Untrained/trained Skills....Noooo!

[Baby Samurai]

The Skills rules are supposed to model stuff that heroic-fantasy adventurers are good at (picking locks, sneaking, etc.). It was never itended to allow you to "stat up" Leonardo da Vinci.

Exactly, someone like Mozart of Jimi Hendrix would have an obscene amount of Ranks in Perform (instrument), but wouldn't have more than a few hp.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

There are two big in the skill system. If they would get rid of these, most issues would be fixed.

1) No/ not enough base knowledge. Sure you can use skills untrained but the only bonus you get is your ability bonus. That is not enough. If you get a base knowledge (say 5 ranks or so) in your untrained skills you might actually use them and succeed. This does not include skills that have to be trained.

2) linear progression. In the real world if you lear a new skill, lets say a new language, at first you progress very fast but after a while the progress slows down. You have absorbed the basics and now tackle the more complicated things. You still get better but at a slower rate. If D&D would use a skill system with diminishing returns the DCs would not have to be so ridiculous high for some tasks. A 1st level rogue can barely disable a simple trap but a high level rogue disables a magical Deathtrap with his feet while his hands are bound. Some might find this heroic. I think it is absurd.

3) Specialisation. There is no real Specialisation in D&D. Sure you can max out and add Skill Focus. But that does not simulate the total dedication for one skill enough. I would say, get rid of the x skill ranks per level per skill. Let every Player decide if he wants to specialize or stay generalist. The changes from 2) will cap the linear progression. So a Specialist will be much better than a generalist but with diminishing returns.

Combine 1) , 2) and 3) into a skill system and all PCs can try basic things like hiding or swimming and have a chance to succeed.

2) I think that's what Star Wars does pretty well - Skill Training and Skill Focus grant you a high bonus fast, and for more, you need a long time.

I think what's also interesting are the reroll talents and racial abilities for skills - essentially, your success rate becomes more consistent, but even if you feel somewhat challenged by a task, your comrades who are less focussed still have a chance to succeed. Pure bonuses would mean that anything you find hard to do becomes impossible for your comrades. Which is fine for lock-picking and disable device, but not so great for skills that everybody uses.

 

[Goken100]

One of the designers as much as said that the skill system in D&D won't be the same as in SW SAGA. I'm hoping for some kind of mid-way point between 3.5 and SAGA.

By the way, for those lovers of 3.5 skills, check the math on a high level character. Go ahead, I'll wait.
...
There were errors weren't there? Maximums exceeded? Cross-class rules violated? Synergies forgotten? The designers are aware. Thus, something better shall emerge.

 

[Henrix]

The skill system is one of my greatest worries for the new edition. I really think that being able to customise the characters is essential. And just having skills relevant to encounters seems boring.

 

[Bagpuss]

If not, your roll would be:
"1/2 character level + relevant ability modifier + 5 (if trained) + 5 (if Skill Focus)"
I have two MAJOR problems with this:
1. It stops any characters having any flavour through their skill choices, you can do anything you want (fine if your a Jedi, not so if you are a Ftr/Pal etc).

Your flavour comes from what you decide to be trained in. If you aren't trained they you aren't going to be very good at all.

2. A 20th level (or so) adventurer -often with very high abilities- who has never picked up a sculpters tools in his life will be able to make things like an old master, who, lets face it, is unlikely to advance beyond 5th level cos he won't get any XP doing sculpture!

So a 1st level character can be as good as a legendary character (the sort of person that should be able to turn their hand to anything with a good chance of success) at something they have specialised in.

Plus if you know SWSE skill then creating a mastercraft work of art like that of a professional sculptor would be a "trained" use of the skill so the 20th level character could make a reasonable shape, but anyone could tell it was the work of the amateur.

Not seeing the problem.

 

[Klaus]

Hi All,
I was reading through the 'star wars' stuff that 'might' be relevent to 4E. And I was appalled to see that skills are either trained or untrained. I hope that this will not apply to 4E, please someone put my worries to rest 'cos I am excited about another edition. If not, your roll would be:
"1/2 character level + relevant ability modifier + 5 (if trained) + 5 (if Skill Focus)"
I have two MAJOR problems with this:
1. It stops any characters having any flavour through their skill choices, you can do anything you want (fine if your a Jedi, not so if you are a Ftr/Pal etc).
2. A 20th level (or so) adventurer -often with very high abilities- who has never picked up a sculpters tools in his life will be able to make things like an old master, who, lets face it, is unlikely to advance beyond 5th level cos he won't get any XP doing sculpture!
Adventurer: 10+4[ish] vs 2+2[ish]+5+5
Hopefully it is not happening......
Share your 2p...
M1.9P

You're forgetting quite a few things:

1) You must be "Trained" in a skill in order to Take 10.
2) You get next-to-no numerical modifiers to skills, so your base ability becomes more significant.
3) You get several "Trained Only" uses of skills, even for skills that have "Untrained" uses.
4) You have several Talent Trees in SWSE that modify some skill uses (allowing re-rolls, or faster uses of skills, etc).

So you have quite some flexibility there, beyond the simple difference between Bob having +8 and Ted having +10.

 

[Tharen the Damned]

I don't understand what you mean, there. Skills are usualy opposed roll. untrained VS untrained -> chances of success. Untrained VS trained -> very little chance of success. Just set the DC right for common, easy task (climbing a rope etc...) so that you don't need a trained skill to do it.

Ok, to make it clearer. In D&D, if you do not have the climb skill you have a hard time climbing even if you are a healthy strong PC and get Ability bonuses. So you are strong and healthy and can not climb this Tree because you have no skill ranks. This is even more ridiculous for a Str. 10 commoner.
To even this out, everybody should have at least some ranks in climbing and other skills that everybody can try to use without training.

Unless you use skill points and XP à la Ars Magica, this is not possible without cumbersome tables. And I think D&D4 will be simpler than that.

You could make it easier. Maybe make the first 5 ranks cost 1 point each, the next 5 ranks cost 2pts each and so on. I am to lazy to do the math for this to get a beautiful curve that is horizontal at 20th or for 4th at 30th level.

When do you choose to specialize ? D&D is not skill-centric, I doubt they will use that. Maybe you can have a special feat "total dedication" that gives you another +5 in a skill, but -3 in every other skills...

This is something that irks me, because it essentially demeans the skill type characters like the rogue. In the RAW the best door opener in the world is the rogue with the best Dex Stat booster and magical equipment. Not the one with the most skill ranks as they will be maxed out anyway.
But you are right I think, they will not complicate the skill system as D&D is not a skill focussed system.

 

[Tharen the Damned]

2) I think that's what Star Wars does pretty well - Skill Training and Skill Focus grant you a high bonus fast, and for more, you need a long time.
I think what's also interesting are the reroll talents and racial abilities for skills - essentially, your success rate becomes more consistent, but even if you feel somewhat challenged by a task, your comrades who are less focussed still have a chance to succeed. Pure bonuses would mean that anything you find hard to do becomes impossible for your comrades. Which is fine for lock-picking and disable device, but not so great for skills that everybody uses.

Hi Mustrum, do you know the german RPG "Midgard das Fantasy Rollenspiel"?
If I look for a brillant skill system, I look at Midgard.

S.T. Cooley Publishing tried something similiar with "Buy the Numbers"

 

[FourthBear]

I think the guiding principle that should inform what skills should be statted out is: will the character be rolling for this skill at least every other adventure with a significant impact on the game. While giving a character one rank in Knowledge (architecture) or Profession (baker) or Perform (poetry) might seem very flavorful, unless the character is actually rolling for it regularly, it's pointless bookkeeping. I think that such character traits should indeed be separated from the adventuring skills section. Just like you don't need to spend points for your character to have a busy-body sister or to only wear the color blue, you shouldn't have to spend skill points to write poetry in your spare time.

Now, if you are in a campaign where poetry is an important part of the campaign and you regularly need to submit poems and roll on Perform (Poetry) to overcome challenges (and the result of that roll actually matters), then you should definitely add Poetry to the skills list. The same applies to Profession (Sailor) and any skill that a particular campaign might need. However, in my experience, flavor skills are either never rolled for or the DM tosses the character a bone once or twice in a campaign and then fudges so that the result is significant.

 

[an_idol_mind]

I think one of the more underrated aspects of skill ranks is that they allow a character to alter their talents as they advance. As a bard, I might keep my Perform skill maxed out. But if my fighter dabbles in playing the lyre, I might want to toss a few ranks in Perform and then leave it as is, reflecting it as a talent but not one that is as well-developed as, say, his ability to intimidate people. As another example, I might have a survivalist character who spent all his life in the woods, thus having no ranks in any social skills. But if his adventures eventually bring him into dealings with a noble court, he might slowly gain some Diplomacy ranks, taking 1 or 2 as he levels up and learns about the world outside the forest. The current system allows for these little quirks, while also making it easy for folks who want to keep their best skills maxed out to do so. I don't see the Saga system as being as flexible in this way, particularly when it comes to learning new skills later in an adventuring career.

Of course, this is just my preference. 4th edition D&D seems to be developing into a game that runs counter to this and many other preferences of mine -- which is fine and dandy, as long as it ends up appealing to a broader audience. It is worth noting that the skill system is one of the easier things to tweak and house rule in the game. I could do a Saga-style skill system with 3rd edition pretty easily, and I'm pretty sure I'll be able to do a 3e-style skill system with 4th edition if I want to.