PDA

View Full Version : Why are there skill caps?



Weiser_Cain
2008-02-27, 11:13 PM
I don't like them and I can't think of a good reason to have them.

Solo
2008-02-27, 11:15 PM
I don't like them and I can't think of a good reason to have them.

I like them and I can.

Bitzeralisis
2008-02-27, 11:17 PM
Yay! Baseless debate! :smallbiggrin: :smalltongue: :smallannoyed:

Bauglir
2008-02-27, 11:19 PM
PrC qualifications and also people would be able to pull off truly ridiculous feats at level 1. The odd Int 18 Rogue with Skill Focus (jump) for whatever reason and Acrobatic as his Human Bonus Feat could jump 67 feet by taking 10 if he had no Strength bonus.

Zincorium
2008-02-27, 11:20 PM
I don't like them and I can't think of a good reason to have them.

It's so people don't blow every point on a single skill and then ruin the game with it, diplomancing is a severe theoretical problem and removing skill caps would remove the 'theoretical'. There are a few other skills that require some limitation to be relevant, such as constitution.

So, limitations and diversity.

What are good reasons to not have them?

Kizara
2008-02-27, 11:41 PM
It's so people don't blow every point on a single skill and then ruin the game with it, diplomancing is a severe theoretical problem and removing skill caps would remove the 'theoretical'. There are a few other skills that require some limitation to be relevant, such as constitution.

So, limitations and diversity.

What are good reasons to not have them?

Let's give another example:

52 Skill points (lvl 1 HU rogue). Let's pick a few things now.

We will skip the inherently broken social skills, as uses them to make the point isn't really saying alot.

How about spot? Monster has +10 to hide? Who cares, you have +54 to Spot. You can see invisibile things in poor lighting while being distracted and missing one eye. Yea, that's reasonable at level one.

Jump was done.

How about Open Lock? Ancient Door of the Eldar, locked with an intricate time-opened seal that is beyond the realm of mortal understanding? Let's give it DC 50, that's mildly epic. It's fine though, you have +56, so you succeed on a one.

Knowledge. Want to know everything there is to know about an epic dragon with 50 HD that hasn't been seen or heard of in a millenia? Well you DO! Knowledge (the planes) +56 is your friend.

I hope you get the point.

Weiser_Cain
2008-02-27, 11:54 PM
It's so people don't blow every point on a single skill and then ruin the game with it, diplomancing is a severe theoretical problem and removing skill caps would remove the 'theoretical'. There are a few other skills that require some limitation to be relevant, such as constitution.

So, limitations and diversity.

What are good reasons to not have them?

child prodigy

brian c
2008-02-28, 12:02 AM
child prodigy

Still, at first level you can get up to +4 (or even +5 with a racial bonus) from your ability, +4 ranks and +3 from skill focus. A +11 to any skill means that your best check is a 31, good enough to do mostly anything within normal human range abilities, particularly in fields like music (perform skills for a virtuoso are the best example as a child)

Titanium Dragon
2008-02-28, 12:03 AM
child prodigy

The reason skill caps exist has already been clearly explained.

Fundamentally, your issue is with the system. With non-scaling skill costs this is the way it has to be.

If you don't like skill caps, then you need a system which enforces them other ways. A good example is GURPS. Costs 1 point to get 1 rank, 2 points to get 2 ranks, 4 points to get 3 ranks, 8 points to get 4 ranks, 16 points to get 5 ranks, ect. Alternity has hard skill caps at character creation but they otherwise don't exist, but it, likewise, has scaling (though nowhere near as steep as GURPS).

And child prodigies, incidentally, don't involve breaking of skill caps; they're simply higher level than people of their age.

Nebo_
2008-02-28, 12:03 AM
child prodigy

Clearly, said child is not level 1.

Double ninja'd

Overlord
2008-02-28, 12:12 AM
Let's give another example:

52 Skill points (lvl 1 HU rogue). Let's pick a few things now.

We will skip the inherently broken social skills, as uses them to make the point isn't really saying alot.

How about spot? Monster has +10 to hide? Who cares, you have +54 to Spot. You can see invisibile things in poor lighting while being distracted and missing one eye. Yea, that's reasonable at level one.

Jump was done.

How about Open Lock? Ancient Door of the Eldar, locked with an intricate time-opened seal that is beyond the realm of mortal understanding? Let's give it DC 50, that's mildly epic. It's fine though, you have +56, so you succeed on a one.

Knowledge. Want to know everything there is to know about an epic dragon with 50 HD that hasn't been seen or heard of in a millenia? Well you DO! Knowledge (the planes) +56 is your friend.

I hope you get the point.

Exactly. In addition, all of those problems would be literally multiplied by a hundred with a single feat: Leadership.

"Hello, I'm a 10th level Paladin with a 20 Charisma, a house, and a reputation for being nice (I am a paladin, after all). That gives me 35 1st level followers (not to mention my handful of higher level followers and my cohort). Let me introduce you to some of them. Say hello to Jump-Man, Spot-Man, Listen-Man, Search-Man, Disable Device-Man, Diplomacy-Man, Heal-Man, Survivorman, Gather Information-Man, Appraise-Man, Handle Animal-Man, Tumble-Man (He doubles as Perform-Man), Ride-Man, and Swim-Man. Gee, I really need to get rid of those last two. Oh yeah, I also have ten Knowledge-Men, who collectively know every Knowledge skill there is. All of these guys have at least a +52 bonus to whatever skill they're trained in. You should also say hi to my 4th level follower, Ninja-Man. He's got a +45 to Hide and Move Silently. Pretty cool, huh? And how can I forget my 8th level Cohort, Sensible-Man. He has a +140 to Sense Motive. He reads your mind on a roll of 1. Sweet!"

Let me add one final example: a 20th level Human Rogue, with a mere +6 Int modifier, and who has taken Skill Focus eight times, can have 369 ranks in whatever skill he chooses. That's insane.

Tengu
2008-02-28, 12:41 AM
child prodigy

If you can play a child prodigy at first level, then I want to play a rich heir whose parents were both mages and crafted lots and lots of magical items for him when he decided to go adventuring.

Kizara
2008-02-28, 01:09 AM
If you can play a child prodigy at first level, then I want to play a rich heir whose parents were both mages and crafted lots and lots of magical items for him when he decided to go adventuring.

I call son of a god, complete with Divine Rank 0, fairly massive ability mods and whatever SLA's I can think of.

Oh, level adjustment? "I don't like them and I can't think of a good reason to have them." GEGE

Bitzeralisis
2008-02-28, 01:13 AM
Exactly. In addition, all of those problems would be literally multiplied by a hundred with a single feat: Leadership.

"Hello, I'm a 10th level Paladin with a 20 Charisma, a house, and a reputation for being nice (I am a paladin, after all). That gives me 35 1st level followers (not to mention my handful of higher level followers and my cohort). Let me introduce you to some of them. Say hello to Jump-Man, Spot-Man, Listen-Man, Search-Man, Disable Device-Man, Diplomacy-Man, Heal-Man, Survivorman, Gather Information-Man, Appraise-Man, Handle Animal-Man, Tumble-Man (He doubles as Perform-Man), Ride-Man, and Swim-Man. Gee, I really need to get rid of those last two. Oh yeah, I also have ten Knowledge-Men, who collectively know every Knowledge skill there is. All of these guys have at least a +52 bonus to whatever skill they're trained in. You should also say hi to my 4th level follower, Ninja-Man. He's got a +45 to Hide and Move Silently. Pretty cool, huh? And how can I forget my 8th level Cohort, Sensible-Man. He has a +140 to Sense Motive. He reads your mind on a roll of 1. Sweet!"

Let me add one final example: a 20th level Human Rogue, with a mere +6 Int modifier, and who has taken Skill Focus eight times, can have 369 ranks in whatever skill he chooses. That's insane.

That is hilarious. :smallbiggrin: :smalltongue: :smallneutral: :smallspeechless: :smallellipsisgod!:

TheOOB
2008-02-28, 01:40 AM
If you really have a problem with skill caps you can raise them with feats.

Prodigy[General]
You are particularity adept with a certain skill
Prerequisites: Can only be taken at 1st level
Benefit: Choose a single skill, you're max ranks in that skill is equal to 5+character level. In addition you receive two free ranks in the chosen skill.
Normal: Your max ranks in all skills is 3+character level.

serow
2008-02-28, 01:49 AM
child prodigySkill Focus (whatever)?

Jack Zander
2008-02-28, 01:49 AM
How about some ranks in UMD for uber cheese?

Seriously, have you thought at all about why skill caps are in the game or do you just like to WoW your way around the roleplaying table?

Artemician
2008-02-28, 01:54 AM
How about some ranks in UMD for uber cheese?

Seriously, have you thought at all about why skill caps are in the game or do you just like to WoW your way around the roleplaying table?

WoW has skill caps. Hard-coded into the system, in fact.

Although I do agree with the general sentiment.

Xuincherguixe
2008-02-28, 01:55 AM
Obviously this is some kind of massive conspiracy against child prodigies.

The Professor
2008-02-28, 02:12 AM
If you really have a problem with skill caps you can raise them with feats.

Prodigy[General]
You are particularity adept with a certain skill
Prerequisites: Can only be taken at 1st level
Benefit: Choose a single skill, you're max ranks in that skill is equal to 5+character level. In addition you receive two free ranks in the chosen skill.
Normal: Your max ranks in all skills is 3+character level.

I think that's a really cool feat, actually. The problem, of course, is that it makes you qualify for PrCs WAY too early. A good DM wouldn't let that fly. I might steal this at some point, and you can't stop me, because it's the internet.

Overlord
2008-02-28, 02:14 AM
That is hilarious. :smallbiggrin: :smalltongue: :smallneutral: :smallspeechless: :smallellipsisgod!:

Consider a 20th level Expert Lawyer with 369 ranks in Profession: Lawyer:

"...So that, your honor, is why the defendant is the cause of every evil action that has ever taken place in the entire history of the world, and why my client deserves to be awarded 18.3 billion gold pieces in damages."


WoW has skill caps. Hard-coded into the system, in fact.

And what do D&D and WoW have in common? The rules in both systems were written for a reason. Not necessarily good reasons, mind you, but reasons nonetheless. Sometimes those rules end up being flawed; sometimes they end up being useful. There's certainly nothing wrong with poking around with the rules to see if you can't think of something better. It's just that in this case, practically everyone is in agreement that the skill point caps are necessary to curb the skill-monkeys' power.

Artemician
2008-02-28, 02:17 AM
And what do D&D and WoW have in common? The rules in both systems were written for a reason. Not necessarily good reasons, mind you, but reasons nonetheless. Sometimes those rules end up being flawed; sometimes they end up being useful. There's certainly nothing wrong with poking around with the rules to see if you can't think of something better. It's just that in this case, practically everyone is in agreement that the skill point caps are necessary to curb the skill-monkeys' power.

The WoW comment was never directed at the respective merits of any rule. It was simply to address Jack Zander, when he said that the OP wanted to "WoW his way around the table". In this case, that makes no sense, because WoW uses skill caps as well.

Dhavaer
2008-02-28, 03:43 AM
child prodigy

Take the Prodigy ability from DMG2.

Cuddly
2008-02-28, 03:55 AM
Consider a 20th level Expert Lawyer with 369 ranks in Profession: Lawyer:

"...So that, your honor, is why the defendant is the cause of every evil action that has ever taken place in the entire history of the world, and why my client deserves to be awarded 18.3 billion gold pieces in damages."

Yeah, but that's canceled out by the guy with 369 ranks in whatever skill defeats lawyer.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-02-28, 03:57 AM
It's an opposed check.

Plus, that's not unbalanced, as he has no ranks in bluff. :smallbiggrin:

Behold_the_Void
2008-02-28, 04:03 AM
The issue people have been dancing around is skill caps exist so it's possible to have characters with varied skill selections and to have the ability to set (allegedly) reasonable skill check DCs that can be tailored to a party's level.

warmachine
2008-02-28, 04:43 AM
Can someone show the maths of how a 1st level follower without skill caps can get +52 to one skill?

SerroMaroo
2008-02-28, 04:56 AM
umm, lvl 1 human rogue, Int +3 (easily attainable 16-17 int)

Rogue gets Int bonus ((3)+8)X4 skill points at 1st level, and another 9 for being human

Total points available is 48

Feat skill focus +2

Any int based skill +2 for previously mentioned int bonus

Total 52 Not even using anything fancy

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-02-28, 04:58 AM
Skill focus is +3, and there's usually a second feat that boosts 2 skills by +2.

Kizara
2008-02-28, 05:25 AM
Can someone show the maths of how a 1st level follower without skill caps can get +52 to one skill?

As I said in my post, my example character was an 18 int human rogue. Thus, 13x4=52

That is only the ranks, not including the key ability mod for the skill in question.

It also doesn't take into account skill boosting feats.

You could, with very little work get +61 under this 'system':

52 ranks + 4 key ability mod + 3 skill focus + 2 (skill booster feat such as Alertness)


Now, a COMMONER only has 2+int skills (I believe), so that's obviously not nearly as high. Also, even using the elite array, you are only going to have like a 15 int and maybe a 14 in your key ability mod, so its drastically less.

Thus, 24 + 2 (key ability) + 5 (skill feats) would net only a +31.

However, your leadership followers would be experts, not commoners, having 6+int skills (IIRC) and thus more points.

You get the idea I hope.

Tengu
2008-02-28, 05:34 AM
Consider a 20th level Expert Lawyer with 369 ranks in Profession: Lawyer:

"...So that, your honor, is why the defendant is the cause of every evil action that has ever taken place in the entire history of the world, and why my client deserves to be awarded 18.3 billion gold pieces in damages."


Objection! (http://objection.mrdictionary.net/go.php?n=2427081)

Kurald Galain
2008-02-28, 05:55 AM
Problem: It is assumed that pretty much anything can be done with a given skill - e.g. you can use the jump skill to leap over mountains. Why on earth they made this assumption in the first place is beyond me.

Solution: Make the DC for those things very high.

Problem: People can reliably pass arbitrarily high DCs simply by putting an arbitrarily high amount of points in that skill.

Solution: Level-dependent skill caps.

Problem: Since the skill caps are so low, low-level characters (and in particular, NPCs) can't reliably become good at something. They can be decent, but you can't make an expert smith by the rules any more.

Solution: NPC classes.

Problem: Now we get "epic level commoners", and any expert smith will have high hit points and saving throws because he's high level. Also, we get debates on whether certain troops would be "low level fighters" or "medium level warriors", and whether there is, or should be, any difference between the two.

Solution: ???



I think the D&D skill system is a hilarious example of how complexity can get needlessly out of hand by making the wrong assumptions, and how solving a problem with a kludge simply leads to a different problem.

Leon
2008-02-28, 06:18 AM
Exactly. In addition, all of those problems would be literally multiplied by a hundred with a single feat: Leadership.

"Hello, I'm a 10th level Paladin with a 20 Charisma, a house, and a reputation for being nice (I am a paladin, after all). That gives me 35 1st level followers (not to mention my handful of higher level followers and my cohort). Let me introduce you to some of them. Say hello to Jump-Man, Spot-Man, Listen-Man, Search-Man, Disable Device-Man, Diplomacy-Man, Heal-Man, Survivorman, Gather Information-Man, Appraise-Man, Handle Animal-Man, Tumble-Man (He doubles as Perform-Man), Ride-Man, and Swim-Man. Gee, I really need to get rid of those last two. Oh yeah, I also have ten Knowledge-Men, who collectively know every Knowledge skill there is. All of these guys have at least a +52 bonus to whatever skill they're trained in. You should also say hi to my 4th level follower, Ninja-Man. He's got a +45 to Hide and Move Silently. Pretty cool, huh? And how can I forget my 8th level Cohort, Sensible-Man. He has a +140 to Sense Motive. He reads your mind on a roll of 1. Sweet!"

Let me add one final example: a 20th level Human Rogue, with a mere +6 Int modifier, and who has taken Skill Focus eight times, can have 369 ranks in whatever skill he chooses. That's insane.

Nothing a couple of fireballs wont kill off

Yehomer
2008-02-28, 08:16 AM
Problem: It is assumed that pretty much anything can be done with a given skill - e.g. you can use the jump skill to leap over mountains. Why on earth they made this assumption in the first place is beyond me.

Solution: Make the DC for those things very high.

Problem: People can reliably pass arbitrarily high DCs simply by putting an arbitrarily high amount of points in that skill.

Solution: Level-dependent skill caps.

Problem: Since the skill caps are so low, low-level characters (and in particular, NPCs) can't reliably become good at something. They can be decent, but you can't make an expert smith by the rules any more.

Solution: NPC classes.

Problem: Now we get "epic level commoners", and any expert smith will have high hit points and saving throws because he's high level. Also, we get debates on whether certain troops would be "low level fighters" or "medium level warriors", and whether there is, or should be, any difference between the two.

Solution: ???



I think the D&D skill system is a hilarious example of how complexity can get needlessly out of hand by making the wrong assumptions, and how solving a problem with a kludge simply leads to a different problem.

My DM used a house rule where experts get the cap doubled for their class skills, so a 1st level expert can get 8 ranks, +4 modifier, +3 skill focus for a decent +15 on the skill check...

Indon
2008-02-28, 08:49 AM
Problem: Now we get "epic level commoners", and any expert smith will have high hit points and saving throws because he's high level. Also, we get debates on whether certain troops would be "low level fighters" or "medium level warriors", and whether there is, or should be, any difference between the two.

You assume that's a problem, rather than:

Problem: Players prone to wanton slaughter of villagers for little reason.

Solution: Epic-level commoners.

Which, sadly, leads to:

Problem: Players prone to wanton slaughter of villagers because villager CR grants them XP.

Crimson Avenger
2008-02-28, 09:05 AM
You assume that's a problem, rather than:

Problem: Players prone to wanton slaughter of villagers for little reason.

Solution: Epic-level commoners.

Which, sadly, leads to:

Problem: Players prone to wanton slaughter of villagers because villager CR grants them XP.

Villagers that will grant me XP!!!! Where!!!!
I'm only 140,000 XP from attaining 152 nd level!!

SpikeFightwicky
2008-02-28, 12:19 PM
Exactly. In addition, all of those problems would be literally multiplied by a hundred with a single feat: Leadership.

"Hello, I'm a 10th level Paladin with a 20 Charisma, a house, and a reputation for being nice (I am a paladin, after all). That gives me 35 1st level followers (not to mention my handful of higher level followers and my cohort). Let me introduce you to some of them. Say hello to Jump-Man, Spot-Man, Listen-Man, Search-Man, Disable Device-Man, Diplomacy-Man, Heal-Man, Survivor-Man, Gather Information-Man, Appraise-Man, Handle Animal-Man, Tumble-Man (He doubles as Perform-Man), Ride-Man, and Swim-Man. Gee, I really need to get rid of those last two. Oh yeah, I also have ten Knowledge-Men, who collectively know every Knowledge skill there is. All of these guys have at least a +52 bonus to whatever skill they're trained in. You should also say hi to my 4th level follower, Ninja-Man. He's got a +45 to Hide and Move Silently. Pretty cool, huh? And how can I forget my 8th level Cohort, Sensible-Man. He has a +140 to Sense Motive. He reads your mind on a roll of 1. Sweet!"

Let me add one final example: a 20th level Human Rogue, with a mere +6 Int modifier, and who has taken Skill Focus eight times, can have 369 ranks in whatever skill he chooses. That's insane.

(In bold) Sounds like the roster for the next Megaman game :smallbiggrin:

Riffington
2008-02-28, 01:03 PM
Yeah, but that's canceled out by the guy with 369 ranks in whatever skill defeats lawyer.

It's not a skill per se, but Rock defeats lawyer.

Riffington
2008-02-28, 01:05 PM
Actually the best way to represent a child prodigy is to give him 3 ranks in a skill as a child... and, most likely, never have him take any more when he gets older.

tahu88810
2008-02-28, 01:09 PM
Do you think its possible to be a child prodigy at killing stuff?

Joe the rogue has 52 ranks in Profession(Adventurer)! XD

DarknessLord
2008-02-28, 01:35 PM
Objection! (http://objection.mrdictionary.net/go.php?n=2427081)

You win the thread. (http://objection.mrdictionary.net/go.php?n=2427323)

Prosecutors in AA can take 10 even when threatened.

Infinity_Biscuit
2008-02-28, 01:42 PM
Problem: Since the skill caps are so low, low-level characters (and in particular, NPCs) can't reliably become good at something. They can be decent, but you can't make an expert smith by the rules any more.

Solution: NPC classes.

Problem: Now we get "epic level commoners", and any expert smith will have high hit points and saving throws because he's high level. Also, we get debates on whether certain troops would be "low level fighters" or "medium level warriors", and whether there is, or should be, any difference between the two.

Solution: ???
The article that is the inspiration for the E6 variant (I don't have a link on me, sorry) shows that 5th level is all that's needed for basically anything (Einstein was given as an example of a 5th-level Expert) and that 1st- and 2nd-level NPCs can be shown to be able to do their jobs well simply by taking 10.

So these two problems aren't really there at all.

Illiterate Scribe
2008-02-28, 01:42 PM
Objection! (http://objection.mrdictionary.net/go.php?n=2427081)

Hold it! (http://objection.mrdictionary.net/go.php?n=2427335)

</bandwagon>

Lapak
2008-02-28, 01:53 PM
And how can I forget my 8th level Cohort, Sensible-Man. He has a +140 to Sense Motive. He reads your mind on a roll of 1. Sweet!" I managed to hold back my laughter up to this point, but I lost it at Sensible-Man. Well done. :smallsmile:

Mr. Friendly
2008-02-28, 01:54 PM
To address this serious and sensible question, I will give a serious and sensible answer:

A Wizard did it.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-02-28, 01:55 PM
To address this serious and sensible question, I will give a serious and sensible answer:

A Wizard did it.A spoooky wizard.

DarknessLord
2008-02-28, 02:00 PM
Hold it! (http://objection.mrdictionary.net/go.php?n=2427335)

</bandwagon>

Okay, one more time (http://objection.mrdictionary.net/go.php?n=2427351)
Something tells me we're a little off track with this....
Also, I think it should have been a proficiency instead of a feat...

Overlord
2008-02-28, 08:18 PM
I'd like to present an additional piece of evidence. (http://objection.mrdictionary.net/go.php?n=2427923)


A spoooky wizard.

Who has 360 ranks in Profession: Living by the Coast?

Illiterate Scribe
2008-02-28, 08:27 PM
Overruled! (http://objection.mrdictionary.net/go.php?n=2427968)

Overlord
2008-02-28, 10:19 PM
Prodigy!!! (http://objection.mrdictionary.net/go.php?n=2428219)

Jack Zander
2008-02-28, 10:51 PM
WoW has skill caps. Hard-coded into the system, in fact.

I'm a little late on the response here...

I didn't mean WoW as in the rules of WoW, I was referring more to the attitude of MMORPG players who like to run around and be cool and mindlessly slay things, then use their uber ninja skillz to do some anime-like feats of jumping an entire building (this trend started in America with Superman actually).

Though, it seems you knew what I was talking about anyway with this statement:


Although I do agree with the general sentiment.






Now that I think about it, are you sure WoW's skill caps are hard-coded into the system? It would have been easier for them to be variable coded, and just have a formula based on level.

Kurald Galain
2008-02-29, 03:49 AM
The article that is the inspiration for the E6 variant (I don't have a link on me, sorry) shows that 5th level is all that's needed for basically anything (Einstein was given as an example of a 5th-level Expert) and that 1st- and 2nd-level NPCs can be shown to be able to do their jobs well simply by taking 10.

Yes. However, that article conveniently overlooks the fact that, in a contest of skill, its posited Einstein will lose to a completely average high school student, about one time out of ten.

Or that, by its suggestions, a completely untrained rookie will create a masterpiece of art more than once per month.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-02-29, 04:33 AM
Yes. However, that article conveniently overlooks the fact that, in a contest of skill, its posited Einstein will lose to a completely average high school student, about one time out of ten.


*nods*

Also: If it's the article I'm thinking of, while the probabilities given for kicking down doors are about right for people with Strength 10-18, they fail dismally for things with Strength 3.

Said article basically relies on the DM to handwave away any bits of the rules that *don't* fit the idea that low-level characters are perfectly calibrated to be competent professionals. The Aragorn example is particularly telling, it basically assumes that the DM has a vested interest in letting the player be Aragorn - it assumes, for example, that he will let the player Take 20 on difficult Track rolls in order to account for the fact that Aragorn never fails to track anything, it also assumes that the Orcs in Moria were really Goblins, and that they were an appropriate-CR encounter that the PCs just *happened* to survive.

DM Fiat can create a Master Blacksmith as a 3rd level Commoner. This does not change the fact that a 3rd level PC with max ranks in Craft: Blacksmith will be considered a rank amateur by any smiths they meet.

Blue Paladin
2008-02-29, 02:27 PM
Found it (http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/misc/d&d-calibrating.html).
Yes. However, that article conveniently overlooks the fact that, in a contest of skill, its posited Einstein will lose to a completely average high school student, about one time out of ten.There's no way the Einstein will lose to a completely average high school student in a physics contest.

Average HS student makes spectacular insight, total = 20.
Einstein takes 10, total = 25.

Remember, the average NPC gets 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8 for stats. That's two stats of +1 and two stats of -1.


Or that, by its suggestions, a completely untrained rookie will create a masterpiece of art more than once per month.Completely untrained rookie attempts to make masterpiece of art, total = 20. Barely possible; the masterwork component alone is DC 20, and adds to the base cost. There's no way they can finish in a single month, especially since it involves 19 weeks of failure for every one week of success. Also note that each time they fail by more than 5, they ruin half the raw materials (that's 70% of the time).


Also: If it's the article I'm thinking of, while the probabilities given for kicking down doors are about right for people with Strength 10-18, they fail dismally for things with Strength 3.Strength 3 is a -4; that knocks down the probability of door break (DC 13) down to 20% (success on 17+). Doesn't seem far off.


The Aragorn example is particularly telling, it basically assumes that the DM has a vested interest in letting the player be Aragorn - it assumes, for example, that he will let the player Take 20 on difficult Track rolls in order to account for the fact that Aragorn never fails to track anything,Actually it posits that Aragorn maxed his ranks, and took Skill Focus. That would mean he could do the "highest Survival DC in the core rules... DC 15" on a 1 [8 Ranks, +3 Skill Focus, +2 synergy, +anything positive from Wisdom].


it also assumes that the Orcs in Moria were really Goblins, and that they were an appropriate-CR encounter that the PCs just *happened* to survive.No, Orcs are 1/2 CR, just as listed in the article. Goblins would be 1/3 CR. Never mind the fact that in Tolkien, Orc = Goblin.

Bauglir
2008-02-29, 02:55 PM
Yes. However, that article conveniently overlooks the fact that, in a contest of skill, its posited Einstein will lose to a completely average high school student, about one time out of ten.

Consider that it's entirely possible that an average high school student might recall some random fact about fluid dynamics that Einstein might not have. Maybe Einstein was having a bad day, and the fact that the check involved something completely unrelated to his field of study compounded with that to cause him not to remember it. This also assumes that Einstein rolls instead of taking 10, which there's little reason to do outside of combat. Which would make for... an interesting physics competition, to say the least.

Riffington
2008-02-29, 03:17 PM
Strength 3 is a -4; that knocks down the probability of door break (DC 13) down to 20% (success on 17+). Doesn't seem far off.


It seems off by 20%.

Talic
2008-02-29, 03:54 PM
NPC's don't get 4x at level 1. Cohort man doesn't work.

Ecalsneerg
2008-02-29, 05:09 PM
NPC's don't get 4x at level 1. Cohort man doesn't work.

I'm fairly sure they do. Where's this rule?

Overlord
2008-02-29, 06:01 PM
NPC's don't get 4x at level 1. Cohort man doesn't work.

Pretty much every NPC I've seen Wizards publish has had quadruple skill points at first level. Do you have a citation for the rule?

Blue Paladin
2008-02-29, 06:24 PM
It seems off by 20%.I assume you mean that they should have 0% chance of breaking through a door?

No way. Speaking as a person who had literally Str 2 twenty-odd years ago (seriously. lift 20 lbs over my head? i am generously calling it Str 2. the stereotypical "90 pound weakling" had five pounds on me), even I could have broken down a regular door given enough time (and a bruised enough shoulder/foot).

Kioran
2008-02-29, 06:35 PM
I assume you mean that they should have 0% chance of breaking through a door?

No way. Speaking as a person who had literally Str 2 twenty-odd years ago (seriously. lift 20 lbs over my head? i am generously calling it Str 2. the stereotypical "90 pound weakling" had five pounds on me), even I could have broken down a regular door given enough time (and a bruised enough shoulder/foot).

I was once so weak that my fatherīs Aerobic dumbbells (6.5 lbs.) were giving me serious trouble on a biceps curl. Appalingly weak, in short. That was Str 6. 4 means that I wouldnīt have been capable of carrying around more the clothing. 2 Means youīre so weak you can barely walk. Nobody, except for very old people, or those in serious chemotherapy or on the brink of starvation, are that weak.........
That one aside, at that Str 6 time, I would have had to "take 20" to kick in a normal exterior door. Interior doors, especially U.S. ones - okay, the 25% chance of success seems a bit generous, but thatīs a minor inaccuracy. I agree though - any weaker and one should be incapable of doing this at all.

Weiser_Cain
2008-02-29, 07:14 PM
I estimate my strength score is about 16.

Chronos
2008-02-29, 08:20 PM
Said article basically relies on the DM to handwave away any bits of the rules that *don't* fit the idea that low-level characters are perfectly calibrated to be competent professionals.I've started a new thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=73839) to rebut many of the points in that article. It's bugged me for a while now, how may people accept the arguments in it.

Kurald Galain
2008-03-01, 06:33 AM
Found it (http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/misc/d&d-calibrating.html).There's no way the Einstein will lose to a completely average high school student in a physics contest.
Yes there is, because you can't "take ten" if the contest is challenging.

At any rate, it is correct in that "taking ten" is in fact a better skill resolution mechanic than "rolling 1d20" is. You're essentially making my point for me.



Completely untrained rookie attempts to make masterpiece of art, total = 20. Barely possible; the masterwork component alone is DC 20, and adds to the base cost.
Depends on what you're trying to make. Not all art is expensive - for instance, raw stone or wood are available essentially for free in some areas. If he tries something that will take a day to make, he can make a check once per day, and will hit that masterwork-20 more than once per month on average.



Strength 3 is a -4; that knocks down the probability of door break (DC 13) down to 20% (success on 17+). Doesn't seem far off.
Yes it does. Strength 3 is essentially a paraplegic guy in a wheelchair, which means that a one-in-five chance of bashing down a door is completely ludicrous.



Actually it posits that Aragorn maxed his ranks, and took Skill Focus. That would mean he could do the "highest Survival DC in the core rules... DC 15"
It's not just his survival stuff, it's that the (totally absurd) suggestion in the article that he could have been level 5 or 6 and survived the entire LOTR adventure like that.


Consider that it's entirely possible that an average high school student might recall some random fact about fluid dynamics that Einstein might not have.
If you know anything at all about fluid dynamics, you know that this is not even remotely possible. We're talking Mr. Average here, not the smart guy at the top of the class. You don't beat Kasparov in chess one time out of ten. You don't beat an olympic athlete at his specialty one time out of ten. Except in D&D.



No way. Speaking as a person who had literally Str 2 twenty-odd years ago (seriously. lift 20 lbs over my head? i am generously calling it Str 2.
No you're not. Strength 2 means you're weaker than the common house cat. It means you're only slightly stronger than a tiny toad who can barely lift a fly. Stephen Hawking has more strength than that.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-03-01, 06:54 AM
Depends on what you're trying to make. Not all art is expensive - for instance, raw stone or wood are available essentially for free in some areas. If he tries something that will take a day to make, he can make a check once per day, and will hit that masterwork-20 more than once per month on average.

By RAW, of course, that's not the case. A Masterwork anything requires something like 150GP worth of raw materials.


Yes it does. Strength 3 is essentially a paraplegic guy in a wheelchair, which means that a one-in-five chance of bashing down a door is completely ludicrous.

The basic problem here is that "Strength 3" is simultaneously "a paraplegic guy in a wheelchair" and "a domestic house cat" and "a guy who can lift a weight of 30lb above his head and reliably carry a load of 60lb over large distances".


It's not just his survival stuff, it's that the (totally absurd) suggestion in the article that he could have been level 5 or 6 and survived the entire LOTR adventure like that.

It's not absurd, it's just founded on some dodgy assumptions, chiefly that the game had a friendly DM.

It's possible for a 5th level character to have survived the whole of the Lord of the Rings, if it was broken down into conveniently CR-appropriate encounters, if the DM fudged dice rolls, and so on. 5th level is the level at which the DM can let you be Aragorn, where you can kill fifty orcs because the DM has them attack you one at a time, and doesn't give them double handed weapons (or because he uses Goblin stats).

All of the Alexandrian's arguments in that article are predicated on the DM (a) using common sense when the rules don't work (like with housecats kicking down doors) and (b) treating 5th level characters extremely generously.

Kurald Galain
2008-03-01, 07:19 AM
It's possible for a 5th level character to have survived the whole of the Lord of the Rings, if it was broken down into conveniently CR-appropriate encounters, if the DM fudged dice rolls, and so on.
Methinks you forgot the nazgul, then :smallbiggrin:



All of the Alexandrian's arguments in that article are predicated on the DM (a) using common sense when the rules don't work (like with housecats kicking down doors)
Yes, but that contradicts the premise of his article.

Zincorium
2008-03-01, 07:25 AM
Methinks you forgot the nazgul, then :smallbiggrin:

The nazgul got driven off by a guy with a torch and failed to kill a simple hobbit. At the same time, neither does Aragorn actually kill any of them.

Not the most epic thing to happen in the books, I think the Nazgul were operating in a severely weakened state during that fight.



Yes, but that contradicts the premise of his article.

Must...resist...temptation to be snarky...

Dan_Hemmens
2008-03-01, 07:29 AM
Methinks you forgot the nazgul, then :smallbiggrin:

According to the Alexandrian, the Nazgul were CR-appropriate. That's sort of the problem with it. It's circular logic (exactly the same circular logic, in fact, that he accuses everybody else of using).

As I say, I think his Aragorn argument works if you assume the DM is on your side. If you're familiar with DM of the Rings, I can totally believe that the PCs in that game are about 5th level, but the point is that they don't actually achieve anything themselves, the DM just railroads them through a linear plot.

You can absolutely be Aragorn at fifth level, or even at first level, if the DM is willing to let you. If the DM responds to your swinging a torch at the Nazgul by saying "they retreat into darkness" then your relative levels don't matter at all.


Yes, but that contradicts the premise of his article.

Oh I absolutely agree. I think he's totally wrong on all counts, I was just highlighting why

Kurald Galain
2008-03-01, 07:34 AM
The nazgul got driven off by a guy with a torch and failed to kill a simple hobbit. At the same time, neither does Aragorn actually kill any of them.

Ah, so we've just proven that Eowyn is higher level than Aragorn :smallbiggrin:

Riffington
2008-03-01, 10:46 AM
You weak people aren't talking about taking 20 on bashing down a door. Regular seven-year-olds can't slam one time into 40 exterior doors and expect to knock down 2 of them (let alone 8 doors).
You are talking about attacking/sundering the door, assuming some kind of fix to the hardness rules. I guarantee you, those seven-year-olds would be faster taking out those external doors if you gave them axes.

If there exists a door that I (Str 9) have a >1% chance to knock down in a single slam, then it's not going to give Jerome Bettis any challenge.

If I arm-wrestle Jerome Bettis, the outcome is a certainty. I'd say you should replace the d20 there with a d2, but that would just be a coin flip and then you'd need two DMs.

Justin_Bacon
2008-03-22, 02:06 AM
According to the Alexandrian, the Nazgul were CR-appropriate. That's sort of the problem with it. It's circular logic (exactly the same circular logic, in fact, that he accuses everybody else of using).

Just a quick correction here: I look at knowable qualities (like orcs and skills) to gauge Aragorn's abilities.

Theoretically you could stat up a Nazgul as a CR 5 or a CR 35 challenge. There's not enough meaningful information presented in the books to make a judgment either way. So the Nazgul are useless as a calibrator.

It would be circular logic if I had said, "Aragorn is level X, therefore the Nazgul are CR X, therefore Aragorn is level X." But I didn't actually do that: I simply dismissed the Nazgul as a data point because there is no data to point to.

I see others have already corrected many of your other errors of fact.

Good gaming!