Upgrading classes

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 23:41:01 GMT, Matthias <matthias_mls@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 01:48:28 GMT, Chad Lubrecht <chad.lubrecht@verizon.net>
>wrote:
>
>>So in order to get a commoner with no combat ability, which is what
>>the original poster wanted, it is easier to have a commoner with
>>significant combat ability, just because you've applied an extra
>>requirement that there be meaningfull classes?
>
>Would you consider a 20th level commoner with +5 BAB and +3 F/R/W to have
>"significant combat ability"? Consider how he would fare against 20th level PCs.
>He'll be a speedbump.

I'm not comparing him to 20th lvl PCs. But +5 BAB is not insignificant
combat ability. He'd put up a good fight against 3rd or 4th lvl PCs,
so since the goal of this excercise was to not have high level
commoners automatically become skilled warriors your solution fails.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Matt Frisch" <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
news😛hdm41h9f0gct3isoh4jr2unp1ies8oco3@4ax.com...
> A 20th level farmer is going to have to have endured some real fighting to
> get there,

Patently incorrect. He can get there through story awards and
equivalent-CR challenges.

-Michael

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:ZuM2e.1160$EE2.693@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> "Matt Frisch" <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
> news😛hdm41h9f0gct3isoh4jr2unp1ies8oco3@4ax.com...
>> A 20th level farmer is going to have to have endured some real fighting
>> to
>> get there,
>
> Patently incorrect. He can get there through story awards and
> equivalent-CR challenges.

Of course, this is unlikely to happen in a human lifetime.

--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.

from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Matt Frisch" <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
news:2ddm419p002lp2ekipag1nnok0amr35g8a@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 07:58:02 GMT, "Michael Scott Brown"
> > Disagree. The adventuring wizard must fight for his life on regular
> >basis. Ignoring such training would be criminal neglect.
>
> Not so. A wizard gets involved in fights on a regular basis, but that's
not
> the same thing as fighting himself. No reason you should get better with
> your dagger when you stand in the back row hurling spells.

A wizard has no control over whether his opponents will conveniently
leave him physically unharrassed. It is very often the case that the wizard
*is* confronted with melee combat. Training in self defense is a critical
survival skill - even if it is "insurance" against the failure of their
magic to win the day, or against _running out_ of magic. Wizards are a
class of intelligent people. They can do the math.

-Michael

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd+news@szonye.com> wrote in message
news:slrnd4jgnq.jg1.bradd+news@szonye.com...
> Michael Scott Brown wrote:
> > All I hear is hot air, buckwheat. Man up! Show us why farmers should
> > increase in their all around defensive combat capability (hp, saves)
> > just from practicing with a bow ....
>
> That's a blatant straw man: As I've already mentioned, the commoners
> with significant BAB (more than +1 or so) typically are not mere
> farmers. C'mon, even you can do better than this.

Bradd, you keep accusing *me* of attacking men of straw, but you're the
one waving one around like a body shield. *You* insist that there is no
such thing as a "higher level farmer", despite the fact that the game rules
of D&D only *permit* an average-mental-stats individual to be expert at
farming skills if he is a high level commoner (however he gets to be one).
He needs heaps of skill focus feats and skill points!
You have offered *no evidence* that there is any reason to believe that
mid or high level commoners cannot be "mere" farmers.
The game rules suggest that the Best Farmers In The World are, in fact,
high level commoners. The game rules make allowance for high level commoners
not being terribly unusual.

-Michael

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd+news@szonye.com> wrote in message
news:slrnd4m1a8.nrj.bradd+news@szonye.com...
> Symbol wrote:
> >> Please explain how he gained 20 levels if he is just a farmer. Why
> >> are you [MSB] having such a problem with the idea that modelling a
> >> concept inappropriately produces absurd results?
>
> It's one of his favorite argument tactics: Attempt a reductio argument
> by inventing an absurd premise. Sometimes he insists that his silly
> premise follows from the originals, and sometimes it looks like he's
> just hoping that nobody will notice the trickery.
>
> Michael Scott Brown wrote:
> > Please explain how any craftsman can get better at their craft if you
> > believe doing so requires martial conflict!
>
> A craftsman does not need 20 levels to "get better at their craft."

Does anyone besides me find it amusing to see Bradd first poison the
well with claims of reductio-strawman bashing, and then turn around and do
it himself?

> Also, explain how a craftsman advances beyond medium levels /without/
> getting into some kind of martial conflict. Yes, D&D characters can earn
> XP without combat, but it's increasingly difficult once the low-end CRs
> fall off the XP chart.

Amazing. While admitting that D&D characters *can* earn XP without
combat, you then claim this mechanic doesn't matter because of *low end* CRs
being too small to do the job? Why ASSUME that a farmer trying to achieve
best-farmer-in-the-world things wouldn't take on greater challenges? That's
might convenient for you ... but it only works in your imagination.

> Frankly, your assumption that 20th-level commoners are "farmers" is
> silly; it directly contradicts the D&D demographics rules. 20th-level
> commoners only appear in urban areas. Rural commoners top out at 16th
> level, and most rural settlements never see a commoner above 10th level.
> But it wouldn't be an argument with MSB without some ridiculous
> hyperbole, would it?

I am somewhat amazed that you just attempted to make that argument in
public. The D&D demographics *rules* which are *inviolate* and *never*
allow a DM to put *any* NPC he wants into his game world unless they obey
the *strict* rules about NPC frequency make it *impossible* for a 20th level
commoner to pick up in the country?
You have just argued that 20th level commoners *cannot be farmers*
because only *16th* level commoners can be farmers.

What, pray tell, is the magical force that pervades all the games of D&D
that *expels* 17th level commoners from the countryside?

> Given that high-level commoners have decent combat ability, that
> commoners don't need high levels to get decent non-combat ability, and
> that commoners are roughly comparable to the "warrior" classes in
> numbers, it seems obvious that high-level commoners are the few working-
> class people with significant military experience. Well, not obvious to
> you, but then you think that 20th-level farmers are possible in D&D.

The fact that it *isn't* obvious makes it rather silly for you to claim
that a thing is, and therefore you are right.

> > Like it or not, there are mechanisms for the mundane to improve their
> > skills (ie; *time* and *overcoming significant challenges*) that don't
> > involve heroic adventure.
>
> Go ahead and name a few high-level challenges that don't involve the
> threat of combat, then.

Great works!

-Michael

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

In article <1112202276.306934.258120@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
"Anivair" <anivair@gmail.com> wrote:

> Which of course breaks down when the character has no training regiment
> either. A lazy fat wizard who never walks without the aid of magic and
> never so much as looks in the general direction of a weapon and uses
> magic for all his encounters still advances the same.

It only "breaks down" if a player is deliberately being a twit. By the
book you can gain a skill without ever training in it or using it "on
camera", but only a twit would say "Ha ha! I'm buying Profession:
Sailor and you know what? My character has never been near a boat!
He'd done no training at all! Ha Ha!".

Doing the same routine with BAB is just as silly. +10 BAB indicates a
lot of rigorous combat training.

> In retrospect, i'm not sure "it is assumed" is a phrase that applies
> well in this respect, because all characters are different. A wizard
> with no training regimen who "overcomes signifigant challenges" as you
> say and who has never seen combat ever will still eventually level and
> gain combat ebility. The fact of the matter is this is a flaw of a
> level based system. I don't think we have much option but to live with
> it.

It's a flaw of people being twits. Or of deliberately wanting to
recreate stories which make no internal sense.

Kevin Lowe,
Tasmania.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Bradd W. Szonye wrote:

>
> I'll concede that my knowledge of the medieval period focuses mainly on
> western Europe, and that I know the 1066-1348 period better than the
> early half of the era. On the other hand, I'm not going to take your
> word for it, especially not after claims like the one about subsistence
> farming.

That's why I gave you names of authors. I don't expect to be believed.

My understanding of farming, pre-modern times, was that 95% of the
population farmed, and the rest were professional craftsman and the
nobility. If you got better numbers and sources, I'm happy to go read.

CH

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Kevin Lowe wrote:

> It only "breaks down" if a player is deliberately being a twit. By
the
> book you can gain a skill without ever training in it or using it "on

> camera", but only a twit would say "Ha ha! I'm buying Profession:
> Sailor and you know what? My character has never been near a boat!
> He'd done no training at all! Ha Ha!".
>
> Doing the same routine with BAB is just as silly. +10 BAB indicates
a
> lot of rigorous combat training.

I don't see the problem here at all. I mean, yes, i see the problem
with the skill system, but here's the problem. the game makes it
impossible to be good at spellcasting without being good in a fight as
well. Granted, not as good as a true fighter type, but certainly
better than a normal guy. And there's a huge ammount of source
material in the fantasyt genere to indicate that the idea of a wizard
who is good with spells but poor at fighting (and in fact, has never
touched a melee weeapon) is perfectly valid. D&D doesn't allow for it,
which i see as a limitation of the system. I'm not saying it's
inherently bad, but it is inherently limiting.

And the argument extends. In order to be truly good at something (ie
to have more than four ranks in a skill) you must become better at
combat. Because the only way you get skill points (and therefore
ranks) is by leveling and leveling automatically makes you better at
combat. There's no option. The two are intertwined. That was my only
real point there.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Matt Frisch wrote:

> > Good *enough* <> BEST. FARMER. IN. THE. WORLD.
> >
> > The best farmer in the world never misses his predictions.
>
> Well that's nonsense. By that logic, the best warrior in the world
never
> rolls a 1 and auto-misses.

I'm sorry, are we playing the same game? ones miss in combat because
it's inherently unpredictable. The one missing isn't about your skill
or ability, it's about your opponants, it's about terrain, and about
flukes that are out of your control just as much as anything.

Skills are not treated the same way. A roll of a one in a skill is not
an automatic failure. So where is your logic there?

you just superimposed logic from a part of the game that even the
developers saw as inherently different.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
> Anivair wrote:
> > Of course I'm not. You're saying that in order to so simply
farming
> > with the technology level of the feudal era we need to assume the
> > feudal system. Assuming that there's some lord who owns your
> > commoner's farm and leveys him out as labor for his profit is a) a
> > faulty assumption ....
>
> Yeah, right. We're talking about a game set in alternate-Earth
medieval
> Europe, with medieval money, medieval prices, and medieval
demographics.
> The game's default setting, Oerth, only differs from medieval Europe
in
> two major respects: Its creator filed off the serial numbers, and was
a
> bit fast and loose with his history.

First: no we're not. We're talking about D&D as a game. You set it
wherever you like, but nobody restricted the rules or the setting to
the default. Also, you're off about the default as well. Unless you
can demonstrate that the PHB makes good referance to the feudal system.


> > Again with teh feudal setting. Leave my in game economics out of a
> > discussion about class.
>
> Look, if you want to throw out all the medieval stuff in the
rulebooks,
> that's fine, but don't pretend that you're talking about the game as
> written.

You need to understand that medieval is not the same as feudal, nor in
the technological level the same as the economic or social system.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Bradd wrote:
>> That's a blatant straw man: As I've already mentioned, the commoners
>> with significant BAB (more than +1 or so) typically are not mere
>> farmers. C'mon, even you can do better than this.

Michael Scott wrote:
> Bradd, you keep accusing *me* of attacking men of straw, but you're
> the one waving one around like a body shield. *You* insist that there
> is no such thing as a "higher level farmer" ....

The 20th-level farmer you keep going on about certainly doesn't exist.
RTFM: Commoners only get that good in urban settlements.

> despite the fact that the game rules of D&D only *permit* an
> average-mental-stats individual to be expert at farming skills if he
> is a high level commoner ....

Repeating this does not make it true. Perhaps you've been hanging out
with Cope, Goslin, and Wilson too long.

> You have offered *no evidence* that there is any reason to believe
> that mid or high level commoners cannot be "mere" farmers.

If you don't want to see the evidence, that's your problem.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Malachias Invictus <capt_malachias@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:ZuM2e.1160$EE2.693@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> "Matt Frisch" <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
>> news😛hdm41h9f0gct3isoh4jr2unp1ies8oco3@4ax.com...
>>> A 20th level farmer is going to have to have endured some real fighting
>>> to
>>> get there,
>>
>> Patently incorrect. He can get there through story awards and
>> equivalent-CR challenges.
>
> Of course, this is unlikely to happen in a human lifetime.

Shh! You'll get facts in his peanut butter!
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Matt Frisch wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 16:40:02 GMT, "Michael Scott Brown"
> <mistermichael@earthlink.net> scribed into the ether:
>
> >"Symbol" <jb70@talk21.com> wrote in message
> >news:424a822b$0$371$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com...
> >> "Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in
message
> >> > > Not at all. This is D&D, and it's about heroic adventure.
> >> >
> >> > *FARMER*.
> >>
> >> Please explain how he gained 20 levels if he is just a farmer. Why
are you
> >> having such a problem with the idea that modelling a concept
> >> inappropriately produces absurd results?
> >
> > Please explain how any craftsman can get better at their craft
if you
> >believe doing so requires martial conflict!
>
> Story and RP rewards. Winning barroom brawls for defeated opponent
XP. A
> farmer won't get many, but he also doesn't need many to get to 3rd
level or
> so.
>
> A 20th level farmer is going to have to have endured some real
fighting to
> get there, so having decent combat abilities is not out of line..if
he
> couldn't fight well, then he'd be dead. Of course, it is relevant to
note
> that 20th level farmers are going to be *REALLY* rare.

There is one serious problem with any commoner getting to that level.
He isn't going to be able to beat any combat oriented challenge with
his very poor combat skills.

- Justisaur.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Bradd wrote:
>> It's one of his favorite argument tactics: Attempt a reductio
>> argument by inventing an absurd premise .... [For example:] A
>> craftsman does not need 20 levels to "get better at their craft."

Michael Scott Brown wrote:
> Does anyone besides me find it amusing to see Bradd first poison the
> well with claims of reductio-strawman bashing, and then turn around
> and do it himself?

I pointed out an example of you constructing fallacious reductio
arguments. Since when is evidence for one's accusations a "reductio-
strawman"?

>> Also, explain how a craftsman advances beyond medium levels /without/
>> getting into some kind of martial conflict. Yes, D&D characters can
>> earn XP without combat, but it's increasingly difficult once the
>> low-end CRs fall off the XP chart.

> Amazing. While admitting that D&D characters *can* earn XP without
> combat, you then claim this mechanic doesn't matter because of *low
> end* CRs being too small to do the job?

The non-combat XP is only relevent if you have sufficient high-level
challenges of that type.

> Why ASSUME that a farmer trying to achieve best-farmer-in-the-world
> things wouldn't take on greater challenges?

Go ahead, list a few high-level farming challenges. It should be funny.

>> Frankly, your assumption that 20th-level commoners are "farmers" is
>> silly; it directly contradicts the D&D demographics rules ....

> I am somewhat amazed that you just attempted to make that argument in
> public. The D&D demographics *rules* which are *inviolate* and
> *never* allow a DM to put *any* NPC he wants into his game world
> unless they obey the *strict* rules about NPC frequency make it
> *impossible* for a 20th level commoner to pick up in the country?

Here's another example of your beloved reductio fallacy. The rules as
written never actually produce the result you dislike, yet you still
attempt to use it as an example of absurdity.

You get the same response as everyone else who makes stupid "Doctor, it
hurts when I do this!" arguments. Do I need to spell it out?

>> Given that high-level commoners have decent combat ability, that
>> commoners don't need high levels to get decent non-combat ability,
>> and that commoners are roughly comparable to the "warrior" classes in
>> numbers, it seems obvious that high-level commoners are the few
>> working- class people with significant military experience. Well, not
>> obvious to you, but then you think that 20th-level farmers are
>> possible in D&D.

> The fact that it *isn't* obvious makes it rather silly for you to
> claim that a thing is, and therefore you are right.

The fact that it isn't obvious to /you/ doesn't make it silly or
inobvious. Although if you really want to insist on that, I'll remember
it the next time you try the same tactic on Cope or Goslin.

>> Go ahead and name a few high-level challenges that don't involve the
>> threat of combat, then.

> Great works!

I'm waiting. Don't forget that they must be high-level /farming/ CRs.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Bradd wrote:
>> Go ahead and name a few high-level challenges that don't involve the
>> threat of combat, then.

David Alex Lamb wrote:
> Hmm. Well, solving the riddle of the Sphinx involves the threat of
> being eaten if you fail, so that "involves the threat of combat".
> Similarly negotiating peace with the nearby barbarian horde also
> "involves the threat of combat".

More importantly, these are not things a "farmer" would do.

> But there ought to be some leeway in viewing these as non-combat
> encounters (in that the presumption is you die if you fail, if you
> don't have significant combat skills).
>
> What about nasty (high-damage) traps? IIRC CR is based on the damage range.

Sure, there's some leeway. However, there's the bigger problem that
these are not farming activities, not even remotely. MSB keeps insisting
that high-level farmers are a problem, but so far he's failed to even
demonstrate that they exist. While there are a few higher-level farming
challenges, they mostly involve nasty monsters like ankhegs.

That's one of the reasons I say that you won't find a 20th-level farmer
who is /just/ a farmer.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Anivair wrote:
> Of course I'm not. You're saying that in order to so simply farming
> with the technology level of the feudal era we need to assume the
> feudal system. Assuming that there's some lord who owns your
> commoner's farm and leveys him out as labor for his profit is a) a
> faulty assumption ....

Yeah, right. We're talking about a game set in alternate-Earth medieval
Europe, with medieval money, medieval prices, and medieval demographics.
The game's default setting, Oerth, only differs from medieval Europe in
two major respects: Its creator filed off the serial numbers, and was a
bit fast and loose with his history.

> Again with teh feudal setting. Leave my in game economics out of a
> discussion about class.

Look, if you want to throw out all the medieval stuff in the rulebooks,
that's fine, but don't pretend that you're talking about the game as
written.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Bradd wrote:
>> FWIW, the Profession rules are seriously botched with respect to
>> farmers. With just one rank in the skill, a farmer's income jumps
>> about tenfold. That suggests either that few farmers actually have
>> ranks in the profession (which is weird, since you need the skill to
>> "perform the profession's daily tasks") or that D&D farmers are a lot
>> richer than other manual laborers.

Matt Frisch wrote:
> If the farmer isn't having all of his income taxed away in various
> land taxes (assuming he even owns the land in the first place), then
> yes, farmers would be a lot richer than other manual laborers.

True. While it may seem strange to Americans, the /really/ old money is
from agriculture, not industry or banking. Southeastern England is the
wealthiest part of the UK largely because of the old, old farm economy.

However, the farmhands don't generally get rich off the farm, and
medieval commoners are little more than bound farmhands. Some of them
did better than others, but it's still on the scale of pennies (sp) a
day, much less than the Profession rules indicate.

Furthermore, there's still the problem that farms need unskilled
laborers -- not everyone can be a farm proprieter, not even on a modern
farm. In 2001 only 70% of US farm workers were proprieters, and only 30%
of California farm workers were proprieters.■ While I can imagine
medieval agriculture functioning with more proprieters and fewer
low-income laborers, I doubt that it could even attain California's
proprieter rate. That means no Profession (Farmer) skill for the
majority of commoners -- which is silly.

■ http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/FarmandRelatedEmployment/
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 06:13:02 GMT, "Michael Scott Brown"
<mistermichael@earthlink.net> scribed into the ether:

>"Matt Frisch" <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
>news:2ddm419p002lp2ekipag1nnok0amr35g8a@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 07:58:02 GMT, "Michael Scott Brown"
>> > Disagree. The adventuring wizard must fight for his life on regular
>> >basis. Ignoring such training would be criminal neglect.
>>
>> Not so. A wizard gets involved in fights on a regular basis, but that's
>not
>> the same thing as fighting himself. No reason you should get better with
>> your dagger when you stand in the back row hurling spells.
>
> A wizard has no control over whether his opponents will conveniently
>leave him physically unharrassed. It is very often the case that the wizard
>*is* confronted with melee combat. Training in self defense is a critical
>survival skill - even if it is "insurance" against the failure of their
>magic to win the day, or against _running out_ of magic. Wizards are a
>class of intelligent people. They can do the math.

Which would be a fine arguement if there was some mechanism to improve your
AC with levels...BAB does squat for helping you survive an attack.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 06:10:01 GMT, "Michael Scott Brown"
<mistermichael@earthlink.net> scribed into the ether:

>"Matt Frisch" <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
>news😛hdm41h9f0gct3isoh4jr2unp1ies8oco3@4ax.com...
>> A 20th level farmer is going to have to have endured some real fighting to
>> get there,
>
> Patently incorrect. He can get there through story awards and
>equivalent-CR challenges.

What equivalent-CR challenges would he be facing as a non-adventurer that
would get him level 20 in the span of less than a couple centuries?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Malachias Invictus" <capt_malachias@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:kNSdncjPN-vAMdbfRVn-rw@comcast.com:

>
> "Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:ZuM2e.1160$EE2.693@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> "Matt Frisch" <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
>> news😛hdm41h9f0gct3isoh4jr2unp1ies8oco3@4ax.com...
>>> A 20th level farmer is going to have to have endured some real
>>> fighting to
>>> get there,
>>
>> Patently incorrect. He can get there through story awards and
>> equivalent-CR challenges.
>
> Of course, this is unlikely to happen in a human lifetime.
>

That's why Gary invented elves.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

MSB wrote:
>> A wizard has no control over whether his opponents will conveniently
>> leave him physically unharrassed. It is very often the case that the
>> wizard *is* confronted with melee combat. Training in self defense
>> is a critical survival skill - even if it is "insurance" against the
>> failure of their magic to win the day, or against _running out_ of
>> magic. Wizards are a class of intelligent people. They can do the
>> math.

Matt Frisch wrote:
> Which would be a fine arguement if there was some mechanism to improve
> your AC with levels...BAB does squat for helping you survive an
> attack.

But BSB and escalating hit points do. Furthermore, the latter perform
exactly the same function that defense bonuses do in other RPGs. MSB is
correct about the improved defenses of high-level wizards, at least.
Whether he's correct about the rationale is another story.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On 30 Mar 2005 06:01:32 -0800, "Anivair" <anivair@gmail.com> carved
upon a tablet of ether:

> I'm with MSB here. For a farmer to be even competant there are about a
> dozen skills that he ought to have. Everything from tending crops

Profession (farmer)

> to birthing calves (heal again? Maybe handle animal, though it's a
> stretch)

Profession (farmer) or Profession (herder) or Profession (stablehand)
(possibly).

> to mending his own clothes and shoes and repairing his
> thatched roof when it rains.

All Crafts, and at low DC, so unskilled take 10 is sufficient. Making
an iron pot is only DC10. Making a wooden spoon is DC5. That makes
these tasks DC5-10, no more.

> I remember a thread like this not long
> ago (that I agreed with) that postulated that commoners don't have
> nearly enough skills to be as competant as most commoners should be.

And IMO that means you and they didn't consider what you can do
unskilled. Also, consider that if the peasants need these skill at
good level to survive, so do adventurers. In your world most
adventurers will have their armour rust and wear to uselessness in
days, their clothes and shoes fall apart in weeks, and all their
horses go lame in the first twenty miles of travel. Oh yes, and their
food will always be burned (actually, as cooking's a Profession so
that's probably by-the-book).


--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 18:05:50 GMT, "Bradd W. Szonye"
<bradd+news@szonye.com> carved upon a tablet of ether:

> Survival is for getting along in the wild. Farmers do not live in the
> wild. They farm so that people don't need to forage. They have woodwards
> to deal with lost animals (see below). They have flint & steel so that
> they don't need to know how to start a fire from scratch.

And for weather prediction the Knowledge (local) check using just Int
that they get for 'common knowledge' will be sufficient for basic
prediction of weather in their home area.


--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 18:05:50 GMT, "Bradd W. Szonye"
> <bradd+news@szonye.com> carved upon a tablet of ether:
>> Survival is for getting along in the wild. Farmers do not live in the
>> wild. They farm so that people don't need to forage. They have woodwards
>> to deal with lost animals (see below). They have flint & steel so that
>> they don't need to know how to start a fire from scratch.
>
> And for weather prediction the Knowledge (local) check using just Int
> that they get for 'common knowledge' will be sufficient for basic
> prediction of weather in their home area.

Or they could use Survival untrained. That ends up being Wis or Int
bonus, whichever is better, which is plenty good enough. Anyway, good
catch.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd