Why is min-maxing bad when you need it to play?

[Boci]

Aside from Knowledge checks

Does it though?

"In many cases, you can use this skill to identify monsters and their special powers or vulnerabilities. In general, the DC of such a check equals 10 + the monster’s HD. A successful check allows you to remember a bit of useful information about that monster."

That doesn't sound like it would tell you how dead you are. Unless "identify" also gives you CR, which I doubt it will since CR isn't really suppose to exist in game. I would assume "identify" gives you a name and three word description. Maybe you luck out, and one of its special abilities is "finger of death as a spell like ability" which probably tell you it isn't CR 2, but short of that knowledge checks are surprisingly unrealible, especially since higher CR monsters will need a higher knolwedge check to identify. Unless a players metagames knowing a 17 not identifying the creature means it is high HD and thus probably CR, they're not goin to know to run away.


Sense Motive

I'm guessing you're refering to the Complete Adventurer expanded use for sense motive, since core won't help you. The new one will (provided the creature doesn't have any ranks in bluff), but it requires you to spend a standard action and be within 30ft, which is not that safe.


"red shirts"?

Sure, that works, but the tactic has practical and ethical questions.

[Florian]

Sure, that works, but the tactic has practical and ethical questions.

"Red Shirts" in the sense that you show the power and danger of a monster before the actual encounter. Example: In the setting I use, Hellknights are a highly competent knightly order and each one must have bested a devil with greater HD in single combat to gain entry (PrC requirements, earliest entry is at 6th level). As these are well-known facts in the setting, you can describe the deadlines of an over-CR monster by describing how it takes down and munches on one of those knights or showcase how an Save or Die abilities/Aura of Insanity mows down some commoners. Most of the time, that will serve to take the point across. If not, good luck.


Only if you don't bother to make it not contrived

Why should you bother? As a working adult, I just have limited free time to engage in hobbies. RPGs are already a luxury because they need prep time outside the actual gaming session. For me that means a weekly group of Pathfinder and a biweekly group of L5R. If I have to "sugar coat" it in verisimilitude or "convince the character", than no, that's wasted time. You want to play, then bring a character that is eager and willing to play along, as "Ok, the usual. We need to fly, we need to drug B.A." is only getting in the way.

[Max_Killjoy]

If that's all that happens to them, the the player characters can't take care of anything. In fact, their loved ones also get rescued, in every game I've had in which they were involved at all.


Whether they get rescued or not is entirely beside the point, which is why I didn't even mention it.

The point is that when their only involvement in the campaign is when they're used as leverage against the PC, when they're in danger or threatened or killed or missing or whatever... it gets old and contrived in a hurry, and provides perverse incentive to have no connections.

There are so many other ways in which those characters could end up involved in the game, although some of those other ways do involve elements other than conflict and combat. (Example, I once had only two of six players show up for a session due to weather, so I ran the two through one of the PCs going to visit his home village, learning that his sister was engaged, dealing with a minor crime spree mystery, and exactly one "round" of barely-threatening combat the entire time. No one was under mortal threat, or missing, or possessed, or... whatever. The village was in no danger of being burned down or turned to undead. And the two players had an absolutely blast.)

But if the focus of the game is so narrow that only "fighting, loot, and XP" counts, then I see no reason at all for the GM or other players to care in the first place whether a PC has any connections at all.




Something is going to get used as leverage to get the PCs to the adventures. That doesn't change.


If a PC only moves when a large and scary lever is applied, then that's an entirely different problem.




That may be true for some players, but I find that experience points and loot and rescuing people I care about is at least as satisfying as just experience points and loot.


The list of motives and elements that can make a game "satisfying" is far larger than that, and "rescuing loved ones" is a very small part of it. Your post appears to be an assertion that the choice is between "XP and loot", or "XP, loot, and rescuing people you care about".




A. I've never had that incompetent a DM. In fact, my characters' families have been threatened, lost in the woods, kidnapped, and then we rescued them. Are there really DMs who are setting up games in which the PCs always fail? And if so, why do people play with these DMs?

If the DM is arranging that the rescue mission always fails, then it makes no difference to me whether we fail to rescue our loved ones, the princess, a village full of strangers, or a stray cat. In over 40 years of role-playing, I've never had such a bad DM. But if I did, I would blame the DM who did it, not the backstory he used as a tool.


Who said anything about always failing? I don't recall saying anything about success or failure.

The analogy was about the predictable, cliched pattern that develops.




B. Yes, of course a series of D&D sessions is just like an adventure TV series. We're trying to tell a series of stories. How many times has Lois Lane been kidnapped, robbed, or just been present at an earthquake?


And it gets contrived, and old, and boring, and predictable, and cliched, whether it's a TV series or a game. It gets even more so because the pattern carries over between works of fiction, and it caries over between games.




C. Yes, having the loved ones threatened each session by monsters of exactly the right CR is exactly as contrived as going to the tavern and finding a quest that sends them each session to fight monsters of exactly the right CR. The basis of a D&D campaign is contrived. But don't blame the PCs' families for that.


No, I blame the DMs for that, whether it's always "tavern and quest of the week" or always "threatened cared-about-NPC of the week".

As a GM, if you ask your players to give their characters things they care about, it is incumbent upon you to vary how you involve those things they care about -- have a bigger toolbox than just the hammer, and stop looking at all families and home towns and love interests as nails to be pounded on until the PC reacts.

[Max_Killjoy]

"Red Shirts" in the sense that you show the power and danger of a monster before the actual encounter. Example: In the setting I use, Hellknights are a highly competent knightly order and each one must have bested a devil with greater HD in single combat to gain entry (PrC requirements, earliest entry is at 6th level). As these are well-known facts in the setting, you can describe the deadlines of an over-CR monster by describing how it takes down and munches on one of those knights or showcase how an Save or Die abilities/Aura of Insanity mows down some commoners. Most of the time, that will serve to take the point across. If not, good luck.


Which makes it sound like your Hellknights get "Worfed". Eventually people stop taking them seriously, and they become a running joke.

[Boci]

"Red Shirts" in the sense that you show the power and danger of a monster before the actual encounter. Example: In the setting I use, Hellknights are a highly competent knightly order and each one must have bested a devil with greater HD in single combat to gain entry (PrC requirements, earliest entry is at 6th level). As these are well-known facts in the setting, you can describe the deadlines of an over-CR monster by describing how it takes down and munches on one of those knights or showcase how an Save or Die abilities/Aura of Insanity mows down some commoners. Most of the time, that will serve to take the point across. If not, good luck.

I doubt that's what he meant, since Quertus has been advocating Combat as War, and in war you don't always get a handy demonstration to see the power level of an enemy before you engage.


Which makes it sound like your Hellknights get "Worfed". Eventually people stop taking them seriously, and they become a running joke.

Only if it happens a lot. In most games its rare for PCs to be face to face with monsters that they cannot hope to defeat, and if its just once or twice it can be memorable, serve a point, whilst still keeping the hellknights as the awesome order of warriors they are.

[PersonMan]

Why should you bother? As a working adult, I just have limited free time to engage in hobbies. RPGs are already a luxury because they need prep time outside the actual gaming session. For me that means a weekly group of Pathfinder and a biweekly group of L5R. If I have to "sugar coat" it in verisimilitude or "convince the character", than no, that's wasted time. You want to play, then bring a character that is eager and willing to play along, as "Ok, the usual. We need to fly, we need to drug B.A." is only getting in the way.

Why should you? Because it makes the game more fun. Otherwise, there's no need. So in your case, you shouldn't. In my case, I absolutely should.

The reason I worded my previous statement the way I did was because of the claim of "The basis of a D&D campaign is contrived", which implied if not outright stated that every game of D&D is of said variety, and I disagreed. In hindsight, a more neutral formulation like "Not if you put in the time and effort to make it not" would have been better, but as-is the wording shows my preference quite clearly.

EDIT: I think the key difference can be explained this way: For you, the work in question is unnecessary, so it's either a waste or, at best, inefficiently-used time - and time is limited. So it's a bad idea. For me, not investing that time drags down the entire experience, making it an especially valuable use of time since it enhances all of the time spent playing.

[Max_Killjoy]

Why should you bother? As a working adult, I just have limited free time to engage in hobbies. RPGs are already a luxury because they need prep time outside the actual gaming session. For me that means a weekly group of Pathfinder and a biweekly group of L5R. If I have to "sugar coat" it in verisimilitude or "convince the character", than no, that's wasted time. You want to play, then bring a character that is eager and willing to play along, as "Ok, the usual. We need to fly, we need to drug B.A." is only getting in the way.



Why should you? Because it makes the game more fun. Otherwise, there's no need. So in your case, you shouldn't. In my case, I absolutely should.

The reason I worded my previous statement the way I did was because of the claim of "The basis of a D&D campaign is contrived", which implied if not outright stated that every game of D&D is of said variety, and I disagreed. In hindsight, a more neutral formulation like "Not if you put in the time and effort to make it not" would have been better, but as-is the wording shows my preference quite clearly.

EDIT: I think the key difference can be explained this way: For you, the work in question is unnecessary, so it's either a waste or, at best, inefficiently-used time - and time is limited. So it's a bad idea. For me, not investing that time drags down the entire experience, making it an especially valuable use of time since it enhances all of the time spent playing.


You're both right.

It's possible to make a game less contrived and more "natural feeling" with even a moderate bit of work on tying things together and dealing with more complex PC motives.

It's also absolutely reasonable to expect the players who show up with characters who do not need massive effort or a running "drug BA" gimmick to get them involved in the events of the campaign. I've had my absolute fill of PCs who would be minor non-POV secondary characters appearing in three scenes in most fiction... or the "POV character" of too many lit-fic novels (books that also have really long names and lots of positive critical response...)

[Quertus]

I doubt that's what he meant, since Quertus has been advocating Combat as War, and in war you don't always get a handy demonstration to see the power level of an enemy before you engage.

True. But, in a more realistic world, you'd be steeped in the history and stories. You'd know the tale of the Hellknights who surrounded an orb of many eyes, only to die in many horrific ways. You wouldn't need to see them die in front of you to understand the threat it represents.

But, since no-one wants to get a PHD in "Quertus' World" to go along with their Associates Degree in 3e, especially for a drop in game, well, sometimes, you have to cheat to make things as close to real as feasible.

So, while that may not be my preferred implementation of the "red shirts" technique, it is a valid implementation nonetheless.


I've had my absolute fill of PCs who would be minor non-POV secondary characters appearing in three scenes in most fiction... or the "POV character" of too many lit-fic novels (books that also have really long names and lots of positive critical response...)

Just curious what you meant by this - what type of characters, and your fill of seeing others play them, or of being forced to play them yourself?

[Max_Killjoy]

Just curious what you meant by this - what type of characters, and your fill of seeing others play them, or of being forced to play them yourself?


Having to be in the same games with them; they were often repeatedly made by the same specific players.

Characters who possess neither the mindset, nor the skills / abilities, nor the motivations, to make them any sort of protagonists/heroes/main characters in a work of fiction, nor to make them worthwhile PCs in an RPG.

* The guy who just wants to run his shop and go home to his family at night and constantly has to be dragged out to engage with the content of the campaign ever damn session -- not the sort who starts out reluctant, but rather the sort defined by their reluctance.

* The "over their head" character who stays "over their head", or the inept character who never gains any competence... because their defining trait is their utter uselessness and the player has decided that making them anything better than utterly useless would "violate the concept"... so a year into the campaign they still can't get out of their own way and constantly have to be rescued, or at best they hide when anything dangerous starts.

* The character who should be useful, but the player steadfastly refuses to make their mechanical competence reflect their fluff/concept competence because "that would be optimizing".

* The sort of character who, in most science fiction or fantasy would be that guy the protagonists run into at a shop, or have to rescue when the ship is boarded by pirates, and then we never see them mentioned again.

* The sort of character so tertiary that they never get a name in the book or movie.

* The sort who is the main character of a "literary fiction" novel (probably with a 17-word title) detailing a random week of his life and spending entire chapters on his trips to the local market and his inability to decide on oranges or tangerines for this weekend when he has the kid, and the entire book he's waffling over whether to get a dog but never actually comes to a decision....

[PhoenixPhyre]

Having to be in the same games with them; they were often repeatedly made by the same specific players.

Characters who possess neither the mindset, nor the skills / abilities, nor the motivations, to make them any sort of protagonists/heroes/main characters in a work of fiction, nor to make them worthwhile PCs in an RPG.

<snip>

Wow. A rare time I'm in absolute, full agreement. None of those are proper RPG PCs in any game I'd like to play. There may be games where they fit, but I don't want to play those styles of games. And especially not fit for a D&D-style adventuring game (heroic people doing heroic things heroically).

I tell players to make characters that want to be there and that the rest of the party wants to have along. No obnoxious jerks, no anti-optimized drags-on-party-resources, no "I'm just a crafter who can't really adventure", no "I'm a god/noble with castle/whatever."

[Florian]

There may be games where they fit, but I don't want to play those styles of games.

I often play games that are more "down to earth" in power level and story impact, but even then they don´t fit in due to passivity or not wanting to participate (I don´t consider "Slice of Life" stuff to be game, really). In most of the cases, I just offer them to be there when we game, sit at the table, share a beer and have a chat, but not play along.

[Guizonde]

* The guy who just wants to run his shop and go home to his family at night and constantly has to be dragged out to engage with the content of the campaign ever damn session -- not the sort who starts out reluctant, but rather the sort defined by their reluctance.

* The "over their head" character who stays "over their head", or the inept character who never gains any competence... because their defining trait is their utter uselessness and the player has decided that making them anything better than utterly useless would "violate the concept"... so a year into the campaign they still can't get out of their own way and constantly have to be rescued, or at best they hide when anything dangerous starts.

* The character who should be useful, but the player steadfastly refuses to make their mechanical competence reflect their fluff/concept competence because "that would be optimizing".


i chuckled at that, imagining a situation where i'd be confronted to this player.

unless you're serious and have had personal experience with such players, in which case i'm mortified for you.

there's anti-optimizing, and anti-game. one i'll forgive (playing a drunken monk and acting like the main damage dealer? sure! go ahead, i'll be your backup!), the other i'd like to share a cup of something with the player and ask for motivations as to why one would play that style of load. i mean, you're not only a load to yourself but to your team.

[Boci]

True. But, in a more realistic world, you'd be steeped in the history and stories. You'd know the tale of the Hellknights who surrounded an orb of many eyes, only to die in many horrific ways. You wouldn't need to see them die in front of you to understand the threat it represents.

Except you kinda do. The hellknights after all could just be 2nd level fighters with good equipment, an infernal aethetic and good PR agent. Yes, in a realistic world you are going to hear stories. Plural. You'll hear how a troll once ate the entire town guard of a city over the course of the day and shrugged off the mage guild's spells, but also how another troll in the neibouring kingdom was killed by a shepard boy with a sling shot to the head.

[Max_Killjoy]

Wow. A rare time I'm in absolute, full agreement. None of those are proper RPG PCs in any game I'd like to play. There may be games where they fit, but I don't want to play those styles of games. And especially not fit for a D&D-style adventuring game (heroic people doing heroic things heroically).

I tell players to make characters that want to be there and that the rest of the party wants to have along. No obnoxious jerks, no anti-optimized drags-on-party-resources, no "I'm just a crafter who can't really adventure", no "I'm a god/noble with castle/whatever."



I often play games that are more "down to earth" in power level and story impact, but even then they don´t fit in due to passivity or not wanting to participate (I don´t consider "Slice of Life" stuff to be game, really). In most of the cases, I just offer them to be there when we game, sit at the table, share a beer and have a chat, but not play along.


A "slice of life" session or side-arc can be work as part of a campaign, as a counterpoint or "emotional balancing" element, for example, or as a side-session with one or two players as opposed to the entire group. This is usually a bit more workable if the campaign centers more around a particular locale so that the characters' lives outside of "the campaign" are accessible without derailing or diverting the "main arc".

Unless the campaign demands immediate engagement without any buildup or framing first, I'm fine with the character who starts out reluctant, or who is an unremarkable person thrown into remarkable circumstances... but they have to adapt and find some reason to engage with what's going on. The character who starts out just wanting to be with his family realizes that what's going on is a threat to his family and "steps up" to join the fight and protect the place his family lives, stop the threat to the things he cares about, etc.

[Max_Killjoy]

i chuckled at that, imagining a situation where i'd be confronted to this player.

unless you're serious and have had personal experience with such players, in which case i'm mortified for you.

there's anti-optimizing, and anti-game. one i'll forgive (playing a drunken monk and acting like the main damage dealer? sure! go ahead, i'll be your backup!), the other i'd like to share a cup of something with the player and ask for motivations as to why one would play that style of load. i mean, you're not only a load to yourself but to your team.


I have played with those players, and they ran those characters.

[Florian]

Except you kinda do. The hellknights after all could just be 2nd level fighters with good equipment, an infernal aethetic and good PR agent. Yes, in a realistic world you are going to hear stories. Plural. You'll hear how a troll once ate the entire town guard of a city over the course of the day and shrugged off the mage guild's spells, but also how another troll in the neibouring kingdom was killed by a shepard boy with a sling shot to the head.

I used that specific example, because in the game world I use, there are some things you cannot fake, act like, or make copies of. A "realistic world" often doesn't include people having a tangible "aura" that's unique and unmistakeable, as an example, so we tend to discuss these matters in the way we understand it, which certainly doesn´t include an "Aura of the Hellknight". Same holds true for a "Halcyon Aura" and other some such things, that people above 6th level tend to develop and exhibit.


A "slice of life" session or side-arc can be work as part of a campaign, as a counterpoint or "emotional balancing" element, for example, or as a side-session with one or two players as opposed to the entire group. This is usually a bit more workable if the campaign centers more around a particular locale so that the characters' lives outside of "the campaign" are accessible without derailing or diverting the "main arc".

Unless the campaign demands immediate engagement without any buildup or framing first, I'm fine with the character who starts out reluctant, or who is an unremarkable person thrown into remarkable circumstances... but they have to adapt and find some reason to engage with what's going on. The character who starts out just wanting to be with his family realizes that what's going on is a threat to his family and "steps up" to join the fight and protect the place his family lives, stop the threat to the things he cares about, etc.

I´m negatively influenced by the german RPG scene, where D&D is not really existent and DSA is the mainstream leader. It´s common here that you find one player, we call the character an "Alric", that doesn't want to "step up" or make an "transition", but keeps RPing "slice of life" and trusts on the gm giving up and handing them a free pass for bypassing each challenge. So, "Alric the baker" will never be "Alric the hero that started as a baker".

[Boci]

I used that specific example, because in the game world I use, there are some things you cannot fake, act like, or make copies of. A "realistic world" often doesn't include people having a tangible "aura" that's unique and unmistakeable, as an example, so we tend to discuss these matters in the way we understand it, which certainly doesn´t include an "Aura of the Hellknight". Same holds true for a "Halcyon Aura" and other some such things, that people above 6th level tend to develop and exhibit.

Alexander the Great's soldiers believed that if they pressed too far east, demon/giants would devour them. I'm sorry but no, the hellknights are not rumour proof. Peasants are not reliable recorders of a knights power. The fear aura could be mundane fear to an organization called hellknights, which is an entierly reasonable response. When I was 14 I was stopped by the police after they had reports of someone spitting on them in my streets. I wasn't involved, it was the first time I had heard of it, and yet I was trembling talking to them.

[Black Knight 2k]

I would guess people who don't like min-maxing would generally be more interested in systems that don't require it as much, and maybe have more focus on the narrative aspects?

[Florian]

Alexander the Great's soldiers believed that if they pressed too far east, demon/giants would devour them. I'm sorry but no, the hellknights are not rumour proof. Peasants are not reliable recorders of a knights power. The fear aura could be mundane fear to an organization called hellknights, which is an entierly reasonable response. When I was 14 I was stopped by the police after they had reports of someone spitting on them in my streets. I wasn't involved, it was the first time I had heard of it, and yet I was trembling talking to them.

Sorry, Boci, you don´t seem to have a firm grip on what it means when you drop the "Natural" and firmly replace it with the "Supernatural". The Worldwound is populated by demons, every mountain is populated by giants, the Human homeland of Atlantis was sunk by a god called down for the stars and the few surviving human "empires" cover barely the edge of our mediterranean sea. The night sky is really the Dark Tapestry and it hungers to devours your soul, and so on.

[Boci]

Sorry, Boci, you don´t seem to have a firm grip on what it means when you drop the "Natural" and firmly replace it with the "Supernatural". The Worldwound is populated by demons, every mountain is populated by giants, the Human homeland of Atlantis was sunk by a god called down for the stars and the few surviving human "empires" cover barely the edge of our mediterranean sea. The night sky is really the Dark Tapestry and it hungers to devours your soul, and so on.

Yes, that does rathe undermine your point. In an age of no magic, people invented demons/giants. In an age of magic....peasants would certainly not be mistaken about what a hellknight, or any knight for that matter, could do because....reasons? The existence of magic will just make the exaggerations more believable.

"A knight in Tulsworth snapped his fingers and half the village burst into flame"

What actually happened was the knight led a unit of soliders into the town to search for a traitor who was hiding there, and as part of the search effort ordered the tavern birned down. But between panicked eye witnesses, later embelishments and honests mistakes, by the 19th reletelling it had the above. How does the existence of spellcasters who could genuinly do that, or something very close, somehow prove the nights cannot be distorted by rumour?

[PhoenixPhyre]

A "slice of life" session or side-arc can be work as part of a campaign, as a counterpoint or "emotional balancing" element, for example, or as a side-session with one or two players as opposed to the entire group. This is usually a bit more workable if the campaign centers more around a particular locale so that the characters' lives outside of "the campaign" are accessible without derailing or diverting the "main arc".

Unless the campaign demands immediate engagement without any buildup or framing first, I'm fine with the character who starts out reluctant, or who is an unremarkable person thrown into remarkable circumstances... but they have to adapt and find some reason to engage with what's going on. The character who starts out just wanting to be with his family realizes that what's going on is a threat to his family and "steps up" to join the fight and protect the place his family lives, stop the threat to the things he cares about, etc.

Yeah. I don't mind a "reluctant/unskilled but steps up/learns" character. I'm not to fond of slice of life as a general rule (since my tastes lean to the fantastic and active--I strongly dislike novels with no plot), but as a side thing it can work.

One of the best sessions I've had with a group was when we spent the whole time with a group of (friendly) goblins--interacting with the kids, helping the gatherers/fishers, etc. It was even meaningful--it changed a formerly stuck-up, xenophobic high elf character into someone much more friendly because the kids took a liking to him (and were egged on by the psychic warlock). Only one player could talk to them, so there were lots of hand-signs, telepathic broadcasts, and other work-arounds. It was a nice pause in a high-tension time.

[Knaight]

Sorry, Boci, you don´t seem to have a firm grip on what it means when you drop the "Natural" and firmly replace it with the "Supernatural". The Worldwound is populated by demons, every mountain is populated by giants, the Human homeland of Atlantis was sunk by a god called down for the stars and the few surviving human "empires" cover barely the edge of our mediterranean sea. The night sky is really the Dark Tapestry and it hungers to devours your soul, and so on.

The presence of the actual supernatural would hardly inhibit the effects of superstition and rumor. If anything it would allow them to grow unchecked.

[Florian]

The presence of the actual supernatural would hardly inhibit the effects of superstition and rumor. If anything it would allow them to grow unchecked.

Try to get into an actual mythic mindset: You kill the god Rhein, the river Rhein that is is the essence of ceases to exist, slowly but surely, at the same rate the body of the god Rhein decays. The clerics, prophets and oracles of Rhein will surely pull their hair, rage, weep and cry as their power wanes...

[Knaight]

Try to get into an actual mythic mindset: You kill the god Rhein, the river Rhein that is is the essence of ceases to exist, slowly but surely, at the same rate the body of the god Rhein decays. The clerics, prophets and oracles of Rhein will surely pull their hair, rage, weep and cry as their power wanes...

The actual mythic mindset doesn't preclude people being wrong.

[Boci]

Try to get into an actual mythic mindset: You kill the god Rhein, the river Rhein that is is the essence of ceases to exist, slowly but surely, at the same rate the body of the god Rhein decays. The clerics, prophets and oracles of Rhein will surely pull their hair, rage, weep and cry as their power wanes...

"Who killed the god Rhein?"

"I heard it was the elves of Ildur"

"The priest of Nocticula said it was the Lady Shadow herself!"

"No, it was the wanderer Lilt, with a staff carved from the world tree,"

"Wasn't it the hellknights?"

"Rhein never died, that the Heart of Celestial Plane of Keltar, being consumed by the Abyss. Lilt just witnessed it"

[KorvinStarmast]

Organized play isn't tailored to the player or his character. Nobody gives a rat's ass about who your character is or where he's from and we know he's on the train wherever that leads. The only thing that matters is what your character can do. You are firmly in gamist territory. Show up with your strongest game piece. It's a little like going to the gym for a pick up basketball game. :smallwink: When you are new in town.


NPCs can bump into a gang of trolls their very first day, because they don't have a DM picking their fights... Where do you think all of that treasure comes from? :smallbiggrin:

A use for kender! Yeah, see also sharkbait. :smallcool:


This is really still going? Yes.

I find it fascinating that you create a thread for something you answer yourself, even in the very question you ask.
How on earth did this thread get so long from such a simple question? Your answer is here (http://media.wizards.com/2016/downloads/DND/DMBasicRulesV05.pdf#page=47). :smallbiggrin: (on page 47 if your browser doesn't take you to the page)

I would guess people who don't like min-maxing would generally be more interested in systems that don't require it as much, and maybe have more focus on the narrative aspects? There are something like 4000 RPGs, and I think most of them are in print. Chances are there's something for everyone. It make take some looking, though.

[Jormengand]

Your answer is here (http://media.wizards.com/2016/downloads/DND/DMBasicRulesV05.pdf#page=47)

Don't you hate it when a perfectly good debate gets ruined by triceratops?

[Quertus]

Having to be in the same games with them; they were often repeatedly made by the same specific players.

* The "over their head" character who stays "over their head", or the inept character who never gains any competence... because their defining trait is their utter uselessness and the player has decided that making them anything better than utterly useless would "violate the concept"... so a year into the campaign they still can't get out of their own way and constantly have to be rescued, or at best they hide when anything dangerous starts.

* The sort of character who, in most science fiction or fantasy would be that guy the protagonists run into at a shop, or have to rescue when the ship is boarded by pirates, and then we never see them mentioned again.

* The sort of character so tertiary that they never get a name in the book or movie.

I've made characters (and known people ) somewhat like the inept one you mentioned (Quertus doesn't qualify - he's the best there is at Spellcraft, and very adept in numerous areas, just not at the combat focus of D&D), but it's hardly my default, and "hide when things get dangerous" honestly isn't a bad plan for many characters.

But I still don't understand what you're trying to get at by this whole unnamed NPC tertiary concept. Do you perhaps mean that they have all the impact and personality of wet cardboard?


no "I'm a god/noble with castle/whatever."

I'm so glad my GMs don't make that requirement - roughly half my characters are actually a previously ascended deity "in disguise", because I can't make up that many different personalities that quickly.


the other i'd like to share a cup of something with the player and ask for motivations as to why one would play that style of load. i mean, you're not only a load to yourself but to your team.

I'm not quite them, but perhaps I can shed some light on the topic?

I view an RPG as many things. But, first and foremost, as an opportunity to roleplay.

I'm a war gamer at heart. But I never understood how some people could play the same game for years - or even decades - and still not see the elephant, still not get it. How they could possibly be so bad when they have so much experience? This was quite a puzzle to me.

So I built Quertus, my signature character for whom this account is named, to explore that aspect of the human condition. I made Quertus as a head in the clouds academic, who fervently believes* that a) he is not trained for battle; b) he lacks the aptitude for combat; c) it is most unbecoming for someone of his station to attempt to learn such arts; d) he lacks the tools necessary for battle; e) there is some "secret sauce" that proper war mages are taught; f) his successes** can be attributed to him focusing on the "not combat" side of things. I further cemented this mindset from another direction, by having Quertus have lost family in the war when he was young, making him not relish fighting, plus making him a slight coward.

So, by stacking the deck as far as possible towards Quertus being as difficult as possible to train in combat tactics, I created a character who successfully emulated the tactical ineptitude of some of the players I knew. And, as it turned out, I loved the character! As an added bonus, in "mage superiority 3e", he didn't overshadow the Fighter or Monk, even at epic level. Win/win!

* mind you, this is the first time I've ever tried to put all that in writing. It's certainly not something any PC, player, or GM has ever known about Quertus.
** which, to date, include saving over 100 worlds from "end of the world" scenarios.

[Guizonde]

I'm not quite them, but perhaps I can shed some light on the topic?

I view an RPG as many things. But, first and foremost, as an opportunity to roleplay.

I'm a war gamer at heart. But I never understood how some people could play the same game for years - or even decades - and still not see the elephant, still not get it. How they could possibly be so bad when they have so much experience? This was quite a puzzle to me.

So I built Quertus, my signature character for whom this account is named, to explore that aspect of the human condition. I made Quertus as a head in the clouds academic, who fervently believes* that a) he is not trained for battle; b) he lacks the aptitude for combat; c) it is most unbecoming for someone of his station to attempt to learn such arts; d) he lacks the tools necessary for battle; e) there is some "secret sauce" that proper war mages are taught; f) his successes** can be attributed to him focusing on the "not combat" side of things. I further cemented this mindset from another direction, by having Quertus have lost family in the war when he was young, making him not relish fighting, plus making him a slight coward.

So, by stacking the deck as far as possible towards Quertus being as difficult as possible to train in combat tactics, I created a character who successfully emulated the tactical ineptitude of some of the players I knew. And, as it turned out, I loved the character! As an added bonus, in "mage superiority 3e", he didn't overshadow the Fighter or Monk, even at epic level. Win/win!

* mind you, this is the first time I've ever tried to put all that in writing. It's certainly not something any PC, player, or GM has ever known about Quertus.
** which, to date, include saving over 100 worlds from "end of the world" scenarios.

that is pretty cool, and i'm sure quertus is actually useful to the team, despite thinking he isn't cut out for the adventuring life. i mean, you can't exactly save over 100 worlds and be a complete load. your take on it still has some crunch merit, even if your fluff does read like quertus is a cowardly incompetent in a fight.

i was specifically referring to a guy who in a high-op game would try and play an npc class like an expert. the character, by 3rd level would be eclipsed by even the least intelligent member of the team in skills alone, nevermind combat capability or even expertise. that's not anti-op, that's anti-game. the only reasoning i can come up with would be selfishness, "i am willingly going against the grain of the team so you'll pay attention to me and how much i suck. if you don't adjust the campaign to my character i won't have fun so you have to pander to my whims, and don't you dare try to have fun without me". in a sense, that's like throwing a powergaming barbarian in an intrigue-heavy game, but with a dude who specializes his optimization the wrong way around. if the entire team is onboard, i guess that's fine, but it really seems spiteful if it's thrown out of left field. know what i mean?

[2D8HP]

...If you could just roll until you had statistics you were satisfied and would make min-maxing stats pointless. Feats on the other hand are basically impossible to ever acquire them all, but having even more can be a big boost depending on what it is...


"If you could just roll until you had statistics you were satisfied"....

Um, I don't understand at all your point about "Feats", and I don't see where this is in anyway related to "Need to play" unless you meant "Need to play the most powerful character possible in the game".

I think you just undercut the argument you made in the threads initial post.

There's a reason this is called "being a Munchkin".

How old are you?


..Min-maxing is one of those things people say they dont care about, but they really do some degree. I dont see people willingly using the minimum statistics possible and trying to just play. Its more like you want 14 all round rather than 5 Charisma and 20 strength.


Some prefer being a "Jack of all trades" rather than a "Master of one".

I'm still not getting your point.

[Max_Killjoy]

But I still don't understand what you're trying to get at by this whole unnamed NPC tertiary concept. Do you perhaps mean that they have all the impact and personality of wet cardboard?


Look at any number of fantasy or science fiction books.

There may well be any number of characters mentioned in passing, or who are in a scene or two. Say, a shopkeeper when the POV characters go shopping for whatever it comes up they need. Or a random servant in a castle. Or the guy who keeps the "black water" systems running on a big starship, who takes them through the bowels (heh) of the ship when they're investigating a missing passenger.

The character is good at their job, maybe has notable personality... but they are who they are, and they do what they do. They don't have motivations or skills or abilities or whatever to go out and "do protagonisty stuff". They are at most a secondary character (outside of lit-fic).

They're not the character you build a book around, and they're not the character you play in most RPG campaigns, because their entire goal is going to be to get away from what's going wrong, get back to their job and family, and not get hurt by all the craziness going on.

[Florian]

Um, I don't understand at all your point about "Feats", and I don't see where this is in anyway related to "Need to play" unless you meant "Need to play the most powerful character possible in the game".

This is very d20 specific. The motto here is: "Everything is a feat", so more or less, you cannot do it unless you've got the feat that "allows" you doing it. You can't say: "I grip my sword in both hands and really put my back into a powerful swing", unless you've got the Power Attack feat, which in turn in coupled to certain prerequisites, like a minimum Strength score.

So, basically, the feats and prerequisites dictate what you need for what you want to play. That doesn't even have to be the "most powerful thing", as even weak or "trap" options function this way.

[Arbane]

"If you could just roll until you had statistics you were satisfied"....

Um, I don't understand at all your point about "Feats", and I don't see where this is in anyway related to "Need to play" unless you meant "Need to play the most powerful character possible in the game".

I think you just undercut the argument you made in the threads initial post.

There's a reason this is called "being a Munchkin".



I think if you read some of his posts in this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?545994-Ranged-Builds-5th-edition), all shall become clear. :smallamused: (Chaosticket becomes very offended that he can't play One Shot Man in 5th ed.)

[Knaight]

:confused:

Why not?

We did it in OD&D and AD&D, you just add the word "try to", and rolled the usual "to hit".

What do "Feats" have to do with basic flavoring/fluff?

I never played 3e/3.5/4e WD&D, and for what 5e I've played I haven't much used the Feats options, so I'm probably missing something.

This is actually one of the more fun bits of jargon for the hobby - the Air Breathing Mermaid Problem.

The way the ABMP works is that you have a mermaid. Their description says that they can breath in water, and says absolutely nothing about whether or not they can breath in air. Then, a feat comes out: Air-Breathing, which you can take as a mermaid to be able to breathe in air. That feat has now established that all the mermaids without that feat can't breathe in air, and thus taken away their capability.

There are a lot of systems where feats, powers, talents, etc. work in such a way as to create air breathing mermaid problems. Power Attack is one of those.

[2D8HP]

This is very d20 specific. The motto here is: "Everything is a feat", so more or less, you cannot do it unless you've got the feat that "allows" you doing it. You can't say: "I grip my sword in both hands and really put my back into a powerful swing", unless you've got the Power Attack feat...


:confused:

Why not?

We did it in OD&D and AD&D, you just add the word "try to", and rolled the usual "to hit".

What do "Feats" have to do with basic flavoring/fluff?

I never played 3e/3.5/4e WD&D, and for what 5e I've played I haven't much used the Feats options, so I'm probably missing something.


I think if you read some of his posts in this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?545994-Ranged-Builds-5th-edition), all shall become clear. :smallamused: (Chaosticket becomes very offended that he can't play One Shot Man in 5th ed.)


Oh, it's that guy again, the one who kept comparing things to video games I haven't played, and asked
Youre not gamers are you?

When I say anything about any game related activities its like we're speaking using different languages.

I can ask questions like "how do you win this game" and you dont think about strategies against Sephiroth or Diablo.


He was wrong about who's "gamers" (unless he meant "video gamers"), but he's right about "speaking using different languages", as I don't get the "Need" for Feats anymore than whatever he meant by "strategies against Sephiroth or Diablo".


I'm just not hip to his jive, so I'm out.

TEN-FOUR GOOD BUDDY!

[Florian]

:confused:

Why not?

We did it in OD&D and AD&D, you just add the word "try to", and rolled the usual "to hit".

What do "Feats" have to do with basic flavoring/fluff?

I never played 3e/3.5/4e WD&D, and for what 5e I've played I haven't much used the Feats options, so I'm probably missing something.

They're "permissive" systems. A "feat" grants you the permission to do something and use both, the fluff and the crunch of it. Power Attack is a classic example for an "enabler feat", because once you have it, you are now able to use the fluff ("with a cry of furious anger, I swing my axe in broad and powerful swings...") and the crunch ("... -2 to hit, +4 to damage").
That has two effects:
1) Stuff like that is non-negotionable. Once you have the feat, you can use the feat, no gm involved.
2) They're unique. 4 Fighter, same attributes and race, different feats act and function very different from each other, both in fluff as in crunch.

Think of it like this: 5E has everything "pre-packaged". Your Fighter starts with one weapon style choice and one sub-class choice later on. The 3E Fighter must assemble both, style and sub-class, solely from available feats. That gives you great freedom, but also he very annoying people that complain when they cannot recreate their favorite League of Legends or Anime character, because that's not really supported.

[Jormengand]

TEN-FOUR GOOD BUDDY!

Forsooth, do you grok my jive? (https://xkcd.com/771/)

[Max_Killjoy]

This is actually one of the more fun bits of jargon for the hobby - the Air Breathing Mermaid Problem.

The way the ABMP works is that you have a mermaid. Their description says that they can breath in water, and says absolutely nothing about whether or not they can breath in air. Then, a feat comes out: Air-Breathing, which you can take as a mermaid to be able to breathe in air. That feat has now established that all the mermaids without that feat can't breathe in air, and thus taken away their capability.

There are a lot of systems where feats, powers, talents, etc. work in such a way as to create air breathing mermaid problems. Power Attack is one of those.

Which ties into the "pet peeves" thread for me.

Many of the Feats are perfect examples of taking something that should be basic to adventuring, basic to using a weapon, basic to using magic, and turning into a yes/no that's locked behind buying the Feat.

IMO, a lot of what's locked away there should be bonuses to "maneuvers" or "stunts" or whatever you want to call them that would be basic parts of the rules, instead.

[Mutazoia]

Look at any number of fantasy or science fiction books.

There may well be any number of characters mentioned in passing, or who are in a scene or two. Say, a shopkeeper when the POV characters go shopping for whatever it comes up they need. Or a random servant in a castle. Or the guy who keeps the "black water" systems running on a big starship, who takes them through the bowels (heh) of the ship when they're investigating a missing passenger.

The character is good at their job, maybe has notable personality... but they are who they are, and they do what they do. They don't have motivations or skills or abilities or whatever to go out and "do protagonisty stuff". They are at most a secondary character (outside of lit-fic).

They're not the character you build a book around, and they're not the character you play in most RPG campaigns, because their entire goal is going to be to get away from what's going wrong, get back to their job and family, and not get hurt by all the craziness going on.

By that logic, we can claim that you do not exist outside of this forum....

[Segev]

By that logic, we can claim that you do not exist outside of this forum....

Don't be silly. None of you exist outside this forum! I'm the only real person here.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Don't be silly. None of you exist outside this forum! I'm the only real person here.

You’re all figments of my imagination, but I’m a figment of a butterfly’s imagination.

Not blue because serious.:smallwink:

[Segev]

You’re all figments of my imagination, but I’m a figment of a butterfly’s imagination.

Not blue because serious.:smallwink:

Of course not blue. Sirius is a Black.

[Max_Killjoy]

Don't be silly. None of you exist outside this forum! I'm the only real person here.


You’re all figments of my imagination, but I’m a figment of a butterfly’s imagination.

Not blue because serious.:smallwink:


Of course not blue. Sirius is a Black.

There's actually debate going back 1000s of years as to the color of Sirius (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sirius#Colour_controversy).


Given the total and complete non-sequitur involved in the post that kicked this off ("if we follow that logic" having nothing whatsoever to do with the post it was in turn a reply to... in the slightest), this has been about the level of seriousness that said post deserved in response.

[Florian]

Which ties into the "pet peeves" thread for me.

Many of the Feats are perfect examples of taking something that should be basic to adventuring, basic to using a weapon, basic to using magic, and turning into a yes/no that's locked behind buying the Feat.

IMO, a lot of what's locked away there should be bonuses to "maneuvers" or "stunts" or whatever you want to call them that would be basic parts of the rules, instead.

Let´s try to keep this discussion Sirius, ok?

The problem with "basics", often based on "verisimilitude", is the level of abstraction of most games not being able to handle them in the slightest, out of necessity. I think it is "basic" that a well-placed "headshot" should insta-kill, yet, most systems can´t and won't handle that and those that can try to avoid using it against the player characters, for obvious reasons.

[Max_Killjoy]

Let´s try to keep this discussion Sirius, ok?

The problem with "basics", often based on "verisimilitude", is the level of abstraction of most games not being able to handle them in the slightest, out of necessity. I think it is "basic" that a well-placed "headshot" should insta-kill, yet, most systems can´t and won't handle that and those that can try to avoid using it against the player characters, for obvious reasons.


If an RPG system tells me that my character can't try for a headshot on an unaware stationary target, despite my character having a maxed-out skill in "rifles", because my character doesn't have the "headshot" feat or talent or "gambit" or whatever it might be called in said system... I'm going to go looking for another system.

If an RPG system tells me that my character can't use her shield to try to slam it against a foe to knock them backwards towards a cliff edge, because I haven't given her the "Push" feat... I'm going to go looking for another system.

If an RPG system tells me that my character can't even attempt to move quietly into the bushes and try to avoid a passing guard, no matter how agile and perceptive the character might be, because my character doesn't have that "class ability"... I'm going to go looking for another system.

[PhoenixPhyre]

If an RPG system tells me that my character can't try for a headshot on an unaware stationary target, despite my character having a maxed-out skill in "rifles", because my character doesn't have the "headshot" feat or talent or "gambit" or whatever it might be called in said system... I'm going to go looking for another system.


What about "this system doesn't model called shots at that level. For anyone."



If an RPG system tells me that my character can't use her shield to try to slam it against a foe to knock them backwards towards a cliff edge, because I haven't given her the "Push" feat... I'm going to go looking for another system.

If an RPG system tells me that my character can't even attempt to move quietly into the bushes and try to avoid a passing guard, no matter how agile and perceptive the character might be, because my character doesn't have that "class ability"... I'm going to go looking for another system.

These two I agree with, and I agree in general. Locking normal maneuvers (like grappling, pushing, proning, etc) behind feat gates detracts from the rest of the system. Even if they're theoretically possible without the feats but you're likely to get killed doing it (and be ineffective at it)--CF grappling without Improved Unarmed Strike in 3e D&D.

[Segev]

If an RPG system tells me that my character can't try for a headshot on an unaware stationary target, despite my character having a maxed-out skill in "rifles", because my character doesn't have the "headshot" feat or talent or "gambit" or whatever it might be called in said system... I'm going to go looking for another system.

If an RPG system tells me that my character can't use her shield to try to slam it against a foe to knock them backwards towards a cliff edge, because I haven't given her the "Push" feat... I'm going to go looking for another system.

If an RPG system tells me that my character can't even attempt to move quietly into the bushes and try to avoid a passing guard, no matter how agile and perceptive the character might be, because my character doesn't have that "class ability"... I'm going to go looking for another system.

While a reasonable complaint to a degree - feats, merits, etc. can tend to get into an "Air-Breathing Mermaid" problem - this also can be carried too far to the other extreme, where, "If a system tells me I can't perform brain surgery, no matter how dexterous, intelligent, and knowledgeable about brains he is, without having the 'brain surgery' skill, I'm looking for another system," sounds 'reasonable.'

The issue being that, if your character does have that talent, skill, etc., then maybe you should have the mechanical tool that represents your character being able to do it.

Again, it's a matter of figuring out where the line needs to be drawn. D&D 3e tended, towards the middle of its life, to start inventing "feats" that were Air-Breathing Mermaid merits. Things that you could theoretically have done using underlying, existing mechanics if that feat didn't exist, which now you have to take that feat in order to do. This is a problem. But it is important not to let the possibility of this problem cause you to argue that your character should be able to do X without Y just because he has Z. You can't sneak past the guard with your high Dex and Perception when you don't have Stealth. Well, you can try, but your Perception isn't going to help and your raw Dex is probably not enough.

[Max_Killjoy]

What about "this system doesn't model called shots at that level. For anyone."


That's a separate question, I think. It doesn't really fall under this particular gripe of mine.




These two I agree with, and I agree in general. Locking normal maneuvers (like grappling, pushing, proning, etc) behind feat gates detracts from the rest of the system. Even if they're theoretically possible without the feats but you're likely to get killed doing it (and be ineffective at it)--CF grappling without Improved Unarmed Strike in 3e D&D.


I really prefer it if the game has a complete accessible combat system, and then Feats (or whatever it calls them) serve to provide different bonuses/offsets for those maneuvers.




While a reasonable complaint to a degree - feats, merits, etc. can tend to get into an "Air-Breathing Mermaid" problem - this also can be carried too far to the other extreme, where, "If a system tells me I can't perform brain surgery, no matter how dexterous, intelligent, and knowledgeable about brains he is, without having the 'brain surgery' skill, I'm looking for another system," sounds 'reasonable.'


Doing brain surgery without any knowledge of it would be bad, yes.

What I'm talking about is more like "you have max 'ranks' in the brainsurgery skill, and 99th percentile scores in Dex, Int, and Per... but without the Excise Cancer Feat on top of it, you can't even remove a small benign tumor from someone's brain, sorry, not allowed". :smallconfused:




The issue being that, if your character does have that talent, skill, etc., then maybe you should have the mechanical tool that represents your character being able to do it.

Again, it's a matter of figuring out where the line needs to be drawn. D&D 3e tended, towards the middle of its life, to start inventing "feats" that were Air-Breathing Mermaid merits. Things that you could theoretically have done using underlying, existing mechanics if that feat didn't exist, which now you have to take that feat in order to do. This is a problem. But it is important not to let the possibility of this problem cause you to argue that your character should be able to do X without Y just because he has Z. You can't sneak past the guard with your high Dex and Perception when you don't have Stealth. Well, you can try, but your Perception isn't going to help and your raw Dex is probably not enough.


Depends on how the system handles "attributes" vs "skills" and how they interact, to some degree.

But in the Stealth example, it would be more like "only certain types of characters are allowed to even buy the Stealth skill at all"... or "even if you have Stealth, you also need this class special ability to do things that would seem to be basic functions of "being good at sneaking around quietly and unseen".


(Sorry, I'm struggling a bit today, I ate something with a lot more sugar in it than I realized, and on an empty stomach, and way too early in the day... so my brain is wonky... yay blood sugar issues.)

[Rhedyn]

The problem with "basics", often based on "verisimilitude", is the level of abstraction of most games not being able to handle them in the slightest, out of necessity. I think it is "basic" that a well-placed "headshot" should insta-kill, yet, most systems can´t and won't handle that and those that can try to avoid using it against the player characters, for obvious reasons. That reminds me of Savage Worlds called shot to the head and "the drop". Make it a "wild attack" and now you have +2 to-hit and +10 Damage in a game where the average toughness is 5 and 4 damage over toughness kills most people. Specials would need 16 over toughness to incapacitate then right away, but anything between 4-16 will heavily wound them. So players and bosses have ways to survive it but mooks don't.

[Chaosticket]

Can someone close this thread? Its dragging on and It hasnt been on topic since a week ago..

[Max_Killjoy]

Can someone close this thread? Its dragging on and It hasnt been on topic since a week ago..

Oh, and here I thought people were still having a discussion, it just moved on from a narrow single question.

[Boci]

Can someone close this thread? Its dragging on and It hasnt been on topic since a week ago..

Here's the forum rules, they cover the proceedure for getting a thread closed: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/announcement.php?a=1

[2D8HP]

I find it fascinating that you create a thread for something you answer yourself, even in the very question you ask.....

...How on earth did this thread get so long from such a simple question?


...Your answer is here (http://media.wizards.com/2016/downloads/DND/DMBasicRulesV05.pdf#page=47). :smallbiggrin: (on page 47 if your browser doesn't take you to the page)
.


Don't you hate it when a perfectly good debate gets ruined by triceratops?


:biggrin:

That post made the thread worthwhile!

[Fable Wright]

Can someone close this thread? Its dragging on and It hasnt been on topic since a week ago..

There was no way the thread was going to wind up any different.

Numbers "vs" Imagination is the one religious argument that's allowed to repeatedly flame up on these forums, and the results are invariably sharply divisive. Just wait until you see the process of spin-off threads!

[Lorsa]

Doing brain surgery without any knowledge of it would be bad, yes.

What I'm talking about is more like "you have max 'ranks' in the brainsurgery skill, and 99th percentile scores in Dex, Int, and Per... but without the Excise Cancer Feat on top of it, you can't even remove a small benign tumor from someone's brain, sorry, not allowed". :smallconfused:

By the looks of it, it seems your problem is more when systems limit you from even attempting an action. That is, if you have a shield you should be able to try and push someone over a cliff without needing some sort of extra stuff. Whether or not you are successful is another matter.

Similarly, you should always be able to attempt brain surgery, but without specialized training (which even a general M.D. doesn't cover), you are not likely to be very successful.

The thing to realize with the Feats is that they are actually that; specialized training. In the case of brain surgery, if there is such a skill it would represent your theoretical knowledge whereas the Feat represents actual practical training. You should still be able to attempt it untrained, though suffer some negative modifiers. Sort of like how you can always Dual Wield weapons in D&D 3.X but without the Feat, you'll have higher penalties.

So yes, Feats should not be a case of "nope, you can't even attempt this thing without it", but they can represent specialized training in a certain maneuver that will make it much easier to succeed.

I'm not saying all Feats work like that. Some do, and some don't. It's a bit of a mess really.

[Satinavian]

Many systems gate stuff this way.

Often that is not that much of a problem. Many things do require special knowledge and should be impossible without. Common examples include language skills and literacy. Usually there are some questionable choices like the hiding/sneaking as class ability in AD&D2 or "tie knots" as trained only skill in TDE4, but in general it works.

The problems start when skills already exist and then the applications for those skills are all hidden behind feat equivalents to make them somewhot rare. Suddenly you have persons who are trained experts in some fields who can't any of the applications of that field.

Another problem is using specializations to gate stuff but limit the number of specializations someone can have in a field. Suddenly it becomes harder/impossibleto learn something that is close to something you already know than to lern something as difficult that is completely new.

[Florian]

One of the few good things about "A Time of War" was having skills in "regular" and "complex" modes.

Regular skills are pretty costly, cover a very broad spectrum and have their limits, but at least count a bit towards executing a Complex skill and you get a cost reduction when you "park" a Complex skill "on top". Complex skills are pretty narrow, but cheaper to acquire and also count a bit when trying to execute a Regular skill.

So Regular skills like Drive, Medicine or Gunnery are your typical broad spectrum skills, but will only count as 1/2 their skill ranks when trying for something that is tied to a Complex skill, like Medicine/Neurosurgery or Gunnery/Arrow IV, while at the same time, someone with Medicine/Neurosurgery Complex Skill only only counts as 1/2 ranks when doing basic Medicine.