Untrained/trained Skills....Noooo!

[FireLance]

It makes sense that a rogue should be able to do these things. It makes no sense whatsoever that any and every wizard should be able to. In 3X you can build a wizard who can jump and balance if that is your desire, but you are not forced away from the wizard archetype. It is up to you. As I read your example I see no story reason that a wizard should gain these abilities. It sounds to me like a cheap gamist workaround that flies completely in the face of the feel of what an archtypal wizard should be.

To me, it's a matter of presentation. When the rogue easily jumps across a chasm due to his athletic skill, the wizard mutters an incantation and summons the Winds of Wahoo to bear him aloft. In game terms, that gives him a bonus equal to half his level on his Jump checks.

 

[Falling Icicle]

I don't like the way Saga edition handles skills at all. I want characters that have strengths and weaknesses. I don't think every character should be a jack of all trades. As others have said, why even have a skill system at all if you're going to give every character skill at everything?

 

[jasin]

Yep, that's one of the problems with 3rd edition – your average 15th level warrior type can pretty much smack any monster in the MM unless they roll a natural "1".

Why is this a problem?

I'm not particularly bothered by it neither thematically (awesome swordsmen very rarely outright miss you, the best you can hope for is to just be nicked instead of severely wounded), nor in terms of playability (you hit all the time with your best attack, but you easily might miss with your weaker ones, and monsters take a lot more to put down than a single hit).

 

[Dave Turner]

Jhulae, Gloombunny and WyzardWhately all make valid points. The only thing I'd like to add is that the 4e designers have already said they've removed the Profession Skill, and I think Craft too, so you "old master" concern is right out the window. 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.

Trained vs. Untrained is a good way of modelling a lot of things, I think. You should really give it some more thought, and playtest it.

Precisely. In 4E, you don't have to stat up a master craftsman in the same way you did that for 3E. I don't know how (or if) they'll handle that, but your second concern is likely not a real one.

 

[jasin]

Which ends up meaning that they all solve the problem like rogues. I vastly prefer the idea that each character use their own traits and distinct advantages to overcome problems.

So in the specific examples mentioned (being tossed overboard, sneaking past guards or needing to jump and balance your way across a chasm) how should the wizard, fighter and cleric solved them, for the ideal experience in terms of tone and atmosphere?

 

[FireLance]

I don't like the way Saga edition handles skills at all. I want characters that have strengths and weaknesses. I don't think every character should be a jack of all trades. As others have said, why even have a skill system at all if you're going to give every character skill at everything?

Because not all characters will be equally skilled. Might as well ask why have a saving throw system since all characters have a chance to save, or why make a differentiation between Fortitude, Reflex and Will since everybody's saving throws will increase in the long run.

In the same way that a rogue could expect to succeed on a Reflex save 75% of the time when everyone else in the party expects to fail 75% of the time, we can have a skill check that a rogue expects to succeed at 75% of the time while everyone else expects to fail 75% of the time. But - and this is what makes the die roll interesting for all the players - the rogue could still fail, and everyone else could still succeed.

 

[Baby Samurai]

(you hit all the time with your best attack, but you easily might miss with your weaker ones

And that brings up that the fact that the clunky, dribbling iterative attacks mechanic is going bye-bye (thank god).

 

[mmu1]

I'm not a fan of the SWSE system.

While I actually like the idea of giving everyone who's supposed to be a heroic adventurer some basic competency at everyday tasks, so that we don't have ridiculous situations like a 10th level Cleric needing to cast Air Walk to get over a wall, because his Climb check is pathetic (and I like the idea of consolidation of certain skills) I think the Saga system goes too far and, like is often the case with new editions, replaces old problems with a whole new set.

For one thing, I'm not sure I really buy the "simplicity" argument - you might not have to add lots of small numbers together (frankly, it never ceases to amaze me how much trouble some people claim to have with skill points, but to each his own) but now, with skills having significantly different Trained and Untrained uses, you'll be spending more time checking what exactly you can or can't do with a skill, and people who are bad with rules get some new ones to forget or mis-remember.

Second, I see people complain that 3E/3.5 forced them to choose between spending ranks in a way that supported their character background and ways that made their character a better adventurer. I don't see how the SWSE solution - making it impossible to train in skills you don't have as class skills at all (unless you spend a feat on it) - is an improvement. If anything, it makes it even less advantageous to pick atypical skills to improve, even with characters getting more feats than ever.

I think I'd much rather see a system which simply allowed the purchase of a set of "background" skills before you began to advance in a class and worry about class/cross class costs.

 

[mmu1]

And that brings up that the fact that the clunky, dribbling iterative attacks mechanic is going bye-bye (thank god).

To be (perhaps, if they stick to the SWSE model) replaced with a new multiple attack mechanic under which you just miss a lot when making multiple attacks unless fighting absolute mooks. :\

 

[Henry]

So in the specific examples mentioned (being tossed overboard, sneaking past guards or needing to jump and balance your way across a chasm) how should the wizard, fighter and cleric solved them, for the ideal experience in terms of tone and atmosphere?

For me, the rogue gets his chance to shine by being first across. The wizard uses his fly spell to ferry others across, or he (or the cleric, depending) creates a bridge from the wall of ice or wall of stone spell ( i think wall of stone can still do that, but I know wall of ice can) for the others, or he whips out his jump potion, or the cleric air walks them across. In other words, the Rogue doesn't have his thunder stolen by the others using action points to succeed at the same thing he just did without one.

However, I can also see the appeal of having multi-competent characters instead of one specialist in each party.