| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Bookwyrm |
Posted - 03 Jul 2004 : 15:36:18
Arivia and I were just talking about something he'd said in the Eberron scroll; namely, that the specialized Knowledge skills often weren't specialized enough.
For example, Knowledge (local (region)) is specialized compared to the standard skill, but what if someone were an expert on Silverymoon, but not the western Silver Marches? Or what about Knowledge (nobility and royalty) -- that seems to work as well for Cormyr as it does for Waterdeep. The same thing goes for Knowledge (religion). Even Knowledge (nature).
I'm not certain on how to fix this in a universal sense, though many parts could be fixed individually. For instance, five ranks in Knowledge (religion (Selune)) could give a +2 bonus on Knowledge (religion (Shar)), and vice versa.
Knowledge (nature) should probably be split up into regions as well. That way someone used to being in a forest wouldn't know as much about deserts. Druids and rangers wouldn't be as comfortable moving all over, then.
The biggest problem with splitting up Knowledge ranks, though, is the fact that in some cases, converting a character to this system would mean that the character has to have more skill points. Simply increasing skill points isn't good enough, since that doesn't guarentee that the points would not be used for other purposes. Perhaps something like the d20 feat "University," which gives bonus Knowledge points.
Anyone have thoughts on this subject? |
| 22 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| zolansilverspear |
Posted - 19 Aug 2004 : 18:44:13
First I didn't read each massage so I could be repeating sth. If so I apologize beforehand....
I tried something new this year. I gave each player a huge(+3/+4/+5) (depending on background+class) bonus in skill points from the start and in each level.
For each big city there was a local knowladge skill. The skill included roads and ways to-out of the city. But not wilderness areas around. The wilderness was a different skill based on terrerain.
With the Arcane,Nature,Nobility and Royalty and so on my players had about 50 starting knowladge skills. I also included proficency related knowladge skills. Like ironsmithing knowladge.
My players were all happy about the extra skills and the fact that I left them to spend those as they wish. In the end none of them spent a single extra point to their normal skills.
But a few things I should specify... All the PC were able to get an above/average education. And the ressurection was too rare to the point of non-exixstence. And I used a home-made HP system that was not in favor of the players  All these considered my players felt the need to be knowladgable about the world  |
| dragoncc |
Posted - 15 Aug 2004 : 01:55:09
Hi all,
well, on the subject of skill checks like knowledge (nature), (religion), etc., my group has developed a house rule of a specialty region when chosen & then when you make a check outside of that region, the DM applies a penalty to the roll to represent the closeness of the current region to your specialty (usually -2 to -10). This works out great for anyone who only has one specialty region, but we've run into issues with one person who wants to take a second specialty region. We're not sure mechanically how we should go from there. Any thoughts? (Picking knowledge skill again is the way we're leaning with the other specialty of course)
Thanks,
Chris |
| Sarta |
Posted - 15 Jul 2004 : 14:49:42
I think that breaking knowledge nature up into regions would be really messy. All of a sudden you are having to keep track of which plants and animals this applies to that are native in the character's home region, because it wouldn't be fair to say that they know nothing of the same plants and animals which happen to also be in another region. If I know all about geese in Cormyr, I shouldn't be completely stumped when I encounter geese in Tethyr.
In terms of knowledge nobility and royalty, many nobles and royals intermarry other royalty outside their region. Perhaps they wouldn't be as familiar with the royalty of a new region, but any scholar will know of the important ones.
I think that the easiest fix is to simply apply bonuses or penalties (in the form of reduced/increased dc's) for these skills when applied to things outside the characters home region is more realistic and fair to the player who spent their meager skill points on these skills. When and if the character's skill is high enough, say 10, they shouldn't be affected by these penalties at all since they have become scholars in their field of study and have studied things outside their home region as well.
Sarta |
| Capn Charlie |
Posted - 15 Jul 2004 : 10:32:15
Indeed, ther are. We just want to break it down into mltiple divisions, because soem of the skills make little sense as they are now. Most ,say, druids do not have a perfect knowledge of all parts of nature. It jsut doesn't make sense that the druid who spet his whole life in the forest kows all about the desert, and the floor of the ocean. |
| brjr2001 |
Posted - 14 Jul 2004 : 18:19:20
i just thought there were knowledge for religion planes sny type of craft nobility and geography |
| hammer of Moradin |
Posted - 12 Jul 2004 : 22:50:08
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
Excellent...
I've discovered another Star Frontiers fan. Aside from myself and Mournblade, I didn't think there were many others here.
What type of information to use in d20 Future though, is the question... For myself, I'm looking forward to finally having another avenue in which to use all of the Star*Drive material I have access to. There aren't many people around here (in Perth) who are familiar with the Alternity system, so I'm hoping that the mechanics for Future will help me to change that.
Star Frontiers was the best game I ever played with that many holes in it. Sadly I never played any of the interim "future" TSR games. I like some of the areas d20 Future will cover. I just hope they do the concept justice. Have you seen the preview Sage? http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/iw/20040711a
The Sathar meet up with Yuan-ti, learn to harness magic, and set out into space to conquer planet after planet.
I have got to get this. |
| Capn Charlie |
Posted - 11 Jul 2004 : 05:59:06
I never got a hold of anything but the hardcopy manuals. Not even the adventures releasd online. Sadly I just never feltI knew enough about the setting to write that much for it myself, either.
I guess when held up next to the realms most settings just pale in comparison. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 11 Jul 2004 : 05:34:24
Did you ever get the Externals PDF, Capn?
|
| Capn Charlie |
Posted - 11 Jul 2004 : 05:28:53
Oh, I just hope that it is possible for them to revive the Star*Drive setting a bit, it recieved so little printed material that I was saddened greatly by the demise of the system. But the d20 system, with it's far more user friendly interface, replaced alternity in my heart, with me now seeing it as the the system that can be anything. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 11 Jul 2004 : 04:46:40
Excellent...
I've discovered another Star Frontiers fan. Aside from myself and Mournblade, I didn't think there were many others here.
What type of information to use in d20 Future though, is the question... For myself, I'm looking forward to finally having another avenue in which to use all of the Star*Drive material I have access to. There aren't many people around here (in Perth) who are familiar with the Alternity system, so I'm hoping that the mechanics for Future will help me to change that.
|
| hammer of Moradin |
Posted - 09 Jul 2004 : 20:31:30
Has anyone tried to adapt d20 Modern for the Realms? I haven't played the Modern game, but I am looking forward to the d20 Future release. I have to put some of that Star Frontiers information to good use! |
| Lady Kazandra |
Posted - 09 Jul 2004 : 14:05:48
quote:
Originally posted by Capn Charlie
Hmm, that got me thinking... Anybody here ever play/have Alternity? I view it as having more contributed to 3e than adnd, and we mikght be able to get a little more out of the old girl.
Both the Sage and I are big fans of the Alternity system. There are many similarities between the mechanics of Alternity and D&D 3e, especially in terms of skills and feats. But then, that's hardly a surprise. Monte Cook had said several years ago (before the release of 3e) that he had "borrowed" certain aspects of the Alternity game system for 3e. Jonathan Tweet, another 3e designer also had a hand in the development of the Alternity system generation. We both still use the Alternity system, although only rarely for D&D games.
It's been speculated that d20 Future will continue the close trend between Alternity and D&D.
Wow... that was a lot of Alternity plugs...
|
| Arivia |
Posted - 09 Jul 2004 : 10:20:01
quote:
Originally posted by Capn Charlie
Hmm, that got me thinking... Anybody here ever play/have Alternity? I view it as having more contributed to 3e than adnd, and we mikght be able to get a little more out of the old girl.
You're right. I have a pre-3e issue of Dragon that contains NPC stats for 2e, Alternity, and 3e, and it's so very obvious. |
| Capn Charlie |
Posted - 08 Jul 2004 : 20:38:50
Hmm, that got me thinking... Anybody here ever play/have Alternity? I view it as having more contributed to 3e than adnd, and we mikght be able to get a little more out of the old girl.
It used a broad system as well, with a broad skill, like Knowledge, that iirrc, half your bonus applied to everything in it's perview. Each specialty skill under it had a full bonus. So you could have 10 ranks in knowledge(Religion), have a working knowledge of say, 10 faiths, and a +5 bonus with them all, and you could also spend ranks in knowledge (religion-Tempus) say, 5, for a total bonus of +10 with that sub skill. |
| tauster |
Posted - 08 Jul 2004 : 17:49:13
perhaps the system from the 2e accessory "skills & powers" that was used to regulate weapon proficiencies can be adapted.
all weapons are broken down into weapon groups, which are further divided.
example:
broad group: swords
tight group:
- ancient (broadsword, sapara, khopesch, sword-axe, short sword)
- roman (broadsword, drusus, gladius, spatha)
- middle eastern (shortsword, scimitar, great scimitar, tulwar)
- oriental (cutlass, katana, wakhizachi, no-dachi, ninja-to)
- medium (broadsword, longsword, cutlass, sabre, falchion, estoc)
- large (bastard sword, claymore, two-handed sword, great scimitar, no-dachi)
- fencing weapons (rapier, sabre, main-gauche, parrying dagger)
there are different costs for a "slot", depending on the class:
warrior 2
rogue 3
wizard 3
priest 3
- being proficient with a weapon costs one slot. all weapons in a thght group are related to each other, so if you are proficient with a bastard sword, you are familiar with a claymore (and the other weapons from the "large" group). being proficient means that you can use it to a certain extend, but have to accept a small penalty to etw0 (lowest for warriors, highest wizards) that is however not as big as if you cannot use that weapon at all.
- being proficient with a tight weapon-group costs two slots and is only available for warriors (though i houserule that the other classes (except wizards) have to pay three slots).
- as well, only warriors can be proficient in a broad group, which means that they can use all types of swords equally well without penalties.
the same system could be adapted to other proficiencies, imo.
example:
broad group: applied geography (specific land or climate)
tight groups:
- flora (herb-lore, survival, orientieering,...)
- fauna (tracking, hunting, native animals and monsters, ...)
- mineralogy (melting (=crossover to smithcraft), exploration)
- culture (languages, etiquette, streetsmarts,...)
being proficient with survival and orienteering in a tropical forest should result in being able to get along in subtropical and, to a certain extend, temperate forests.
|
| Fireheart |
Posted - 08 Jul 2004 : 15:31:59
quote:
Originally posted by Capn Charlie
I have been just adding new skills as I saw the need.
That's what we do as well. Basically, if you want your character to have more specialized knowledge, you just spend the ranks in that. We have characters who have Knowledge(dragons), Proffession(wine), Craft(Jewelry), Knowledge (Evil Outsiders).
We run it such that the more specialized your knowledge, the lower the DC is to identify, create, etc. I have a current character who has K(religion - Kara Tur) and K(religion - Faerun) because we felt that K(religion) wouldn't really cover the fact she knows two different religious pantheons.
It's worked really well for us, particular in such a detailed world as FR.
-Fireheart
|
| Arion Elenim |
Posted - 08 Jul 2004 : 15:29:14
Crazy idea...
I've created a little DM Variant (or perhaps even a Feat) for this situation...I'll try to explain and give a few examples.
FAVORED KNOWLEDGE
This variant attempts to recognize that certain classes, races and citizens of certain cities and nations are going to be more sensitive to certain pieces and types of information, based on their proximity to a particular "center" of knowledge. Thus, their knowledge scores become adjusted. Through this variant, for every point certain characters place into corresponding knowledge skills, they receive 1.5 ranks in the skill rather than the usual point system - but only for their class' particular Favored Knowledge skills.
Of course, this only reflects the character's proximity to a particular "center" of the particular sect of knowledge they are employing, and allows them to select other skills as regular knowledge points as well.
Examples:
Bards
In this variant, bards may select their home city/nationality's Knowledge Religion, Knowledge Geography, Knowledge Nobility and Knowledge Religion as Favored Knowledge skills.
Monks / Clerics
In this variant, monks and clerics may select either their home city/nationality's Knowledge Religion or Knowledge Geography as Favored Knowledge skills.
Rangers / Druids
In this varian, rangers and druids may select their home city/nationality's Knowledge Geography and Knowledge Nature as a Favored Knowledge skill.
Thayan Wizards
In this variant, wizards born in or currently living in Thay for longer than one year may select Thay's Knowledge Religion or Knowledge Nobility as Favored Knowledge skills.
What I particularly like about this system is that if a High Forest-born druid wants to learn something about the desert, she is able to spend normal class skill points researching the Anauroch AND retain a certain affinity for forest regions.
So....whaddyathink? |
| Capn Charlie |
Posted - 07 Jul 2004 : 23:33:05
I have been just adding new skills as I saw the need. For instance, several of my characters have several knowledge skills not in the books, everything from Knowledge(Wines) to Profession(Laborer) a strength based skill, and Craft(Gunsmith) for the construction of firearms and smokepowder alone.
I can definitely see the point of having several subcategories of certain skills, but it does seem to complicate the system. About the best way Ican figure a way to do it is to break them into categories, and give a person 2 skill points in the related category to spend for every 5 put into the skill.
Take Knowledge Religion, the history of most of tre deities overlap, so it would make sense that for each 5 points put into knowing about any one faith you picked up 2 points worth of knowledge about another faith.
However it wrecks the whole system, which is actually quite useable. I really see the lower levels only as being a place that this is an issue, as say, a herald, after 12 levels will have picked up heraldric information about a dozen lands or more, because there is only so much information about any single region.
It comes down to the realism of the combat stats, a character above about level 5 is just plain superhuman, and as such it is believable for them to have knowledge about their entire field of expertise.
If a twentieth level fighter can pull off the tricks they can do, I can totally buy a twentieth level druid having an intimate working knowledge of every biome on Faerun. |
| hammer of Moradin |
Posted - 05 Jul 2004 : 19:52:37
Third edition seems like it came out years ago. Sorry, I went into 3.5 straight away and all the old rules seem to blend. The more I thought about what I said, I have to agree with you. Perhaps a variation on the rangers favored enemy ability. Every point that is invested in the knowledge area gives you points. If you invest one skill point in knowledge-local, you receive one region with one skill rank. If you add a second point you get two additional points. You must take a second region, but you can put the points in the new region, or you can increase the original region by one. With a third skill point you have to add a third region, but you get three points. All three points can go into the new region, or you can divide the two points between the two existing regions, since at least one point goes into the new region. You can never exceed skill ranks in a single region over your skill ranks in that knowledge skill. So a first level character could have knowledge-local with 4 ranks. As a dwarf he could take the regions Sword Coast 4, Waterdeep 3, Spine of the World 2, and Underdark(Northdark) 1. Of course this doesn't work for every knowledge skill unless you break them down into multiple sub-categories. |
| Talinfein |
Posted - 05 Jul 2004 : 09:48:23
One way of solving this problem could be by adapting a Shadowrun-rule. IIRC, in that system you get skill points for your normal action-type skills and then another set of points based on Intelligence to spend on Knowledge-type skills.
So, depending on the campaign or the background of the character(s), the DM could just grant them bonus skill points derived off their INT score that can only be spent on Knowledge skills (and then again, only those Knowledge skills the character would have access to).
|
| Bookwyrm |
Posted - 04 Jul 2004 : 13:16:55
Are you talking about the 3e Perform skill?
Regardless, that's hardly the way to go about it. You have one point per region, and then can use the full check for any one of them? That's the same reasoning that led to the 3.5e Perform skill (I can't understand how the 3e version got to print in the first place). |
| hammer of Moradin |
Posted - 03 Jul 2004 : 16:54:00
I'm trying to remember one of the rules from the second edition. I believe it was for playing an instrument where a character chose a different instrument per point invested in the skill. This doesn't quite work for the new system, and for knowledge checks, however. Maybe if the overall skill points were shared between the more specialized areas. So you could have knowledge (local) with a rank of 4, and then have knw (Silverymoon, Mithril Hall, Waterdeep, and Candlekeep) with each rank garnering a 4 rank. As the characters local knowledge ranks increase they know more about the regions they are familiar with and add new regions to their knowledge. Of course a DM who is more generous would expand the regions to those listed in the FRCG.
Just an idea. It would take a lot to expand each knowledge area out into sub-areas for each skill. |
|
|
