I'm not sure where you're getting your info, but to make a trap, it only requires the craft skill, which last I checked, doesn't require training to use, nor is it unique to Rogues.
I'm starting to think you're using 2nd ed. Rogues, as opposed to the newer versions.
Gaming in the ice age...
I'd make it have a set trap skill to avoid being spotted by another character myself. It may be easy to put one down without springing it, but find the right place and way to set it for maximum concealability and the best positioning and such would take skill IMO. Doesn't matter though, you proved my point wrong twice on the issue. 
"You can do whatever you want to me."
"Oh, so I can crate you and hide you in the warehouse at the end of Raiders?"
"So funny, kiss me funny boy!" / *Sprays mace* " I know, I know, bad for the ozone"
"Oh, so I can crate you and hide you in the warehouse at the end of Raiders?"
"So funny, kiss me funny boy!" / *Sprays mace* " I know, I know, bad for the ozone"
[QUOTE=Magrus]I'd make it have a set trap skill to avoid being spotted by another character myself. It may be easy to put one down without springing it, but find the right place and way to set it for maximum concealability and the best positioning and such would take skill IMO. Doesn't matter though, you proved my point wrong twice on the issue. [/QUOTE]
Well, in your defence, it does require a skill to set some traps (pit falls, snares, etc.), it's just that the skill required is a craft check, as opposed to a trap skill.
[/QUOTE]Well, in your defence, it does require a skill to set some traps (pit falls, snares, etc.), it's just that the skill required is a craft check, as opposed to a trap skill.
That makes sense. I'd just do what AarronIkarus said above then, and either nix the Rogue class, or make a class between the two as a "scout" type deal in that situation. Maybe get rid of the animal companion, spells and add sneak attack and uncanny dodge or something?
I still think hunters with sneak attack would be far more effective than those without. An arrow placed in the brain stem or heart would kill quicker than 3-4 all over and animal. Cleaner too, and thats what hunting is all about. Efficient, clean kills you know? A mid-level rogue can launch off 2 arrows a round, that could be two kills right there. A mid-level ranger might launch off 3-4 arrows, and that might kill 1 and wound another. That scatters the rest and requires a chase and what-not. Those 2 deer could feed half the tribe for a day if it's not a large tribe. That's just one persons hunting, not to mention snare's and any other person hunting too.
Negligable facts normally, but when you build a campaign around harsh conditions and such, those little facts become far more important in my eyes. It can be built to be far more down to earth and realistic and truly fit the campaign setting than a normal one. Taking a block of time with a group of hunters to procure food before the onset of a harsh winter in an arctic setting isn't one of those "oh well" things. No one has food stored, and without getting it, everyone dies. That's a big deal right there. You could clash with several other groups of creatures doing the same thing you are just trying to get a stock of food and build a campaign off of it. Who's to say a tribe of orc's wouldn't want the same deer your shooting at, or a dragon didn't spot your moose and is very upset with you for shooting it?
I still think hunters with sneak attack would be far more effective than those without. An arrow placed in the brain stem or heart would kill quicker than 3-4 all over and animal. Cleaner too, and thats what hunting is all about. Efficient, clean kills you know? A mid-level rogue can launch off 2 arrows a round, that could be two kills right there. A mid-level ranger might launch off 3-4 arrows, and that might kill 1 and wound another. That scatters the rest and requires a chase and what-not. Those 2 deer could feed half the tribe for a day if it's not a large tribe. That's just one persons hunting, not to mention snare's and any other person hunting too.
Negligable facts normally, but when you build a campaign around harsh conditions and such, those little facts become far more important in my eyes. It can be built to be far more down to earth and realistic and truly fit the campaign setting than a normal one. Taking a block of time with a group of hunters to procure food before the onset of a harsh winter in an arctic setting isn't one of those "oh well" things. No one has food stored, and without getting it, everyone dies. That's a big deal right there. You could clash with several other groups of creatures doing the same thing you are just trying to get a stock of food and build a campaign off of it. Who's to say a tribe of orc's wouldn't want the same deer your shooting at, or a dragon didn't spot your moose and is very upset with you for shooting it?
"You can do whatever you want to me."
"Oh, so I can crate you and hide you in the warehouse at the end of Raiders?"
"So funny, kiss me funny boy!" / *Sprays mace* " I know, I know, bad for the ozone"
"Oh, so I can crate you and hide you in the warehouse at the end of Raiders?"
"So funny, kiss me funny boy!" / *Sprays mace* " I know, I know, bad for the ozone"
-
AarronIkarus
- Posts: 62
- Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2005 8:21 pm
- Location: Washington state
- Contact:
Yes, setting traps does require a bit of skill. I've tried it. I don't have it. However, from the primitive societies that I have looked at and read about, it was the hunters that set the traps. Most tribal group would send out 'packs' of hunters. Much like a wolf pack. The more hunters a tribe had, the better chance the tribe would eat that week/day/month/etc...
One skill that neither of you mentioned that might be usefull is the disguise skill. I don't even know if that is a real skill or not, but it might be useful. Of course, it may also fall under the camouflage skill, i.e. using skins to look like an animal to your prey.
As for bows, I don't have the books in front of me, but don't short bows have a fire rate of 2/rnd? Maybe that's just 1st ed.
One skill that neither of you mentioned that might be usefull is the disguise skill. I don't even know if that is a real skill or not, but it might be useful. Of course, it may also fall under the camouflage skill, i.e. using skins to look like an animal to your prey.
As for bows, I don't have the books in front of me, but don't short bows have a fire rate of 2/rnd? Maybe that's just 1st ed.
Live fast. Fight hard. Die in a blaze of glory.
The newer edition it's just each person has a number of attacks per round I believe. Maybe crossbows have restrictions on them, but normal bows don't.
Definately agree with the trap thing. I couldn't set one without hurting myself or breaking it or not setting it right without practice.
As far as the hunting group goes, everything I've seen goes along the same lines. Going strategically, it would make sense to have at least 1-3 people specifically trained to track down the prey and lead the others to them. The rest of them would be trained to fight and to track and hide and sneak around, but definately not as good as the head tracker's you know? Military groups are built where everyone learns basic skills, then a few people specialize in one thing, and a few more specialize in different things.
You would have your warriors trained to survive in the wilderness (barbarians), your warriors trained to thrive in the wilderness (rangers) and your scouts (rogues). That's just what makes sense to me. If I was a chieften, I'd want someone who could infiltrate another tribe I didn't trust, who could spot enemies better than anyone else in the tribe, track down anyone else in the tribe with no chance of being seen, etc.
Definately agree with the trap thing. I couldn't set one without hurting myself or breaking it or not setting it right without practice.
As far as the hunting group goes, everything I've seen goes along the same lines. Going strategically, it would make sense to have at least 1-3 people specifically trained to track down the prey and lead the others to them. The rest of them would be trained to fight and to track and hide and sneak around, but definately not as good as the head tracker's you know? Military groups are built where everyone learns basic skills, then a few people specialize in one thing, and a few more specialize in different things.
You would have your warriors trained to survive in the wilderness (barbarians), your warriors trained to thrive in the wilderness (rangers) and your scouts (rogues). That's just what makes sense to me. If I was a chieften, I'd want someone who could infiltrate another tribe I didn't trust, who could spot enemies better than anyone else in the tribe, track down anyone else in the tribe with no chance of being seen, etc.
"You can do whatever you want to me."
"Oh, so I can crate you and hide you in the warehouse at the end of Raiders?"
"So funny, kiss me funny boy!" / *Sprays mace* " I know, I know, bad for the ozone"
"Oh, so I can crate you and hide you in the warehouse at the end of Raiders?"
"So funny, kiss me funny boy!" / *Sprays mace* " I know, I know, bad for the ozone"
MAgrus, you still seem to be forgetting that in the DnD system, Rangers are the scout class.
Also, the sneak attack damage is negligable at best. It hads 1d6, unless you really pump a rogue, which in this particular setting would be foolish, especially if the only reason you have sneak attack would be to kill animals. You're forgetting you still have to hit them.
Also, Rangers get free feats, depending on what line of combat they go (ranged, or two weapon combat). If they go ranged, they essentially get the run of all ranged attack feats, many for free, which makes them far better off than a Rogue.
Also, the sneak attack damage is negligable at best. It hads 1d6, unless you really pump a rogue, which in this particular setting would be foolish, especially if the only reason you have sneak attack would be to kill animals. You're forgetting you still have to hit them.
Also, Rangers get free feats, depending on what line of combat they go (ranged, or two weapon combat). If they go ranged, they essentially get the run of all ranged attack feats, many for free, which makes them far better off than a Rogue.
-
Cuchulain82
- Posts: 1229
- Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:44 pm
- Location: Law School library, Vermont, USA
- Contact:
I think that Rogues would definately exist in an Ice Age campaign. They get tons of skill points, great class skills, and sneak attack damage. Stealing from other people or sneaking up on game is a very effective way to survive. Sure, there would be a lot of Barbarians and Rangers, but there would also be Rogues. I think rationale is similar to the usual D&D rationale- Rogues and Fighter types have similar goals but often go about them different ways.
Custodia legis