I hate cross class skills....

[pspahn]

makes it hard to stat out high-level characters

That's the thing that really ticks me off, although Saga seems to have addressed a lot of that.

To the OP: ///You can only attempt to add a new skill or rank (up to the skill maximum) if you have been successful with that skill. (GM call)///

I don't like this rule at all. In real life you often learn more from failing than you do from success. If I try to disarm a bomb and it blows up in my face, I'll at least know what NOT to do next time. I think if someone attempts a skill that's important to the scenario (even if he fails it) he should be able to add a new skill.

Pete

 

[Aussiegamer]

So, in addition to limiting skill point allotment (minimum 1), and penalizing Int-based skills (due to low Int score and associated modifier), you also want to limit ALL SKILLS' rank ceiling based on Int. Doesn't that give Int-based skills double penalties?

1: I changed that idea after the 1st reply.

There is no limit to the number of skills a character can have a rank in.

2: Int based skills are still Int based skills.

I never said i was changing the skill base mods, only the way the number of free skills (attempts) that a character has, as you need to be able to put the knowledge into [practice and thats what wisdom is.

So I mix Wis and Int for number of free skills, and not just have Int.

3: Yes skill ranks for all skills will have a artifical ceiling.

Why should a INT 3 humaniod be able to treat injury at 25 ranks? Surely they don't have tha capacity to learn it to that level.

I have a modifier for my class of physical skills of -10, so even the least learned will be able to get quite high ranks in that.

Not the same as cross class as it still allows them to get some lower ranks in most skills.

So:
No no double penalty to Int based skills exists.

Use the d20 Star Wars:Saga Edition Skill system.

Designing my own thanks

You diffuse the meaning of the class and open the door for abuse.

Thats the idea for my system

No real classes or advanced classes.

you design your own PC the way you want it to be.

Instead of taking silly secondary classes and end up being the master of nothing as most are forced to become, you can make you character the way you want.


Remember you have to have a success to attempt a rank in that skill. So if you don't use the skill you don't get a free attempt. No practice no improvement....just like life.

Abuse?
Hum I don't see that...I see the ability to make your character in a more flexiable fashion.

Considering I have
11 physical skills
24 basic skills
16 Military/ Covert skills
12 Intermediate skills
8 advanced skills

and that does not include the multiple skills under the one craft etc skill. So seperate ones.

Then you going to be hard pressed to abuse the system...you still end up really specialising in an area or you'll be no good really.

So yer you might have stealth (hide and move silent have been combined) and some computer stuff...but your not going to be a good fighter as they are skills as well, or be able to wear many differing armours, skill again.

I swapped feats for skills...this allows for a weapon use to clear a weapon etc (I also give bonuses for every 5th rank in that weapon or amrour type)

Failing a skill:

yer you might but if you never succeed you never understand what you are doing wrong.

A success is much better than a failure to teach. But yes a failure is helpful...I just don't want to overload the system with 1/2 points for failures etc.

So for me a success means you learnt something new and thus can attempt to improve the skill.

hard to stat out:
Ruling that you did have a success with that skill and thus can attempt any skill to improve it.

But yes as its a check then every single check would need to be done.....humm

and since Smart get 1d12+ LM then that could be, at 10th, an average of nearly 100.

I am sort of against a straight % roll for successful attempts. Maybe a single check and that the limit of the upper allowed????

Thoughts on say a easier way keeping the principle in place????

 

[Aussiegamer]

If I try to disarm a bomb and it blows up in my face, I'll at least know what NOT to do next time.

After they scrap you up and make a new clone....lol


I do see your point, but just see that it would overload the checks.

Maybe a fail and not major fail might allow a check....goes to think about it.


Cheers for all the feedback.

 

[Ranger REG]

I dunno. Even I give Int 3 sentient creature the benefit of the doubt, especially with what so few skills he did acquire in his life experience.

They may not be scholastic academic skills like engineering or surgery, but other skills that academics and scholars took for granted.

 

[Aussiegamer]

I dunno. Even I give Int 3 sentient creature the benefit of the doubt, especially with what so few skills he did acquire in his life experience.

They may not be scholastic academic skills like engineering or surgery, but other skills that academics and scholars took for granted.

Under the D&D 3.5 system he would get what 1 as the min any way as a barbarian or fighter. And pick from handle animal, ride or climb etc...not much RP value in them is there!

Mine at least gives you a "chance" to get more skills.

Because as you said they should be able to acquire some physical skills like, jump, climb, tumble...some of those athletes are not the brightest of sparks but they do well in their chosen fields....


Note:
I need to add a mod for specialised skills...maybe +4....

 

[jdrakeh]

I think that's a horrible idea. You diffuse the meaning of the class and open the door for abuse.

Alternately, you jettison rigid stereotypes and open the door to dynamic character creation -- one man's ceiling is another man's floor and all

 

[Psion]

You could formalise this as an additional number of skills equal to a character's intelligence modifier +1?

That's a bit much, and makes the already valuable int ability even more valuable.

I've seen one d20 variant give as many as 5 bonus skills (Traveller D20 world skills), but the skills are limited in other ways--namely, you choose them from lists derived from the characteristics of your homeworld (population, economy, environment, technology, etc.)

D20 Modern and other games that use derivatives of the starting occupation mechanic give as many as 3 concept appropriate skills with no extra charge. This is a good approach, but D20 modern's classes are a bit more limited in scope; this many may be a bit giving in some other games where the classes are less general and more profession-focussed.

Spycraft replaces race (since it by default has only humans) with talents and specialties that give the character a slant throughout their career. These can (but not all do) give the character a bonus class skill. The talented feat can also grant 2 bonus skills, with the added bonus that if you spend a skill point on a rank of one of the covered skills, you get a rank in the other.

Grim Tales lets you build your own class skill list... but it's still a limited one.

IMO, these methods are ALL preferable to simply throwing the gates to skills open wide, as they still cater to the idea of a cohesive concept and facilitate team play.

 

[Aussiegamer]

yep..I agree jdrakeh

This is not really for use in modern or D&D or such, but you can if you like the idea as a HR. This is for my system I am designing.

I like the idea of a class (less) system. I still have classes but they don't define what the character is.

You can take strong and be sneaky....look a scout

You can take charismatic and be sneaky...look an agent

you can take smart and do fighting skills...Officer material that man!


so the player defines the character, with some restrictions, the way they want it to be.

 

[Psion]

Thats the idea for my system

No real classes or advanced classes.

you design your own PC the way you want it to be.

Alternately, you jettison rigid stereotypes and open the door to dynamic character creation -- one man's ceiling is another man's floor and all

Well, you all certainly don't game by my leave. But just as a matter of discourse, I have never found unfettered character choice to be all that it's cracked up to be.

I've played a variety of games over the years, many featuring freeform point buy sort of arrangement. I've generally found that players who are good at character design in an open system tend to make cohesive characters that resemble those that might come out of a structured chargen system. Those who are poor at it generally make scattershot characters out of a paranoid need to cover all bases that really aren't so good for team play.

So it's MHO that while D20 could afford some more choice (and the games I mentioned above are good takes on this), you are far better off with a system that helps all players design characters like the good players do. A system that "makes all skills class skills" is not a formula to make that happen.

 

[Aussiegamer]

You could formalise this as an additional number of skills equal to a character's intelligence modifier +1?

(The +1 is to establish a minimum amount of flexibility for low INT characters.)

I have gone away from that idea....the number of skills is now completely open.

The main restrictors are:

1, number of free attempts allowed per level, and

2, time and cost to learn more skills (which has a learning check as well, after all you can fail!)


I think that's enough without attempting to push them into a tight skill net as I blurted out.

lol I am against the idea really and just wrote without really thinking about it, I was after some feed back and want to get the thoughts down.


I have had a thought about high level builds.

at lower levels the player can roll one check and thats the limit they can assign those skill attempts at that level too, once you get to upper levels they can either do that or check each roll.

So if you get 15, you can only assign the 11 rank to a basic skill (0 mods used here).

This of course still has the level +3 limit, or level +5 for the couple of specialised skills.