I recently came upon a discussion on RPGnet which included a comment about moral relativity that really pissed me off. So, you'll need to indulge me for a moment while I rant.
For some reason, there's a perception that a game with moral absolutes is somehow less realistic than one featuring moral relativism. The notion there is that the rampaging Orcs have a reason why they're trying to rape, loot and pillage their way across the kingdom, from their point of view it's 'good', and so that's okay. Clearly, this is more realistic than a game where they're doing these things because they're Eeevil.
Well, duh.
The thing is, though, that whether they have a reason for what they're doing has very little to do with moral relativism. Whether they see what they're doing as good or evil is also irrelevant. It is, after all, possible to sincerely believe that you're doing good while, in fact, being completely wrong. If nothing else, that can make for very effective tragedy.
The other thing to bear in mind is this: it really doesn't matter why the rampaging orc wants to kill you and take your stuff. He might have a very good reason for doing so. Assuming you aren't suicidal, you're going to want to stop him. And that may well require killing him.
All that said, the use of an alignment system in role-playing games almost necessarily makes them less realistic. The reason for this is that it's just easier to play to your alignment, and this means that character morality becomes rather simpler.
There's another issue at play here, too. If players just ran their characters without regard to their alignment, and the DM tracked the alignments of the group, a great many PCs (if not most) would rapidly gravitate towards a Chaotic Neutral alignment. The average PC shows next to no concern for society as a whole (and goes to great lengths to avoid taxes - which is a definate sign of Chaotic behaviour), and tends towards a distinctly mercenary bent ("I expect to be well paid" is Neutral, not Good).
Of course, many PCs require a particular alignment to retain their powers, and so they don't play their characters freely, but take pains to stay in the 'right' box. And many people are uncomfortable with the notion that their characters might be anything other than Good (because, hey, they're not bad people). So, they play to stick within the lines. And, yes, that hurts realism.
Of course, alignment concerns really only apply to PCs. The average NPC is on stage for a single encounter. And there just isn't time for detailed analyses of the exact alignment of the third orc on the right as he swings his axe at the barbarian. The only characters who exist long enough for alignment to be shown in any detail are the PCs.
I don't know if that's at all helpful, to be honest.
On a related note, it would be nice to see characters who have clearly defined moral codes. As opposed to the usual attitude of "what's in it for me?". A character who isn't Chaotic Good because the player needed to put something in the Alignment box, but who has taken that stance because he truly believes that only in a loose society can people flourish, or has seen too many people destroyed by oppressive taxes (or even completely fair and just taxes) and has dedicated himself to removing that burden. Or a Lawful Good character who is absolutely committed to building a Utopian society where all can live in peace, free from the tyranny of evil men.
Or, better still, a Lawful Evil character who is absolutely committed to building a Utopian society where all can live in peace, free from the tyranny of evil men, but who is absolutely willing to crush the right of others to protest his reforms, by violent and fatal means, if necessary.
Tuesday, 26 April 2005
Saturday, 23 April 2005
Random Generation
Typically, I'm not a fan of random rolls in character generation/management. I prefer point-buy and fixed hit points these days, due to the problem where one player gets really good rolls and the other really poor rolls. However, just for fun, and inspired by the random career tables in WFRP, I have put together a set of random race/class/alignment tables for D&D, including the PHB races and alignments, and the classes from the PHB and Expanded Psionics Handbook, and some of the classes from the Complete series (specifically, the Swashbuckler, Favoured Soul, Warmage, Scout and Spellthief - the ones I like, and that don't have an Oriental Adventures vibe to them).
I imagine it could be quite interesting to play in a campaign where the characters were generated using the tables to get race and class. Of course, you'd probably end up with an LG Elf Fighter, an NG Halfling Psychic Warrior, a CG Dwarf Cleric, an LG Halfing Psion and a Neutral Elf Cleric. At least, that's what I just got.
I would post the tables, but bit tables in html are a pain to code.
I imagine it could be quite interesting to play in a campaign where the characters were generated using the tables to get race and class. Of course, you'd probably end up with an LG Elf Fighter, an NG Halfling Psychic Warrior, a CG Dwarf Cleric, an LG Halfing Psion and a Neutral Elf Cleric. At least, that's what I just got.
I would post the tables, but bit tables in html are a pain to code.
Wednesday, 20 April 2005
Interesting...
Under D&D 3rd Edition, using the 25-point buy method, there are 181 arrays of stats that can be generated (I used a computer to work this out; I'm not quite that sad). Each of these can then be sorted into 720 combinations (not all of them unique, of course).
So, what I'm wondering is if there's some mileage in using a stat generation system where you use point-buy to get the actual stats, but then roll to randomly determine which is which.
Example: Let's assume you go for array 81, which is 16, 14, 12, 11, 10, 8. You then have to choose a stat for Strength, so roll 1d6. Let's assume this gives a 4. The character therefore has an 11 Strength. You're left with five numbers for five stats, 16, 14, 12, 10, 8, so roll d5. This comes up a 2. The character has 14 Dex.
This is then repeated using d4, d3 and d2 to get the remaining stats.
The advantage of this method is that you can control your eventual stats but not their exact positioning, which might be attractive. It means you can't rely on getting Charisma as your 'dump stat', and you might have to play a character with a sub-optimal value in an important stat. (For example, you might get a character with high Str and Dex but low Con, making him a good Fighter or Rogue, but one with a significant weakness.)
It is also the case that you cannot really get any 'useless' characters this way. Your best bet for a useless character is array 1: 18, 15, 9, 8, 8, 8, which is pretty grim. But if you choose that array, you're guaranteed to be excellent in two of the six possible areas. And anyway, you would have chosen that array, so it's really your own fault if that leaves you with a Con of 18 and Cha of 15.
The big disadvantage of that system, of course, is that you can't control what sort of character you'll have, and can't be sure of getting a balanced party.
So, what I'm wondering is if there's some mileage in using a stat generation system where you use point-buy to get the actual stats, but then roll to randomly determine which is which.
Example: Let's assume you go for array 81, which is 16, 14, 12, 11, 10, 8. You then have to choose a stat for Strength, so roll 1d6. Let's assume this gives a 4. The character therefore has an 11 Strength. You're left with five numbers for five stats, 16, 14, 12, 10, 8, so roll d5. This comes up a 2. The character has 14 Dex.
This is then repeated using d4, d3 and d2 to get the remaining stats.
The advantage of this method is that you can control your eventual stats but not their exact positioning, which might be attractive. It means you can't rely on getting Charisma as your 'dump stat', and you might have to play a character with a sub-optimal value in an important stat. (For example, you might get a character with high Str and Dex but low Con, making him a good Fighter or Rogue, but one with a significant weakness.)
It is also the case that you cannot really get any 'useless' characters this way. Your best bet for a useless character is array 1: 18, 15, 9, 8, 8, 8, which is pretty grim. But if you choose that array, you're guaranteed to be excellent in two of the six possible areas. And anyway, you would have chosen that array, so it's really your own fault if that leaves you with a Con of 18 and Cha of 15.
The big disadvantage of that system, of course, is that you can't control what sort of character you'll have, and can't be sure of getting a balanced party.
Wednesday, 13 April 2005
Playing the Same Game
Before I rant, let me preface this by saying that it's not related to the current group. This is inspired by tales I've heard of another group that has problems. So don't take offense guys, I'm not talking about you.
In roleplaying, there is always the question of whether it's okay to cheat. Generally, it seems to be accepted that the players should not cheat, but the DM can cheat somewhat if he believes that this will produce a better game. In principle, I think most people would sign up to something like that. (Personally, I lean more towards a policy where neither players nor DM cheat, but that's just me.)
In d20 (particularly) there is also the question of just how much power-gaming should be going on. Should the group's Fighter have his armour class optimised to the nth degree? Should the Wizard have selected a specialism, chosen just the right feats, and taken the optimum prestige class so that no-one ever saves against his spells? (Personally, I lean towards a game where people know the rules, and use the rules to do cool things. So, I have absolutely no problem with characters with absurd AC values, despite my complaints to the contrary during the game.)
In truth, it doesn't matter who cheats, or how badly, nor does it matter how much power-gaming goes on, provided everyone is having fun. The problems really only start when a few people cheat or power-game, and the rest don't.
Basically, as far as cheating goes, I think there are two approaches to playing: either you play because you want your characters to have adventures, risking life and limb for whatever their chosen goals are, or you play because you want to watch your character do cool things. So, you have no interest in him dying, or risking the same, you want to win. So, you will make every important save, you will have a remarkably high hit point total for your level, and so forth. And, hey, if you're having fun, more power to you.
By contrast, I think people who power-game are probably in it because they're fascinated by systems, numbers, and how things work. Certainly, one of the biggest attractions for me in D&D is that the system is fairly complex, certainly complex enough to be interesting, and also fairly solid in the maths. (It's just a shame that all dice hate me.) Consequently, of course, power-gamers tend to identify the areas of their character that are important to them, and use the rules to optimise those areas. Which is entirely reasonable. And, hey, if you're having fun, more power to you.
However, big problems occur when one player cheats or power-games, and the others don't. Or even if all the players cheat and the DM doesn't want to play that way. (If all the players power-game, and the DM doesn't, there's actually not a problem - the power level just escalates. And in the arms race, the DM always wins in the end.)
The thing about cheating is that it removes the element of risk from the game. Now, as a DM, I take the view that character death (or defeat) has to be a real risk, or there's no point in playing. As a player, you might disagree. However, I am not willing to run a game where the PCs always win because, hey, they're PCs. So, if the players took the view (as a group) that they were going to cheat, I would be forced to take the view that they need a new DM.
If a single player decides to cheat, on the other hand (or just starts to look awfully like he's cheating), there's a temptation on the part of the DM to 'get' that players character. Payback. The problem there is the same as when one player power-games, so see below.
The issue with one player power-gaming is that an optimised character is probably the equivalent of the rest of the group a level or more ahead in power. If the DM wishes to continue challenging this character, he needs to throw in tougher opponents. The problem there is that encounters that challenge the power-gamer will be lethal to less optimised characters, and so either the optimised character becomes invulnerable, or the rest of the party dies. Neither of these is a particularly desirable outcome.
Ideally, the solution would be for the group to come to a consensus at the start of the campaign about how much cheating is going to go on, and about how optimised characters would be. If everyone is playing the same game, everyone should be happy. Additionally, since there's a clear policy, the group can turn to their resident power-gamer and have him reign in his characters if they become a bit too much.
The problem, of course, is that no-one really wants to admit to cheating. "I was just really lucky," becomes a common refrain, and it's very difficult to prove otherwise. Anyway, if you catch the cheat in the act, you'll just start a big fight that will tear the group apart, so what's the benefit? Ultimately, it's about trust, and some people just can't be trusted. Do you game with them, or do you let it slide?
(For the record, there was an elven necromancer in the previous adventure who cast a Feeblemind on Seebo. Roger, who was running Seebo at the time, rolled some absurdly high save. I said this wasn't enough. I was, of course, lying. Although in the end, Roger raked up another couple of points for the save, and I just couldn't keep the charade going. That's the only recent instance of me cheating that's been particularly bad, I think.)
In roleplaying, there is always the question of whether it's okay to cheat. Generally, it seems to be accepted that the players should not cheat, but the DM can cheat somewhat if he believes that this will produce a better game. In principle, I think most people would sign up to something like that. (Personally, I lean more towards a policy where neither players nor DM cheat, but that's just me.)
In d20 (particularly) there is also the question of just how much power-gaming should be going on. Should the group's Fighter have his armour class optimised to the nth degree? Should the Wizard have selected a specialism, chosen just the right feats, and taken the optimum prestige class so that no-one ever saves against his spells? (Personally, I lean towards a game where people know the rules, and use the rules to do cool things. So, I have absolutely no problem with characters with absurd AC values, despite my complaints to the contrary during the game.)
In truth, it doesn't matter who cheats, or how badly, nor does it matter how much power-gaming goes on, provided everyone is having fun. The problems really only start when a few people cheat or power-game, and the rest don't.
Basically, as far as cheating goes, I think there are two approaches to playing: either you play because you want your characters to have adventures, risking life and limb for whatever their chosen goals are, or you play because you want to watch your character do cool things. So, you have no interest in him dying, or risking the same, you want to win. So, you will make every important save, you will have a remarkably high hit point total for your level, and so forth. And, hey, if you're having fun, more power to you.
By contrast, I think people who power-game are probably in it because they're fascinated by systems, numbers, and how things work. Certainly, one of the biggest attractions for me in D&D is that the system is fairly complex, certainly complex enough to be interesting, and also fairly solid in the maths. (It's just a shame that all dice hate me.) Consequently, of course, power-gamers tend to identify the areas of their character that are important to them, and use the rules to optimise those areas. Which is entirely reasonable. And, hey, if you're having fun, more power to you.
However, big problems occur when one player cheats or power-games, and the others don't. Or even if all the players cheat and the DM doesn't want to play that way. (If all the players power-game, and the DM doesn't, there's actually not a problem - the power level just escalates. And in the arms race, the DM always wins in the end.)
The thing about cheating is that it removes the element of risk from the game. Now, as a DM, I take the view that character death (or defeat) has to be a real risk, or there's no point in playing. As a player, you might disagree. However, I am not willing to run a game where the PCs always win because, hey, they're PCs. So, if the players took the view (as a group) that they were going to cheat, I would be forced to take the view that they need a new DM.
If a single player decides to cheat, on the other hand (or just starts to look awfully like he's cheating), there's a temptation on the part of the DM to 'get' that players character. Payback. The problem there is the same as when one player power-games, so see below.
The issue with one player power-gaming is that an optimised character is probably the equivalent of the rest of the group a level or more ahead in power. If the DM wishes to continue challenging this character, he needs to throw in tougher opponents. The problem there is that encounters that challenge the power-gamer will be lethal to less optimised characters, and so either the optimised character becomes invulnerable, or the rest of the party dies. Neither of these is a particularly desirable outcome.
Ideally, the solution would be for the group to come to a consensus at the start of the campaign about how much cheating is going to go on, and about how optimised characters would be. If everyone is playing the same game, everyone should be happy. Additionally, since there's a clear policy, the group can turn to their resident power-gamer and have him reign in his characters if they become a bit too much.
The problem, of course, is that no-one really wants to admit to cheating. "I was just really lucky," becomes a common refrain, and it's very difficult to prove otherwise. Anyway, if you catch the cheat in the act, you'll just start a big fight that will tear the group apart, so what's the benefit? Ultimately, it's about trust, and some people just can't be trusted. Do you game with them, or do you let it slide?
(For the record, there was an elven necromancer in the previous adventure who cast a Feeblemind on Seebo. Roger, who was running Seebo at the time, rolled some absurdly high save. I said this wasn't enough. I was, of course, lying. Although in the end, Roger raked up another couple of points for the save, and I just couldn't keep the charade going. That's the only recent instance of me cheating that's been particularly bad, I think.)
Thursday, 7 April 2005
WFRP
Well, I finished reading the book, and I must say that I'm impressed. Before I go on, I should note that I have no experience with previous versions of this game, although I do have a good deal of knowledge about the setting, from days of yore when I collected Warhammer armies, from White Dwarf, and from a familiarity with the source material (more on this later).
Warhammer is a rules-lite, roll-low percentile system. I am led to believe from the Designer's notes (although Gary contests this) that the old edition made use of all the different dice types; this version is almost certainly superior. Basically, you have to roll less that the appropriate attribute on d% to succeed at most tasks (and so, my characters will kick ass!). There are a couple of exceptions: damage uses a d10 roll + modifiers, and spellcasting requires you roll a number of d10's equal to your magic attribute and get over a target number, but these are rare.
Character creation is simple, although it's a bit odd that you choose your character's race, and then roll for a starting career. One of the options listed is that the GM allow players to choose their career - I think this is probably a case where your better rolling - that seems to be one of the quirks of the game, and something to keep.
Skill and talents work in a fairly simple manner - each skill is tied to an attribute, so to use a skill you roll d% and get under the attribute. Easier and harder tasks apply a modifier to your attribute (think I would have preferred modifiers to the roll, but then an easy task would give a -30% bonus, which doesn't seem quite right). Buying a skill twice gives mastery, which applies a +10% bonus to all rolls with the skill. Talents are just like feats in D&D - each one gives you some ability you didn't previously have, and they can't be improved.
Speaking of D&D, there are a lot of similarities between game elements in D&D and WFRP. Advanced careers seem to map to prestige classes (actually, it's the other way around - advanced careers came first), talents map to skills, and most of the combat options map directly to options in D&D. The major difference is attacks of opportunity - the only time when these occur in WFRP is when characters withdraw from combat. Oh, and it's just not possible to fire most missile weapons while in melee range, rather than the D&Dism of them provoking AoOs.
Combat in WFRP is quick and simple. There are rules for a more complex system, and also a more complex armour system, but it strikes me that your better off just using simple and fast systems.
Allegedly, the magic system is the most overhauled part of the game. I wouldn't know. What I do know is that it's quick, easy, and matches the magic system from the miniatures game very well. All of these are good. Sadly, the spellcasting system does not match the rest of the attribute checks (since you have to roll Xd10 and beat a target), which is probably a weakness.
The book also includes brief details of the setting, which is something of a triumph. It's not the best setting ever invented. It's not particularly original (it's basically dark ages Europe, with the Empire being the Holy Roman Empire, Tilea being Italy, Brettonia being France, and so forth), but it is very flavourful. There's a kind of Conan/Cthulhu thing going on behind the scenes, which is nice. Basically, though, it's just a fun place to adventure, which is precisely what's needed.
This is a great game, and would provide a better introductory RPG than D&D in it's current incarnation. It's probably much better at the job than even the new Basic D&D set, although that's an unfair comparison since I haven't yet seen the latter. The fact that so many of the options can be pulled out, and particularly the fact that the insanity rules are optional (which makes a big difference - with a mature group you would want them in, but with a younger group - the Warhammer crowd - you want them left out), means that the game can be tailored to just what you want.
Best of all, the game already has adventure support - there's an adventure in the book, and a compilation of some old adventures already available, with more on the way. As I've noted before, this is not only a good thing, but almost indispensible for me these days.
The game's not perfect. There are some areas where I would have done things differently. However, this is not a system to house-rule. If you're playing this, it's probably best to play it as written, with only a note about which options you are and are not using. Anything else is overkill. But it is probably worth noting that this game is now my demo game of choice, and I'll probably have to pick up a second copy, so I can leave one at the club where I run those demo games. In short, this is a good one, and highly recommended.
Warhammer is a rules-lite, roll-low percentile system. I am led to believe from the Designer's notes (although Gary contests this) that the old edition made use of all the different dice types; this version is almost certainly superior. Basically, you have to roll less that the appropriate attribute on d% to succeed at most tasks (and so, my characters will kick ass!). There are a couple of exceptions: damage uses a d10 roll + modifiers, and spellcasting requires you roll a number of d10's equal to your magic attribute and get over a target number, but these are rare.
Character creation is simple, although it's a bit odd that you choose your character's race, and then roll for a starting career. One of the options listed is that the GM allow players to choose their career - I think this is probably a case where your better rolling - that seems to be one of the quirks of the game, and something to keep.
Skill and talents work in a fairly simple manner - each skill is tied to an attribute, so to use a skill you roll d% and get under the attribute. Easier and harder tasks apply a modifier to your attribute (think I would have preferred modifiers to the roll, but then an easy task would give a -30% bonus, which doesn't seem quite right). Buying a skill twice gives mastery, which applies a +10% bonus to all rolls with the skill. Talents are just like feats in D&D - each one gives you some ability you didn't previously have, and they can't be improved.
Speaking of D&D, there are a lot of similarities between game elements in D&D and WFRP. Advanced careers seem to map to prestige classes (actually, it's the other way around - advanced careers came first), talents map to skills, and most of the combat options map directly to options in D&D. The major difference is attacks of opportunity - the only time when these occur in WFRP is when characters withdraw from combat. Oh, and it's just not possible to fire most missile weapons while in melee range, rather than the D&Dism of them provoking AoOs.
Combat in WFRP is quick and simple. There are rules for a more complex system, and also a more complex armour system, but it strikes me that your better off just using simple and fast systems.
Allegedly, the magic system is the most overhauled part of the game. I wouldn't know. What I do know is that it's quick, easy, and matches the magic system from the miniatures game very well. All of these are good. Sadly, the spellcasting system does not match the rest of the attribute checks (since you have to roll Xd10 and beat a target), which is probably a weakness.
The book also includes brief details of the setting, which is something of a triumph. It's not the best setting ever invented. It's not particularly original (it's basically dark ages Europe, with the Empire being the Holy Roman Empire, Tilea being Italy, Brettonia being France, and so forth), but it is very flavourful. There's a kind of Conan/Cthulhu thing going on behind the scenes, which is nice. Basically, though, it's just a fun place to adventure, which is precisely what's needed.
This is a great game, and would provide a better introductory RPG than D&D in it's current incarnation. It's probably much better at the job than even the new Basic D&D set, although that's an unfair comparison since I haven't yet seen the latter. The fact that so many of the options can be pulled out, and particularly the fact that the insanity rules are optional (which makes a big difference - with a mature group you would want them in, but with a younger group - the Warhammer crowd - you want them left out), means that the game can be tailored to just what you want.
Best of all, the game already has adventure support - there's an adventure in the book, and a compilation of some old adventures already available, with more on the way. As I've noted before, this is not only a good thing, but almost indispensible for me these days.
The game's not perfect. There are some areas where I would have done things differently. However, this is not a system to house-rule. If you're playing this, it's probably best to play it as written, with only a note about which options you are and are not using. Anything else is overkill. But it is probably worth noting that this game is now my demo game of choice, and I'll probably have to pick up a second copy, so I can leave one at the club where I run those demo games. In short, this is a good one, and highly recommended.
Tuesday, 5 April 2005
Gaah! Too many books!
For some reason, it takes me forever to get through any Exalted books. I don't know why (honestly, I want to like the game, there's a hell of a lot of cool stuff in there, but it just doesn't grab me like it should).
Anyway, as a consequence of this, whenever I'm working through an Exalted book, my big pile of books to read grows, and grows, and grows. Sadly, I then start to feel like I really have to read them all, and that's just bad. I like reading, and I like reading RPG books. But I hate feeling like I have to read something. It's like being at school all over again.
At the moment, there are three books on the list: Exalted Player's Guide (2 chapters to go), Arcana Evolved, and the new WFRP. Of course, I fully expect to get another bunch of books in the next few weeks...
Anyway, as a consequence of this, whenever I'm working through an Exalted book, my big pile of books to read grows, and grows, and grows. Sadly, I then start to feel like I really have to read them all, and that's just bad. I like reading, and I like reading RPG books. But I hate feeling like I have to read something. It's like being at school all over again.
At the moment, there are three books on the list: Exalted Player's Guide (2 chapters to go), Arcana Evolved, and the new WFRP. Of course, I fully expect to get another bunch of books in the next few weeks...
Sunday, 3 April 2005
Use of All Weapons
One of the areas where the current group really falls down, and something that causes them a huge amount of unnecessary grief, is in the use of preparation to make their adventures easier.
By high level, PCs have access to some very powerful spells and abilities. When it comes to optimising their use of high-level attack spells, optimising AC, or getting some extra bonuses with their chosen weapons, the group are masters. However, they rarely, if ever, think of using divinations to find out about their foes beforehand. Divination, Commune and Scrying are all available to Clerics at this level, and can make a huge difference to adventures. Druids have admittedly fewer options, although they do get access to Scrying, while Wizards have a huge range of options, including Legend Lore, Scrying, Contact Other Plane and Vision.
But magic doesn't provide the only options: Knowledge skills can also be extremely useful, provided you've been investing the skill points as you go. Of the Knowledge skills, six provide information about particular monster types (Architecture, Geography, History and Nobility do not). It is not beyond the means of a party of four adventurers to max out all of those skills between them. Granted, this would probably hurt, since the Cleric would need to spend points on Knowledge(religion), when he also needs to spend points in Concentration and, probably, Spellcraft as well (and only gets two skill points by default). The Wizard can probably afford to max out Knowledge(arcana) and Knowledge(the planes) in addition to the essential Concentration and Spellcraft (due to high Intelligence). It will also probably hurt the Rogue to have to max out Knowledge(local) and one other Knowledge skill, for although the Rogue has lots of skill points, he also has lots of skills to buy. And that leaves the Fighter to pick up a Knowledge skill.
Of course, the Fighter would have to take the Knowledge as a cross-class skill (and likewise the Rogue with one of his Knowledges, since only Local is a class skill). And the Fighter also has a paltry two skill points per level. However, skills are really not the forte of the Fighter class. To be honest, he isn't really going to miss out on much by sacrificing even half of his skill points on this venture.
The use of libraries and the like to improve Knowledge skills is something that has been mentioned a couple of times in the game. It's worth noting that a library will give a circumstance bonus to a Knowledge check of up to +5 (for the best libraries), after a full day's study and consultation. However, this bonus does not allow the character to make a Knowledge check untrained, and cannot exceed the ranks that the character has in the skill in the first place. Regardless of how good the books are, unless the character knows enough to ask the right questions, he's really not going to get much benefit from them. That said, the use of a library would allow a character to take 20 on a Knowledge check, but at the cost of taking 20 days checking the library.
Finally, there is always the option of consulting a sage. Typically an Expert with the appropriate Knowledge skill maxed out (assume a Knowledge check of level+8), a sage will be able to find most answers in an appropriate time-frame. Of course, they are also expensive - hiring a sage probably costs 100 gp per level per day (or per question), plus 100 gp per point of library bonus per day. A really easy question requires a DC 10 Knowledge check, so can be handled by even a low-level sage most of the time. A 'normal' question requires a DC 15 check, so is within the range of a low-level sage as well. Harder questions require checks of DC 20 or 30, or even higher.
For knowledge about a monster, the difficulty of the check is 10+hit dice (so, 21 for a Beholder). However, the check only yields one piece of information at that level - each additional piece of information requires that the DC be beaten by 5 points. So, the costs quickly rack up, especially once the sage needs to start taking 20 on his checks. Better to try to have the knowledge to hand oneself.
By high level, PCs have access to some very powerful spells and abilities. When it comes to optimising their use of high-level attack spells, optimising AC, or getting some extra bonuses with their chosen weapons, the group are masters. However, they rarely, if ever, think of using divinations to find out about their foes beforehand. Divination, Commune and Scrying are all available to Clerics at this level, and can make a huge difference to adventures. Druids have admittedly fewer options, although they do get access to Scrying, while Wizards have a huge range of options, including Legend Lore, Scrying, Contact Other Plane and Vision.
But magic doesn't provide the only options: Knowledge skills can also be extremely useful, provided you've been investing the skill points as you go. Of the Knowledge skills, six provide information about particular monster types (Architecture, Geography, History and Nobility do not). It is not beyond the means of a party of four adventurers to max out all of those skills between them. Granted, this would probably hurt, since the Cleric would need to spend points on Knowledge(religion), when he also needs to spend points in Concentration and, probably, Spellcraft as well (and only gets two skill points by default). The Wizard can probably afford to max out Knowledge(arcana) and Knowledge(the planes) in addition to the essential Concentration and Spellcraft (due to high Intelligence). It will also probably hurt the Rogue to have to max out Knowledge(local) and one other Knowledge skill, for although the Rogue has lots of skill points, he also has lots of skills to buy. And that leaves the Fighter to pick up a Knowledge skill.
Of course, the Fighter would have to take the Knowledge as a cross-class skill (and likewise the Rogue with one of his Knowledges, since only Local is a class skill). And the Fighter also has a paltry two skill points per level. However, skills are really not the forte of the Fighter class. To be honest, he isn't really going to miss out on much by sacrificing even half of his skill points on this venture.
The use of libraries and the like to improve Knowledge skills is something that has been mentioned a couple of times in the game. It's worth noting that a library will give a circumstance bonus to a Knowledge check of up to +5 (for the best libraries), after a full day's study and consultation. However, this bonus does not allow the character to make a Knowledge check untrained, and cannot exceed the ranks that the character has in the skill in the first place. Regardless of how good the books are, unless the character knows enough to ask the right questions, he's really not going to get much benefit from them. That said, the use of a library would allow a character to take 20 on a Knowledge check, but at the cost of taking 20 days checking the library.
Finally, there is always the option of consulting a sage. Typically an Expert with the appropriate Knowledge skill maxed out (assume a Knowledge check of level+8), a sage will be able to find most answers in an appropriate time-frame. Of course, they are also expensive - hiring a sage probably costs 100 gp per level per day (or per question), plus 100 gp per point of library bonus per day. A really easy question requires a DC 10 Knowledge check, so can be handled by even a low-level sage most of the time. A 'normal' question requires a DC 15 check, so is within the range of a low-level sage as well. Harder questions require checks of DC 20 or 30, or even higher.
For knowledge about a monster, the difficulty of the check is 10+hit dice (so, 21 for a Beholder). However, the check only yields one piece of information at that level - each additional piece of information requires that the DC be beaten by 5 points. So, the costs quickly rack up, especially once the sage needs to start taking 20 on his checks. Better to try to have the knowledge to hand oneself.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)