I was going to give this a break, but my character rolled some dice and sent me here. The proficiency list has very basic skills. Pity if no-one in the party can read, or if no-one in the party can swim, or if no-one in the party can cook. Worse, what if no-one has etiquette? Is this what helps it be more of a primitive experience? As a DM, have you ever landed in a situation that required a proficiency that no-one had? Like, "take my horse warrior and follow the sign", and the character does not have read/write or mounted proficiency?
-
Re: Proficiencies
Sat, February 2, 2008 - 1:45 PMI suppose it depends on what edition you are referring to. In 3rd edition, it is unlikely for this to happen. For example, all characters have Swim (as it is a skill that can be used untrained). The few skills that can't be used untrained are pretty specific (i.e. Sleight of Hand, Tumbling, Open Lock). A good DM would endevour not to put his players in a situation where they absolutely (sp?) HAD to use a skill none of them posessed. -
-
Re: Proficiencies
Sun, February 3, 2008 - 9:41 AMword. even in second edition, i believe that everyone can read and swim and ride a horse at a basic level untrained. also, the second edition proficiency system was a good first crack at noncombat skills (there was no system at all in 1ed no?) but it's incredibly schizophrenic, and i mean c'mon- climb walls? doesn't climbing seem like kind of a stupid class specific skill?
-
-
Re: Proficiencies
Sun, February 3, 2008 - 11:48 AMI think it's a mistake to assume things like swimming and reading ability. As for D&D, I still think it's a mistake to assume swimming and reading ability.
Seriously, though, have you ever seen what happens when a person who can't swim falls into deep water? They freak. Now imagine how they would freak (and likely drown) if loaded down with armor and packs. It was common not all that long ago to have drowned in a simple boating accident. Also, how many of us have ridden a horse? I can tell you, it's not all that easy if you're unfamiliar with it. -
-
Re: Proficiencies
Sun, February 3, 2008 - 12:24 PMI've ridden a horse exactly once. It was not hard, as a matter of fact it was EASY. That is why riding is one of those checks that everyone can do. The reason you need to put points into this skill is if you want to do something more than get from point A to point B. Fighting, doing "tricks", jumping, etc while on horse back, etc. takes practice and SKILL.
As for swimming, just because it is an unskilled check doesn't mean that someone without points in it is going to survive the attempt. Note that if you are a land based creature the book calls for a check for every round you are in the water. If you fail by 4 or more you make no progress and you go under the water if you fail by 5 or more. In addition every hour you are in the water you must make a DC 20 swim check or take 1d6 points non-lethal damage from fatigue (PHB pg 84). Note also that swim checks double the normal armor check and encumbrance penalties. So a fighter in full plate starts at a -12 penalty. The DC for Calm water is 10. So a fighter in full plate is going to have some trouble even staying afloat even on a calm lake. It's pretty clear to me, at least that if you're doing more than crossing the occasional stream you might want to have some points in swim.
-
-
Re: Proficiencies
Tue, February 5, 2008 - 11:18 AMHistorically, a lot of sailors could not even swim - no joke. Swimming was a sort of interesting skill for people to have. My girlfriend, god bless her heart, cannot swim even though we live in a beach community and 75% or whatever of the earth is covered in water.
I have had characters where the concept didnt call for reading and writing - and roleplayed it to the hilt (there was even the times when this cleric was teaching me literacy). Most DMs are flexible enough to where if you are a noble or its specific to your background, you can try untrained checks and such. For example, if you were a ranger in a great lakes region, you would likely be able to swim untrained.
I had an evil cleric once where he almost drowned several times as he had never been raised around water or where people really swam - growing up in the desert, where would he learn? So he got an untrained check, but at a penalty.
You should have a sense of what your character can and cannot do, and be able to make a case for it. Like, diplomacy is a good skill to use for etiquette. But its more about the character and the RP than the numbers, is how we swing it. -
-
Re: Proficiencies
Tue, February 5, 2008 - 4:50 PMIn my last campaign our DM gave us bakcground skill points. We got so many points ( I don't remember how many) to spend on certain skills (these were in addition to class skill points). We could pick almost any skill as long as we explained how our character would have learned them before he/she became an adventurer. I liked the idea myself. -
-
Re: Proficiencies
Thu, February 7, 2008 - 11:05 AMThats a good idea too - and have all of the background be "class" skills as opposed to cross class.
I played once with a DM who gave you a level in an NPC class prior to your beginning adventuring. This was actually really cool, as you could have been like an expert or noble or something, you had a few more hit points, saving throw points, etc. I thought was really good for spellcasters, especially, who were adepts or even commoners - the extra hit points meant they werent just fated to die. -
-
Re: Proficiencies
Fri, February 8, 2008 - 9:26 AMI played once with a DM who gave you a level in an NPC class prior to your beginning adventuring.
Did he assign the NPC class randomly or did you have some discussion about background beforehand? I think that giving a rank of an NPC class is a great method of getting some back story into a session. I used to require (when we plaed 2e) that my players have at least one craft/profession with at least 5 points utilized. But I have to admit that I like the idea of the characters having an NPC class better.
I encourage my players to have a background for their characters. This usually works with my group as they are often inventive (which can sometimes lead to headaches for me, but often with positive results. My group consists of 5 males and 3 females, ages range for 20 to 50. They really keep me thinking and on my toes. Out of the 8 people in our group 5 are highly inventive and hilarity often ensues.
-
-
-
