Untrained/trained Skills....Noooo!

[Branduil]

Um, link to the "no craft/profession" thing?

 

[Arashi Ravenblade]

Some people I know like to actually play those useless Artisan characters. I know its not a majority or anything.
And the whole way SWSE does skills is just dumb. The way things work there is very little different between one characters skills and anothers. Just who rolls better. The way D&D skills work seem fine. I can have PC's who all might have the same skills, same ability scores even, but they might choose to do their skill points in such a unique way that it seems to me SWSE wont allow, nor will D&D 4e if they go that route.
Im not one to play a usless character, im a min-maxer, but I realize that other people do that kind of play. D&D 3.5 was all about options. Even if they went overboard. Seems like 4e is taking several steps backwards and one step to the side in favor of video game like design, where everything have a combat use.

 

[Gloombunny]

COuldn't agree more, not everyone wants to be a specialist killer- some of us want to spend a few (not all) of our points on 'non-standard' skills...

I'd like to be able to say that my character is good at those things without having to take away points from my adventuring capabilities. The way I see it, not having rules for skills like Profession is better for people who like characters who are good at that sort of thing.

 

[WayneLigon]

I've been used to this for some time, since that's almost the way Blue Rose does skills as well. I can see the complaints about it, but really it seems to have more good points than bad. Whatever happens, I'd like to see us get away from the 2+int bonus skill point classes. I'm playing in a PRP right now and there's about 10 skill points I could easily put in my fighter character just from his background. But, I can't. I'd rather have the occassional 'never picked up a flute before but I know how to play it really well' problem than the 'I've lived my entire life around horses, so I should have some Handle Animal and Ride, but no, I had to spend stuff on class-specific skills I can use in adventuring ... that I have not done yet'.

 

[Scholar & Brutalman]

Um, link to the "no craft/profession" thing?

From here:

Skill system – familiar but truncated. Getting rid of tailor, rope use, etc. Focus on the skills that are really useful in an encounter. Saga edition is a significant stride forward and should be considered a preview. Same for profession, etc. We want characters making acrobatics, bluff, jump, etc. No characters will be stuck at 10th level saying “oh I never invested in that.” Hide/Move Silent are brought together. Now an important part of your character, and here’s how to apply it to an encounter. It’s rarely a check and done, it’s now, I make a check, and they react to it. What happens now.

It doesn't explicitly say they're getting rid of Craft, but there are no Craft skills in SAGA, just a single mechanics skill and a web enhancement for using it to improve items.

 

[Irda Ranger]

I'd like to be able to say that my character is good at those things without having to take away points from my adventuring capabilities. The way I see it, not having rules for skills like Profession is better for people who like characters who are good at that sort of thing.

Correct. Now you can be a black smith too (in your day job) without having to divert resources from Skills you actually use while adventuring.

People; break away from the 3e mind-set. Your character's character record/sheet is only a subset of who they are and what they are capable of. Are the a blacksmith? Cool. Right it down on the character history / misc. notes section.

The point of the 4e design process what "Being a blacksmith or tailor has zero effect on your ability to be a Fighter or Mage, so we're taking it out of character level advancement." That doesn't mean your character can't be a blacksmith. If he is, just write it down. Done. Think if as "Rule 0 for Players." It's as easy (and as unnecessary to have rules for) as writing a character history.

 

[mach1.9pants]

I can see why people want it in (especially for the poor old fighter/paladin/cleric etc of 2 skills) but I prefer the flexibility of individual skills. Oh we house rule giving more skill points, everybody gets 2 more and rogues 4- thats you sorted WayneLigon
I think it is a dumbing down, and it is much easier to present trained/untrained as an alternative than the other way around. I want more more more options, things like skills which don't slow you down -in game- should be encouraged. You can sort the complications out side of session time

 

[Branduil]

I don't think it's much of a dumbing down when the vast majority of people maxed out a few skills anyway. Heck, the PHB pretty much tells you to do just that.

 

[Stone Dog]

I hate skill ranks in D&D with a burning passion. I've seen so many people who couldn't perform basic tasks at half their capacity because they insisted on making their skill ranks match their characterization. Great. You'd successfully modeled a 10th level rogue who can't pick a cr5 lock because you've insisted on spreading your ranks around to match your character. I'm sure the party would appreciate that, but they are riddled with poison darts now. They look kinda miffed.

Granted, I'd like a little more granularity when it comes to the skills than just untrained, trained and focused. However I seriously doubt this has to be more than untrained, dabbler, trained, focused and mastered.

SWSE edition skills work so close to perfectly (yes, I know... for me) that I can't tell the difference with the naked eye. I'll never use skill ranks the way 3rd edition does them again.

 

[maggot]

The point of the 4e design process what "Being a blacksmith or tailor has zero effect on your ability to be a Fighter or Mage, so we're taking it out of character level advancement." That doesn't mean your character can't be a blacksmith. If he is, just write it down. Done. Think if as "Rule 0 for Players." It's as easy (and as unnecessary to have rules for) as writing a character history.

I disagree that being a blacksmith has zero effect on the game. I can see it come up every so often. Pick a more useful profession for an adventurer like sailor and it can come up a lot. Having "just put it in your background" can lead to min-maxers writing long backgrounds that touch on every profession needed (I was a blacksmith, then a tailor, then a sailor). Why not have the rules help out here a bit?