PDA

View Full Version : 3 questions



Wyatt8000
2014-01-27, 05:25 AM
Hello. I've skimmed through some rulebooks, but never played Dungeons&Dragons, and I have some questions about it (I'm interested in D&D3.5 and Pathfinder, but the questions probably aren't version-specific).


1) If player A has 5 ranks in a skill that doesn't have immediate combat relevance, and player B has 10 ranks in that skill, and they are in the same team, are A's ranks pretty much wasted? It seems to me that with non-combat skills, generally only the highest skill in the group really matters, is that about right?


2) Is there anywhere a list of damage types, with descriptions of what kinds enemies are resistant or vulnerable to each? In the rulebooks, each monster entry desribes the relevant damage types - but when making decisions about your character, eg choosing spells by damage type, you'd want it the other way round - each damage type entry to describe the monsters who are particularly vulnerable or resistant to it.


3) Let's say that X is a burglar. Throughout his life, he selfishly steals from innocent people and gives to himself. He never does anything selfless, but he steers clear of murder. Judging by this, does he have the D&D "evil" alignment?

By what I take from Order of the Stick, Neverwinter Nights (the 2002 video game) and other D&D media it seems to me - D&D "evil" alignment can only come from killing innocents (and perhaps raping and severe mutilation), is that about right? Eg extortion and the violation of private property of innocent people, and political corruption - never seem to make anyone "evil" enough to warrant the alignment, even if purposefully and selfishly practiced throughout their lives at great cost to the people around them?

Jack of Spades
2014-01-27, 05:42 AM
1. It depends on the situation and the group. If your character is separated from the party, or simply wants to give something a try on their own for whatever reason, then the ranks matter. However, in most cases your are right in thinking that generally the person with the highest skill ranks will make the checks. I'm not sure if this is actually part of the written rules, but a lot of groups play with a rule where characters can make a DC10 check in a skill to add +2 points to the result of another character's check in that skill. Also, Spot/Listen/Search/Perception (depending on the edition) are pretty important for everyone to have despite having little to no actual combat value.

2. I don't believe that there is. With how many monsters have been released in all the books, making such a list would be a bit of a daunting task.

3. Depends on your interpretation of the alignment system. It's really not worth wracking your head about it too much. It shouldn't matter too much in a given game, and if it does you can usually talk things out with a GM. In my own opinion, I'd say that the burglar is probably Evil.

The way I tend to draw the lines is thus: a Good character will go out of their way to help others. A Neutral character won't bend over backward to help anyone, but doesn't want to see anyone get hurt. An Evil character will go out of their way to hurt others, and/or will feel nothing if they find themselves doing so.

Jallorn
2014-01-27, 05:44 AM
1. Sometimes, but it depends on the skill and whether the group is big enough to sometimes split up. If the party has to get over a chasm, those few ranks in Jump aren't wasted because your buddy has more. This is more often an issue with knowledge or social skills, but even then, it's nice to have a backup/aid another. Natural 1s do happen. And then there's the fun situations where you've got two separate objectives in two locations and both require a little fast talking, so you send the better talker to the more vital one, and the less skilled talker to the other one.

2. Physical damage types are Bludgeoning, Piercing, and Slashing. Bludgeoning and Slashing more often bypass DR than Piercing in my experience. Energy damage types are Fire, Electric, Sonic, Acid, Cold, and Force. Fire is the most commonly resisted energy type, followed by Cold. Force is never resisted, and Sonic is generally considered the most versatile because Force sources of damage are rare and don't generally do as much damage for the resource cost generally.

3. This is an extremely dodgy topic that is probably going to take over the thread. Ultimately what precisely alignment means is up to the DM, but generally what I've seen described as evil is deliberately choosing to harm another for your gain. Pretty vague though, isn't it?

Evo_Kaer
2014-01-27, 05:54 AM
First of all: Pretty much all of your questions depend on your playing style and/or the DMs decisions


1) If player A has 5 ranks in a skill that doesn't have immediate combat relevance, and player B has 10 ranks in that skill, and they are in the same team, are A's ranks pretty much wasted? It seems to me that with non-combat skills, generally only the highest skill in the group really matters, is that about right?
The Optimizers approach:
If you always let only that one guy with the highest diplomacy talk then noone else will need it. But there can always be times where that guy is not available due to whatever circumstances.
Some skills (like climbing) will be useful for anyone. Unless that one guy with the highest rank can pull you up, in which case you always need a rope with you.

The Roleplayers approach:
I like to give my characters a little flavor. Though it might not be needed, it gives them a feeling of sth more than just remote controlled puppets. Like for example a female psion I made had 2 ranks in craft(tailoring), because she had an extensive wardrobe and wouldn't let anyone touch it. So she just repaired all damages herself. A friends psion had one rank in every knowledge skill to represent her being bored by sth easily and going on to another subject.


2) Is there anywhere a list of damage types, with descriptions of what kinds enemies are resistant or vulnerable to each? In the rulebooks, each monster entry desribes the relevant damage types - but when making decisions about your character, eg choosing spells by damage type, you'd want it the other way round - each damage type entry to describe the monsters who are particularly vulnerable or resistant to it.
Not that I know of. You would have to make that yourself. Or you could just let yourself be surprised by what appears.
Another Roleplayers approach:
A stubborn pyromancer will nver eve consider learning a cold spell and probably use fire against a red dragon ("Everything burns, you just need to raise the heat"). He might be a lost cause in such a fight or he might choke the dragon with all the smoke he causes ^^


3) Let's say that X is a burglar. Throughout his life, he selfishly steals from innocent people and gives to himself. He never does anything selfless, but he steers clear of murder. Judging by this, does he have the D&D "evil" alignment?

By what I take from Order of the Stick, Neverwinter Nights (the 2002 video game) and other D&D media it seems to me - D&D "evil" alignment can only come from killing innocents (and perhaps raping and severe mutilation), is that about right? Eg extortion and the violation of private property of innocent people, and political corruption - never seem to make anyone "evil" enough to warrant the alignment, even if purposefully and selfishly practiced throughout their lives at great cost to the people around them?
Basically, if you do something to damage people, that would be evil.
If you do sth for yourself and know that it will damage people, but your main goal is giving yourself the advantage and the damage is more of a sideproduct, than thats more chaotic.

inexorabletruth
2014-01-27, 06:28 AM
Hello. I've skimmed through some rulebooks, but never played Dungeons&Dragons, and I have some questions about it (I'm interested in D&D3.5 and Pathfinder, but the questions probably aren't version-specific).

Welcome to the system then! It's got a bit of a learning curve, but if you're willing to navigate through all those complicated rules, it can be a really fun game!



1) If player A has 5 ranks in a skill that doesn't have immediate combat relevance, and player B has 10 ranks in that skill, and they are in the same team, are A's ranks pretty much wasted? It seems to me that with non-combat skills, generally only the highest skill in the group really matters, is that about right?

Ehh… you're DM's play style will effect this a lot. But in general, I'm going to say the answer is "no". Remember, that someone with 5 ranks can still roll a 20 and someone with 10 ranks can still roll a 10… giving the one with 5 ranks the best results from a roll. But also, there's something to be said for skill synergy. In D&D 3.5. having 5 or more ranks in certain skills gives you a +2 bonus to other related skills. See PHB, pg. 66. And also, from an RP perspective, there's often a difference between what a PC knows from a skill check and what they communicate to the other PCs based on that knowledge.



2) Is there anywhere a list of damage types, with descriptions of what kinds enemies are resistant or vulnerable to each? In the rulebooks, each monster entry desribes the relevant damage types - but when making decisions about your character, eg choosing spells by damage type, you'd want it the other way round - each damage type entry to describe the monsters who are particularly vulnerable or resistant to it.

Yes, but I don't believe it's compiled well. You can find this information in Monster Manuals (and adjacent), DMGs and some online resources. I imagine the reason no one has bothered to compile a list is because that would be a seriously ambitious effort. D&D has a loooooooooooot of monsters.



2)3) Let's say that X is a burglar. Throughout his life, he selfishly steals from innocent people and gives to himself. He never does anything selfless, but he steers clear of murder. Judging by this, does he have the D&D "evil" alignment?

By what I take from Order of the Stick, Neverwinter Nights (the 2002 video game) and other D&D media it seems to me - D&D "evil" alignment can only come from killing innocents (and perhaps raping and severe mutilation), is that about right? Eg extortion and the violation of private property of innocent people, and political corruption - never seem to make anyone "evil" enough to warrant the alignment, even if purposefully and selfishly practiced throughout their lives at great cost to the people around them?

You are correct. At least according to D&D 3.5 rules, stealing from others and not killing makes him a lawbreaker, not a murderer. So the thief in question is more likely Chaotic Neutral. Player's Handbook defines Good, Neutral and Evil based on your predilections towards murder, mostly.

PHB, pg. 104:

Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.

Wyatt8000
2014-01-27, 08:29 AM
Alright, thanks for the answers!

Mastikator
2014-01-27, 08:39 AM
[snip]
1) [snip] are A's ranks pretty much wasted? [snip]


2) Is there anywhere a list of damage types, with descriptions of what kinds enemies are resistant or vulnerable to each? [snip]


3) Let's say that X is a burglar. [snip] does he have the D&D "evil" alignment?[snip]

1. Yeah kinda. It's one of the flaws in D&D game design.

2. A list of monsters that are vulnerable to the kinds of damage you do is meta-gaming, if your character isn't privy to that information then neither should the player be, especially if they can't be trusted to not meta-game.

3. Too little info to tell if he's neutral or evil. Either way he's chaotic.
Killing innocents isn't the only thing that is evil, even killing guilty is evil unless it's under the right circumstances (in which case it's probably neutral, killing is very rarely good). Oppression is very much on the side of evil, any kind of sadism is evil.

ElenionAncalima
2014-01-27, 09:14 AM
I'll speak to the first one. Personally, I think it depends on the situation. Here are a few situations where I don't think Player A wasted ranks.

-The party splits temporarily. If that skill is needed by both subgroups, the party now has someone to send with each group.

-The skill requires individual success, like, climb, spot, listen, disguise, balance, hide and escape artist.

-Player B gets unlucky. If they roll low on an important check to figure something out, it helps to have another player who can figure it out.

The only time where I would consider it a waste, is if it is a skill that once failed, can't really be re-attempted by another player...such as bluff or sleight of hand. However, even those may have roleplaying significance to a character and will give them the freedom to use those skills themselves if they want to.

tl;dr; Player A may feel that there thunder has been stolen, but I wouldn't call the ranks wasted in most situations.

Airk
2014-01-27, 09:59 AM
I'll speak to the first one. Personally, I think it depends on the situation. Here are a few situations where I don't think Player A wasted ranks.

-The party splits temporarily. If that skill is needed by both subgroups, the party now has someone to send with each group.

-The skill requires individual success, like, climb, spot, listen, disguise, balance, hide and escape artist.

-Player B gets unlucky. If they roll low on an important check to figure something out, it helps to have another player who can figure it out.

The only time where I would consider it a waste, is if it is a skill that once failed, can't really be re-attempted by another player...such as bluff or sleight of hand. However, even those may have roleplaying significance to a character and will give them the freedom to use those skills themselves if they want to.

tl;dr; Player A may feel that there thunder has been stolen, but I wouldn't call the ranks wasted in most situations.

Yeah, IMHO, skills in which duplicate ranks are 'wasted' are the exception, not the rule. The ones that come closest are usually knowledge skills and other pass/fail sort of 'blockers' like pick lock, where the best character is always going to make the attempt (at least first) but these same skills are also generally the ones that completely disallow retries by the same character if you fail. Failed at climbing the wall? Odds are you can try again. Failed at deciphering the magic runes? Better hope someone else in the party has Arcana.

Sebastrd
2014-01-27, 10:44 AM
1) If player A has 5 ranks in a skill that doesn't have immediate combat relevance, and player B has 10 ranks in that skill, and they are in the same team, are A's ranks pretty much wasted? It seems to me that with non-combat skills, generally only the highest skill in the group really matters, is that about right?

In theory, there are situations wherein half ranks can come in handy. The reality is that if a character isn't going to take max ranks they might as well not even bother.


2) Is there anywhere a list of damage types, with descriptions of what kinds enemies are resistant or vulnerable to each? In the rulebooks, each monster entry desribes the relevant damage types - but when making decisions about your character, eg choosing spells by damage type, you'd want it the other way round - each damage type entry to describe the monsters who are particularly vulnerable or resistant to it.

Using such a list would be considered blatant metagaming at most tables. Regardless, the number of mosters with various resistances/vulnerabilties is largely irrelevant. What matters is the monsters your DM uses in his/her campaign.


3) Let's say that X is a burglar. Throughout his life, he selfishly steals from innocent people and gives to himself. He never does anything selfless, but he steers clear of murder. Judging by this, does he have the D&D "evil" alignment?

Your burglar is evil.The fact that he breaks the law is chaotic. His reasons for doing so and disregard for the welfare of others are what make him evil.

hamishspence
2014-01-27, 10:47 AM
3. Too little info to tell if he's neutral or evil. Either way he's chaotic.
Killing innocents isn't the only thing that is evil, even killing guilty is evil unless it's under the right circumstances (in which case it's probably neutral, killing is very rarely good). Oppression is very much on the side of evil, any kind of sadism is evil.

Fits with BoVD, at least. And "Stealing from the needy" is characterised as a Corrupt act in FC2.

Wyatt8000
2014-01-27, 12:03 PM
2. A list of monsters that are vulnerable to the kinds of damage you do is meta-gaming, if your character isn't privy to that information then neither should the player be, especially if they can't be trusted to not meta-game.
Using such a list would be considered blatant metagaming at most tables.
... I thought being aware of the rules of the game would be a good thing; then I should also avoid reading creature lists?

Telonius
2014-01-27, 12:41 PM
Well, there's kind of a line. If you've been gaming long enough, you can remember offhand that anything undead has no constitution score, is immune to sneak attacks, and is probably going to be harmed by positive energy. You're going to know that, for dragons, they're harmed by their opposite element, and are color-coded for your convenience. You're going to know that Werewolves don't like silver, and that Fey usually hate Cold Iron. That sort of thing, while it might be technically metagaming, isn't really considered bad form. It's close enough to common knowledge that nobody really cares.

When you start cross-referencing lists during gameplay, that's much more metagamey than is acceptable at most tables. For example, if you're going up against a bunch of Legion Devils, most people aren't going to know offhand that they share a damage pool and gain a bonus for every other Legion Devil in the area. If it's something you would need to look up to find, it's not really considered fair play to be able to have it available. (There is always going to be that one crazy guy who actually does remember that the Pit Fiend gets DR 15/good and silver, or that Grimlocks' Blindsight can be foiled by sonic attacks or strong odors, but he's a fringe case).

tl, dr: Usually, when it comes to monsters, if you (player) have to look it up, your character shouldn't know it without a knowledge check.

mucat
2014-01-27, 01:25 PM
1) If player A has 5 ranks in a skill that doesn't have immediate combat relevance, and player B has 10 ranks in that skill, and they are in the same team, are A's ranks pretty much wasted? It seems to me that with non-combat skills, generally only the highest skill in the group really matters, is that about right?
To me (and this is purely subjective), one of the marks of a good GM is making sure this is not true. In real life, you don't stop trying to learn a skill because one of your friends is better at it than you are; if anything, you focus more on that skill because you've found a good teacher! A campaign should be a rich enough story to reflect that.

In practical terms, people have already mentioned the benefits of Aid Another actions, and the fact that when one character rolls a 1 on a check, her less-skilled protege might come through with a 20. For social skills, also remember that in a lot of situations, it makes no sense to say "let me go get my spokesman to talk with you." That team of medics might might think your Cha-22 bard is a great guy, but they won't talk shop with him the way they will with another doctor. Your wizard might be the only one with the credentials to even get inside the Arcanists' Library, and your rogue had better go alone to talk to Charlie the Fence, or the whole damned deal is off.

This isn't to say no one should play a low-charisma character with no social skills...just that such a choice will have interesting consequences.



3) Let's say that X is a burglar. Throughout his life, he selfishly steals from innocent people and gives to himself. He never does anything selfless, but he steers clear of murder. Judging by this, does he have the D&D "evil" alignment?
I would consider a character who harms others for selfish reasons evil-aligned, though not as deeply evil as someone who harms them because he enjoys it.

For your hypothetical burglar, a lot depends on how badly he harms his victims. A jewel thief who targets the wealthy, never reduces them to poverty, and never resorts to violence might cling to the south edge of neutral. (A character doing this for selfless reasons would be the classic Chaotic Good rebel!) The guy who steals potentially lifesaving medical supplies from a free clinic during a plague outbreak, and sells them on the black market, is as thoroughly evil as any murderer.

Of course, once you take a closer look at any of these people, things are likely to get more complicated...which is why I don't find the alignment system all that useful in the first place. When GMing, I often scrap alignment (as a game mechanic) entirely, or heavily house-rule the way alignment-based magic works.

Mastikator
2014-01-27, 01:27 PM
... I thought being aware of the rules of the game would be a good thing; then I should also avoid reading creature lists?
You should be aware of the rules of the game so that when its your turn to act you know which actions you can take and make expedient decisions, not to maximize the outcome by exploiting knowledge your character doesn't have.
The rules of the game and the content of the game are two different things, and you should be mindful of the knowledge that your character have and be able to justify all of it. If your character knows that wraiths are neutralized by sunlight then you need to say how he knows that, "because I read it in the monster manual" isn't good enough, either it make sense that he knows or he doesn't know. If you use that knowledge then you're basically cheating as far as I'm concerned.
Of course, some DMs are more lenient with that, so you may get away with it anyway.
But it is cheating and it does harm to everyone's experience.

Airk
2014-01-27, 02:30 PM
Only in RPGs are you expected to pretend you don't know things, lest you be accused of "metagaming".

This is part of what makes the medium interesting and at the same time infuriating. Remember, though, that most of the time you're not playing these games to 'win' them, so it's not necessarily super crucial to figure out just what the best play is. You are, in theory, supposed to be doing your best to play as your character...except that many times these games are run or implemented in such a way that doing so can thoroughly diminish your fun.

hamishspence
2014-01-27, 03:22 PM
A jewel thief who targets the wealthy, never reduces them to poverty, and never resorts to violence might cling to the south edge of neutral.

Sounds a lot like OOTS's Julio Scoundrel, who by Word of Giant is Chaotic Neutral (though he does do good-ish deeds when the whim strikes him, and when doing such would annoy his enemies).

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0392.html

veti
2014-01-27, 03:53 PM
1) If player A has 5 ranks in a skill that doesn't have immediate combat relevance, and player B has 10 ranks in that skill, and they are in the same team, are A's ranks pretty much wasted? It seems to me that with non-combat skills, generally only the highest skill in the group really matters, is that about right?

That's true, if and only if you're playing a highly simplified version of the game. If your party always stays together, always works together as a well-oiled machine, shares everything, nobody keeps secrets or tries to cheat their teammates, and you never run into a challenge that requires a single character to do more than one thing. Break any of those conditions, and it's not true.


2) Is there anywhere a list of damage types, with descriptions of what kinds enemies are resistant or vulnerable to each?

I agree that would be nice to have, but consider that monsters are published in who knows how many separate books, and new modules routinely introduce new monsters - it would be a maintenance nightmare. The only way I can imagine it being done is on a wiki, and I don't know of one.


3) Let's say that X is a burglar. Throughout his life, he selfishly steals from innocent people and gives to himself. He never does anything selfless, but he steers clear of murder. Judging by this, does he have the D&D "evil" alignment?

By what I take from Order of the Stick, Neverwinter Nights (the 2002 video game) and other D&D media it seems to me - D&D "evil" alignment can only come from killing innocents (and perhaps raping and severe mutilation), is that about right?

I really wouldn't take 'Neverwinter Nights' as authoritative about anything. It's a great game, but the alignment decisions are only as deep as each module author chooses to make them. OOTS is a lot more complex, but it only describes so much. Alignment questions are always hotly debated, and if this sort of thing bothers you, you really need to talk to your DM about it out-of-character, because every single DM has their own interpretations and ideas. (And don't let them say "We'll just play it as written" - that's a cop-out, because "as written" is absolutely chock-full of ambiguities and subjective judgment calls.)

mucat
2014-01-27, 06:47 PM
Only in RPGs are you expected to pretend you don't know things, lest you be accused of "metagaming".
You're never supposed to pretend you don't know something. Just to remember that your character doesn't always know the same things you do.

Thrudd
2014-01-28, 01:41 AM
... I thought being aware of the rules of the game would be a good thing; then I should also avoid reading creature lists?

A part of the fun as a player is figuring out the strengths and weaknesses of different creatures and learning tactics to deal with them. There is nothing stopping you from reading the monster books, but if you are going to be a player rather than the DM your first experience may be more fun if some things are a surprise that you discover while playing the game. For experienced players who have practically memorized all the books, it can be hard to roleplay as new adventurers that aren't supposed to know all those details. Sometimes this is addressed by DM's creating new custom monsters that will be a surprise to their players.
If you are going to be the dungeon master, you should absolutely read all the books you can, at least the core books.

Mastikator
2014-01-28, 02:45 AM
Only in RPGs are you expected to pretend you don't know things, lest you be accused of "metagaming".

This is part of what makes the medium interesting and at the same time infuriating. Remember, though, that most of the time you're not playing these games to 'win' them, so it's not necessarily super crucial to figure out just what the best play is. You are, in theory, supposed to be doing your best to play as your character...except that many times these games are run or implemented in such a way that doing so can thoroughly diminish your fun.

You're expected to pretend (roleplay) that you're someone else who incidentally doesn't know things you do. It's kind of the main feature of RPGs.

SiuiS
2014-01-28, 02:53 AM
Hello. I've skimmed through some rulebooks, but never played Dungeons&Dragons, and I have some questions about it (I'm interested in D&D3.5 and Pathfinder, but the questions probably aren't version-specific).


1) If player A has 5 ranks in a skill that doesn't have immediate combat relevance, and player B has 10 ranks in that skill, and they are in the same team, are A's ranks pretty much wasted? It seems to me that with non-combat skills, generally only the highest skill in the group really matters, is that about right?

This depends on gameplay. For games where players split up, and the party is not always able to be together; sometimes. Open locks is something that you only need one person to have (along with most knowledge skills), but stuff like ride, jump, swim, hide, heal you want everyone to be able to do.

Keep in mind that for some challenges, this means one player will have a hard time and his friend won't. That's usually on purpose.



2) Is there anywhere a list of damage types, with descriptions of what kinds enemies are resistant or vulnerable to each? In the rulebooks, each monster entry desribes the relevant damage types - but when making decisions about your character, eg choosing spells by damage type, you'd want it the other way round - each damage type entry to describe the monsters who are particularly vulnerable or resistant to it.

Possibly. The only three damage types for non-magical attack are slash, piercing and bludgeoning, though, so every attack tends toc. Over at least one.

Magic doesn't really do damage types in the same way; magic damage is usually just damage, and you can't defend against it the same. This is why elemental resistance is a separate thing.



3) Let's say that X is a burglar. Throughout his life, he selfishly steals from innocent people and gives to himself. He never does anything selfless, but he steers clear of murder. Judging by this, does he have the D&D "evil" alignment?

By what I take from Order of the Stick, Neverwinter Nights (the 2002 video game) and other D&D media it seems to me - D&D "evil" alignment can only come from killing innocents (and perhaps raping and severe mutilation), is that about right? Eg extortion and the violation of private property of innocent people, and political corruption - never seem to make anyone "evil" enough to warrant the alignment, even if purposefully and selfishly practiced throughout their lives at great cost to the people around them?

This is highly variable based on which edition of the game you play and how the DM implements alignment.