I'm playing in a weekly round-robin Saturday game. That is, every week it's a different GM and a different game.

One of our re-occuring games is a d20 Wheel of Time game. While Mr. Jordon's opus doesn't exactly ring my bell, I'm having a dandy ol' time with our most excellent GM.

But there's a problem, see.

I'm playing a noble character (I've already been told I should switch our for the Star Wars Noble who is vastly superior in all ways, shapes and means). At the end of the last game session, the GM asked, "Does anybody want to do anything before we quit?"

Well, yes I did. My noble character - a noblewoman, by the way - donned her slumming clothes, went down to the bad part of town and walked up to the table of one of the most notorious swordsmen in the world. She threw down a fencing sword and said, "Teach me."

Here's the problem.

In the scope of the d20 system, there's no way for me to pick up a "Fencing Skill." I have to pick up a whole level of Armsman or Fighter or something like that. But I don't want that. I want to learn how to fight with a sword. I don't want the armor skills and Feats or how to fight with a polearm or axe or anything like that. Just swordsman.

Am I missing something with the d20 system? Is there any way for me to do this without going off my "noble track?"

Anybody help me? Anybody at all?

Thanks in advance,
John

PS: I'm also posting this over at EnWorld. Use every resource you can! (And I'm dying to see the different responses!)

Take care,
John

I'm no d20 expert, but that sounds like a violation of certain basic d20 principles. Why are you using d20? If the GM is a fan of the system, I think you might be in for a disapointment (as their likely then unwilling to alter it; though your reputation might provide some sway).

The only thing I can think of is for you and the GM to create a new class (duelist? swordsman?) that encompases the skills your looking for. And then you'll get the abilities when you get enough EXP to buy the level. There are rules for this, IIRC in the DMG. If you were to make the class narrow enough perhaps it might cost less to buy the level (such mechanics would go a long way to making D&D more versatile; hmmm).

Mike

One idea that might work, but is a bit of a departure from the d20 system: make fighting a skill.

For each class, determine whether fighting is a class or cross-class skill. Give all classes one more skill point/level.

You can even do this in the middle of a campaign: change everyone's base attack bonus into a skill without making them spend any skill points. Treat it normally from then on.

My $0.02 is that in D&D thinking, the level of "fighter" is what it would take to train your character enough to have a noticeable difference. In system terms, you could have spent an entire day training with the sketchy swordmaster, but to have it show up in a die roll, you'd need enough XP to level in a class that provided the bonus.

When your character levels, and it just so happens that you get a +1 to your attack bonus, then in roleplaying terms, it came from all the time you spent practicing with that swordmaster.

-Matt

If d20 is running counter to your play goals, then you're forced to
a) follow d20, letting the system override play goals,
b) add house rules, nudging the system towards your play goals, or
c) it's time for a new system.

I had a similar problem with d20 when I wanted to create an adventuring Egyptologist. Our group opted for option a), so I was stuck with a Rogue (with skills in History). Then, on par with a) (with prewritten scenario overriding my play goal), any question of "I examine for historical significance" was met with what little information was presented in the module's text.

The end result? I had fun with a), simply because I didn't let the system dictate my behavior. I had my Rogue examine, touch and ruminate all over the dungeon, regardless of whether I was rewarded with incredulity ("Sure, take some rubbings from the wall.") or skeletons bursting up to fight (group looking at me in horror: "You mean you touched the coffins!?")

So, if your group is determined to stick with D&D as written, sure, you start learning how to fence. You could even pick up a sword and use it with all the rules-based penalties for not being able to use it properly. And then, when you've got enough experience, level up in an appropriate class with fighting ability.

Otherwise, I dig Clinton's suggestion.

I don't know what the WoT d20 rules say. But in my D&D3E DMs guide on page 25 there is a big bold heading on "Modifying Character Classes" The side bar at the bottom (bottom bar?) clearly reads "Sometimes, however, players com to you [the DM] and say that they like a certain class, but they want to change a single feature or two..."

So...simplest and completely by the book solution would be for you to design a new noble class called adventurous noble or something with whatever tweaks to the normal class you want balanced by whatever sacifices the DM asks for (what you didn't learn while learning the sword). Then at your next level just level in that instead which in all other ways would look like your normal noble level so you don't get off track.

Now...again, I don't know how WoT does it, but 3E gives proficiencies by broad category (simple and martial IIRC). This means there is in fact no "learn the sword and only the sword" skill in 3E. Couple of points on this.

1) This is actually, strangely enough, more realistic. Much of the knowledge of how to be a good fighter does in fact translate beyond a specific weapon. Also, most historic weapon trainers (like George Silver) would teach the entire range of weapons from dagger through pike and insist his students learn them before they tackled the sword...so it would be reasonable to assume that the NPC weapons master you encountered would do the same. "Yes I will teach you the sword...but first you must learn to fight..." type of thing. The time between then and your next level would require describing your periodic lessons and constant practice.

2) There is a feat called "Weapon Focus" its function is to give a +1 (per time taken) to a specific weapon class. This is the equivelent of gaining 1 level of Fighter Class but for that 1 weapon only. This does require being proficient with the weapon in question first, but that is a feature that the DM may waive in conjunction with #1. Again, not being familiar with WoT rules, but the Aristocrat class in D&D comes with martial weapon proficiency automatically.

Hell, for a 1 time grant of +1 to a single weapon type to fit with a character's concept, I'd probably just hit them with a 1 time 10% XP surcharge and then give them the Weapon Focus feat. Its certainly within the guidelines of "modifying a class" and should satisfy most rules lawyering DMs. Page 25 (and a couple other places in the DM's guide) is pretty much instructions to the DM to be flexible in this regard.

Wish I could be more WoT specific for you, but I don't have that one.

itsmrwilson wrote:
When your character levels, and it just so happens that you get a +1 to your attack bonus, then in roleplaying terms, it came from all the time you spent practicing with that swordmaster.

-Matt

Easy as pie.

Take Martial Weapons Proficiency (Rapier) or (Longsword) -- this Feat for non-fighty types confers ability with ONE type of martial weaponry rather than ALL types of martial weaponry. That cancels out the -4 penalty on attack rolls with the sword. Weapon Focus is then an option for ya for that lovely +1 (you won't be able to get Weapon Specialization as that's only for the Fighter class).

Then, later on you can take weapon feats like Expertise (up to -5 attack but add up to +5 to AC), Weapon Finesse (use Dex rather than Str as an attack modifier) and Improved Disarm (no attacks of opportunity for disarm attempts) later on to reflect greater ability. Moving on, go for Improved Trip, Combat Reflexes, Ambidexterity and Two-Weapon Fighting...

At high levels you gain a lot by taking Improved Critical, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, Whirlwind Attack...oh yeah. :)

Trust Jared to bail me out of a d20 jam.

Seriously, thanks to all you guys for throwing suggestions. Now, I've got a ton of options to bring my DM. You guys rule.

Take care,
John

---
The Wick is Dead!
John is alive and well.

What the hell!?

::AMAZED::

Jared Sorensen knows that much about D20!?

::AMAZED::

-Marco
[I mean, I'm impressed (both by the depth of the answer and the fact that D20 can *do* that)--but--isn't D20 the synthesis of everything you hate in a gaming system? Why'd you read it? Or was it just encyclopedic knowledge of something you happened to absorb?]

Sure Jared, do it the easy way...how much fun is that...and why the hell didn't I think of that...

Jared continues to prove that he is simply a god of gaming.

The premise for this campaign could be - Do two wrongs make a right? Hehe. Anyway, drop me a line John. I've been trying to get some roleplaying going around here, but everyone is too damn busy.

Roger

On Jared and d20 - he's a tester for Neverwinter Nights, as I recall. The computerification of d20 prolly taught 'em more about the system than some d20 designers know.

"Solving" John's problem - as folks here have demonstrated, I'd say Feats are definitely the way to go. The GM has gotta use his judgement - not all Feats are created equal, so if you're going to be giving them out as extra benefits for roleplaying situations and the like, it becomes a "balance as you go" dilemna. Where "balance" means whatever you want it to mean in your game . . .

That said, we do this kind of thing all the time in my d20 game, and it usually works out fine (pretty functional Drift - towards exactly what, I'm not sure, but definitely away from "exactly as written"). Of course, there are still issues with the system in general you'll need to work with. For example - is John's noble supposed to become a true KICK-ASS swordsperson? That's going to be tough without fighter levels - a "true" fighter (even of a few levels lower) is going to be much better than this noble, even if that fighter doesn't normally use a sword.

But you can work with it. If John and his GM are willing to go down that path, I bet they can figure something out.

Gordon