Love/hate the new KS rules

Keltheos · Jun 5, 2008

So I don't have the book yet, but from what I've gleaned from the Shadowfell adventure and chatter online most of the KS'es have been folded together into just a few.

I love this as it makes for easier gaming for the GM.

I hate this because now History means two characters with wildly different backgrounds/access to information can and will both know the same information. "Hey, wizard, what do you know about this place?" Barbarian: "Well, these ruins date back from 122 when the...blah blah..." Um what?

Anyone help shed some light on this for me?

Amphimir Míriel · Jun 5, 2008

Keltheos said:
So I don't have the book yet, but from what I've gleaned from the Shadowfell adventure and chatter online most of the KS'es have been folded together into just a few.

I love this as it makes for easier gaming for the GM.

I hate this because now History means two characters with wildly different backgrounds/access to information can and will both know the same information. "Hey, wizard, what do you know about this place?" Barbarian: "Well, these ruins date back from 122 when the...blah blah..." Um what?

Anyone help shed some light on this for me?

Wizard w/academic background [fails his History check]:
"I am sure I have seen these symbols before, but for the life of me, I can't remember in which book..."

Fighter w/barbaric background [makes his History check]:
"No book. These are markings of ancient gnoll kingdom... Shaman told me story once... Many moons ago, a fearsome Gnoll king united the tribes [blah, blah, blah]"

edit: Of course, the fact that History is a skill related to INT means that this wont happen too often...

JohnSnow · Jun 5, 2008

Exactly.

It's playing against type a bit, but there's absolutely no reason why fighter must equal stupid. Similarly, there's no reason the wizard has to be a bookworm.

A fighter can have spent time in a library (trained in History). The wizard can be a fitness freak (trained in athletics).

Now, it's likely the fighter has higher strength than the wizard and that the wizard has a higher intelligence than the fighter. But it's hardly guaranteed.

Keltheos · Jun 5, 2008

I don't mind everyone having access to all knowledge-based skills, it's the fact that everyone with the same skill level in each one knowing EXACTLY the same information. Which includes EVERYTHING possible under that subject.

Blackeagle · Jun 5, 2008

Keltheos said:
I don't mind everyone having access to all knowledge-based skills, it's the fact that everyone with the same skill level in each one knowing EXACTLY the same information. Which includes EVERYTHING possible under that subject.

In 3e a Fighter with 13 ranks in Knowledge (history) knows just as much as a wizard with with 13 ranks in Knowledge (history) (assuming the same int bonus). How exactly is 4e worse?

Zimri · Jun 5, 2008

Keltheos said:
I don't mind everyone having access to all knowledge-based skills, it's the fact that everyone with the same skill level in each one knowing EXACTLY the same information. Which includes EVERYTHING possible under that subject.

Even with the same skill level don't they only know the information if they make the DC of the skill check ? Two people at the same skill level could roll a 1 or a 20 isn't it like Schrodinger's knowledge ?

mindshadow2k · Jun 5, 2008

It may be me but I love the more simplified method and I never understood the mentality of the "I need every skill spelled out on a character sheet".

I think this is where having your characters actually roleplay and develop a character background really pays off. I never saw a need to have everything spelled out for me only makes gameplay and character creation a chore. I can't say that I have actually played 3rd edition, but I have created a character for it just to try it out and it takes forever trying to go through every little detail, whereas when I used to create characters for 1st edition it would take very little time with character stats and more time developing a history for the character which is all you would really need for actual roleplaying.

I am just old school I guess hehe.

Tony Vargas · Jun 5, 2008

Skill consolidation is better than skill proliferation. Too many skills make a system frustrating - they open up gaps in PC abilities because you overlook or can't afford all the closely-related skills your character should have to fit even a tight concept.

Amphimir Míriel · Jun 5, 2008

mindshadow2k said:
It may be me but I love the more simplified method and I never understood the mentality of the "I need every skill spelled out on a character sheet".

I think this is where having your characters actually roleplay and develop a character background really pays off. I never saw a need to have everything spelled out for me only makes gameplay and character creation a chore. I can't say that I have actually played 3rd edition, but I have created a character for it just to try it out and it takes forever trying to go through every little detail, whereas when I used to create characters for 1st edition it would take very little time with character stats and more time developing a history for the character which is all you would really need for actual roleplaying.

I am just old school I guess hehe.

Well, if we have the old "Nonweapon Proficiencies" in one end of the scale, and 3.5's list of skills in the other, I'm pretty happy with 4e's system being a happy medium.

phil500 · Jun 5, 2008

Keltheos said:
I don't mind everyone having access to all knowledge-based skills, it's the fact that everyone with the same skill level in each one knowing EXACTLY the same information. Which includes EVERYTHING possible under that subject.

I hate refer to the cliche, but its all about rule zero.

if you have a PC who is a dwarf, give him a +3 on his skill check related to architecture.

etc.