for that.

My wife mentioned the possibility of Cunning as a skill, rather than a stat, making the argument that one's shrewdness and guile could be practiced and improved. The question there would be, though, what would Cunning, as a skill, do? Most of what we came up with would cause it to affect other skills, rather than do something on its own like the other skills.

Still exploring possibilities with this.

Skills in 3rd Edition

While the skills system (intended as an improvement over the non-weapon proficiencies and non-combat class skills from earlier versions) can be handy, it can also be cumbersome. Feat and skill selection are the two most time-consuming aspects of character creation in 3rd edition, especially for a new player who isn't familiar with what feats are available, or doesn't know what certain skills do or their importance.

The biggest bonus of having a skill system, rather than basing all skill checks off of stat checks, is that it allows the character to improve based upon what they want to train. The system, as presented in 3rd Ed., reflects the idea that training, rather than natural talent, is the key to success when it comes to any given ability. Climbing, for example, is based on Strength. A strong character will have a minor advantage over an average-strength character, given equal ranks in the Climb skill. If the strong character hasn't put any skill points into Climb, though, and the average one has maxed his ranks, then the average character will probably climb better starting at level one, and will continue getting better each level.

This system doesn't make as much sense for some skills, and at some point it becomes rather difficult to suspend disbelief since there is no cap to how high a skill can be improved. My biggest issue, though, is that skill points are not based directly off of Intelligence. A high Int helps, but your base skill points are determined by your class. This was another way WotC tried to establish a "balance" between the classes, or just perpetuate stereotypes. Rogues get the most skill points, with bards coming in next. Wizards and Clerics hardly get any, though the high Intelligence most Wizards have helps to off-set this.

Different classes have their access to certain skills restricted, by means of making certain skills class related ("class skills") or non-class related ("cross-class skills"). Of course, these are based on your class, with Rogues, again, having most skills as class skills, and clerics and wizards receiving very few class skills. Cross-class skills require double the skill points to improve, so despite the boost to points that a high Int gives wizards, they still don't manage to go very far. I suppose the idea is that all the time studying spells or worshiping a deity doesn't allow for much in the way of hobbies, but again it seems arbitrary in a non-logical way.

Distributing skill points is a pain. But the other option is making skills based off of a stat check. Want to climb something? Roll the dice, and hope the total is less than your Strength. Simple, but it leaves little room for improvement. It might not be as important to improve things like Climbing, but you want your rogue to be able to pick any lock or disarm any trap the party comes across. As things progress, harder and harder challenges will come along, but if a thief is no better at doing thief-y things by 5th level than he was at 1st, what was the point of being a thief?

I like the concept that any given character, regardless of class, might be good at a particular skill: a fighter who is an expert in sleight of hand, a cleric who knows how to pick a lock, a wizard who is also an accomplished songwriter. The class at risk of losing the most, in such a system, is the thief or rogue: If anyone can pick a lock or disarm a trap, why even have a thief class?

So there needs to be a way of improving things. Do I mandate which skills improve, or do I find a way to allot points to be distributed by the player? If it's player distributed, you might still end up with a wizard who's as good or better than a thief at the iconic tasks. The main difference, I suppose, would be the combat training. A thief gets to backstab/sneak attack, and has some other minor combat abilities, while the mage has spells to sling.

Intelligence, Classes, and Experience

Multiclassing has faced as well as posed a number of difficulties in D&D. Back in AD&D, the Player's Handbook gave very specific multiclassing options, based upon race. 3rd Edition removed both racial level caps as well as race-based multiclassing, but limited multiclassing through Alignment requirements, as well as arbitrary limitations (Monk and Paladin, I'm looking at you).

After reading through my previous postings, I'm certain most can figure out my thoughts regarding Alignment restrictions on classes. And trying to convince me that you can never gain another level in a certain class because you took one level of something else? No thanks.

The system I grew up on, which had been based out of AD&D, had no multiclassing or alignment restrictions. This worked out just fine for many years, until we ended up with players who started taking four or more classes in order to gain various 1st level benefits and abilities.



Yeah, like that. Only not 1/11th of a class each level, but 11 first level classes all at once.

Our DM decided this was just silly, and so it was ruled that the total number of classes you could have was limited by your character's intelligence. This made sense. Certain classes were considered to be "worth more" than others, like Paladin (because it combined both Fighter and Cleric) and Ranger (Fighter, Druid, and Mage - AD&D, remember). Overall, the system seemed logical and also helped prevent any more Multiclassing Minmaxing. The biggest problem I had with it was the feeling of obligation to "fill up" with the maximum number of classes that the character's Intelligence could support, so as not to waste it.

So over the past few days, I've put together a ruleset on multiclassing for my own system. In this system, your total number of "effective classes" is what determines your experience needed per level. No more taking a class just for one level.

Taking more classes than your Intelligence would allow can be done. Doing so, however, increases the experience needed for each level based upon how many beyond the "maximum" you took, even above what would normally be required just by having the additional classes. As any college student knows, it's much harder to remember everything when you're taking too many classes.

On the other side of the coin, if you take fewer classes than your Intelligence can support, you gain a discount on the experience needed each level, based upon the difference between the number you were allowed and how many you took. You can learn faster, because you're capable of learning more than what is being presented.

On a previous topic, I asked my wife how she viewed magic users in D&D - whether the power was coming from within, being channeled, or simply using ambient energy, or even something completely different. She reminded me of how Steven Brust has things set up in his Jhereg series: Dragaeran sorcery is more or less grabbing available energy and tossing it, while Eastern witchcraft is mentally and physically taxing on the practitioner. And then there's Pre-Empire sorcery. Let's not get into that.

Taking that into consideration, I see a correlation between Brust's witchcraft and Druids, so I would most likely leave Constitution as the power source for them. Equating Dragaeran sorcerers with Mages, however, still doesn't give me a well-defined source of power. The Dragaerans pull energy through their link with an artifact-level magic item, which basically gives them an inexhaustible supply of mana. I can't really have that.

I've tinkered with a number of options: Base mana off of Cunning, to represent craftiness through the handling and redistribution of ambient mana. Base it off of Perception, to represent the ability to see or notice the surrounding power in order to use it. Base it off of Luck, to represent the idea that ambient power levels can vary from location to location. I've even considered the option of reworking Shadowrun's system of magic, where spells don't take mana, but instead have a chance of draining you when you cast one. Fail too many "Drain" checks, and you're unconscious. Trying to balance that in a d20 system, though, would take a great deal more work than I'm willing to expend on just this one aspect right now, and still leaves Mages with a potentially inexhaustible supply of power.

I briefly considered making each Mage subclass (Illusionist, Transmuter, Evoker, etc.) have a different stat that it uses for power, but I think that would just make things far too complicated and confusing. And it still wouldn't answer what stat to have Mages use. At this point, I'm tempted to either stick with Constitution, or assign it to Perception, the latter mainly because I don't have a lot tied to that stat yet.

Suggestions?

Ability Scores and Casting - Intelligence

Intelligence as a casting stat is a much better fit than Wisdom, based on the idea that a Mage or Wizard needs to be able to understand and remember the arcane formulae used in their version of magic. My main complaint here is that Intelligence is used solely for both the number of spells an arcanist may know as well as how many can be cast. In most literature on the subject, it seems that using magic, channeling the power either through or from your body, seems to have a physical impact on the magic user. Raistlin, for example, though he's hardly the only one. Even Miyazaki's Howl had physical difficulties when performing more powerful spells.

My solution to this is rather simplistic: keep Intelligence for the number of spells known or learnable, but make Constitution govern the number of spells that can be cast. In retrospect, perhaps a similar thing could be done for divine magics, keeping Wisdom for the number of spells known, and Faith for the number that can be cast, to correlate with the idea that the power comes from the deity, while the cleric is responsible for applying the power through the proper use of the spells/prayers/whatever gained from reading their sacred texts.

On second thought, however, this works well for Clerics but not necessarily so aptly for Druids. Druids, as a part of Nature, seem to draw their energy from it or from within, so they seem more closely related to Mages in that manner. Perhaps Wisdom (knowledge of the cycle of life and nature) to determine spells known, and Constitution to determine spells per day.

3rd Edition Sorcerers are a strange creature. Per the way 3rd edition spellcasting seems to work, Sorcerers should, even moreso than Wizards, have their Constitution determine the power available since it is stated that their power comes directly from within, rather than channeling latent power through the use of mystic formulae. WotC explains this as being due (possibly) to dragon blood somewhere in the lineage of the Sorcerer, citing some Force of Personality as being the power behind the spells. Yet none of this really seems to indicate how or why Charisma should determine the number of spells known. It seems that Sorcerers learn through trial and error what they can and cannot do, mostly learning Wizard spells since those have a known effect that they can try to reproduce. Sorcerer as a class really doesn't have anything going for it in 3rd edition. A specialized Wizard could cast the same number of spells, have more powerful ones available, and even get some free metamagic feats, whereas a Sorcerer actually sacrifices effectiveness with the feats, and only gets a piddling amount of extra weapons to choose from, none of which are necessary or even desirable to most people. I think I'd just as soon drop the class entirely.

Bards are odd, as well. They actually have enough difference to stand as their own class, rather than being a variation of something else, but again they're Charisma based casters, and again there's nothing that explains why Charisma, whether it's Personality, Leadership, Beauty, or whatever, should have an effect on the number of spells known. At least Bardic Tradition, whether it's passed on from one generation to the next or learned at a Bardic College, can explain how those spells are learned, but I would almost think that Intelligence, serving in its capacity as Memory, would govern what a Bard could remember and cast.

Well, I've gone beyond Intelligence here. Let's sum up.

Clerics: Gain spells from Wisdom, gain power from Faith
Druids: Gain spells from Wisdom, gain power from Constitution
Wizards: Gain spells from Intelligence, gain power from Constitution
Sorcerers: Are silly
Bards: Gain spells from Intelligence, gain power from Charisma

As always, comments are welcome, and constructive criticism encouraged.

Intelligence vs. Wisdom in D&D

To start off, an article on the subject posted here: http://www.gamegrene.com/node/385
The article describes a situation (a trap) encountered by a party of four characters with varying Intelligence and Wisdom scores. Some of what it states I agree with, but other points I find lacking.

Now, I do think that the Cleric in the example is showing signs of intelligence by reasoning. However, the waters are further muddied by the idea that 'common sense' is simply a different level of reasoning. You aren't going to take a knife and stab yourself in the foot, because common sense dictates that it isn't going to feel good. Yet, you're showing reasoning abilities by understanding the effect of the action before you do it. Some people consider it to be something you know without having to reason, yet 'common sense' is learned just like anything else. A child under a certain age doesn't necessarily see this connection until it is taught, so we can't say that it requires no reasoning ability.

As far as aphorisms go, I've also heard, "Intelligence is the knowledge you possess. Wisdom tells you how and when to apply that knowledge."

You can therefore show intelligence by realizing that stabbing yourself in the foot is going to hurt. You show wisdom, then, by deciding not to stab yourself in the foot.

A Wizard with high Intelligence and low Wisdom may have at his disposal a wide array of highly destructive spells... but he doesn't necessarily take into consideration whether or not a maximized, heightened fireball is the best spell to use in a 20x20 room against a fire elemental.

In contrast, a Cleric with a high Wisdom but a low Intelligence may be well aware that something needs to be done, but may not know enough to do anything. They're not likely to act without knowing the full situation, and they may even realize that they simply don't have the knowledge necessary to enact any sort of plan.

The Cleric, in the example above, showed Wisdom by realizing that others in the party had more knowledge of the situation, and let those with the appropriate knowledge deal with the situation. Yes, sometimes the wisest action is to not take action.

It's also possible for someone to recognize that something needs to be done, and for them to try and do something despite having insufficient knowledge of the best path, which can cause problems on its own. This could be seen as someone succeeding at one wisdom check while failing the next, or even as a median level between 'average' and 'high' wisdom.

A person with low Intelligence and low Wisdom likely would react similarly to the fighter in the example: If they even recognize the problem, chances are good they only have a limited scope of how to deal with it, and they are likely to implement a solution without realizing (or caring) what the full effects would be.

A person with both high Intelligence and high Wisdom is the sort of person who can argue with himself endlessly, proposing argument and counter-argument, eventually making himself dizzy with circular logic.

Probably my favorite quote upon the topic, however, comes from an old movie, "The Seven Faces of Dr. Lao":

"Do you know what wisdom is?"
"No."
"Wise answer."