Why do skill points only come in even numbers?

[el-remmen]

So homebrewers that want something better than 2 but not as good as 4 for clerics, wizards and paladins can bump them up a point to 3, like I did.

 

[Psion]

Of course, the same question could be reversed. Why do skill points only come in odd numbers for humans?

Or, perhaps the answer is somewhere in-between. Perhaps they didn't want the human advantage to make a class with one skill total on par with the next more skilled class.

More likely, designers were just simplifying their choices. I can see how going in one-point steps might have been a bit fidgety.

For similar reasons, I disdain ad hoc save progressions in third party products. I think a third save progression would be good, but I look at the ad hoc save progressions and think to myself the author is essentially splitting hairs on a level where balancing is really not too sensible.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

You know, once you run out of real questions, you're under no obligation to keep making up questions.

 

[Kwitchit]

There is also no reason that BAB has to have three different progressions, and saves only get two. My guess is it sounded good at the time.

There is an "average" save progression in the d20 system, but DnD doesn't use it. Wheel of Time d20 and Star Wars d20 do.

 

[Remathilis]

It's because the "average" saves in other d20 books aren't based (afaIk) on any formula. Good saves are (1/2)X+2, poor a (1/3)X, where X is character level. A middle save would have to be between 1/2 or 1/3 to be useful, and there is not a lot of wiggle-room there. (3/8ths?)

Back to Skill Points; I think it was an arbitrary rule to mesh with HP going at even numbers. Considering classes only go in 2, 4, 6, or 8 anyway, I don't see why 3, 5, 7 or 9 would really fix anything, and it would see arbitrary to assign new classes that (why do bards get 6, rogues, 8, but Hyperninja get 9? for example)

 

[frankthedm]

Those who are skilled in battle, those who are familiar in battle, and those who are better off letting others do battle. To add a fourth level of progression (+1 every third level) would make the disparity between the extremes so great that the fourth progression would be useless in combat. [Sblock=Really poor BAB example]

0
0
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
5
6
6
6

Who whould want to play a character with a +6 BAB at 20th level unless it was a combat free campaign?
[/Sblock]

I like this idea for wizards, unfortunatly the class would also then be pretty crappy with rays. Also for the way AC climb, a 1/2 bad really is already useless in combat.

With saves I think that the rationale was that people are either good at it or they aren't. That suggests two levels of variety. However, it would be easy to use the rationale for BAB and say that there are experts at a certain save, people who are decent but not experts, and those who really should think twice before encountering something requiring that specific save. You could do something like this for a 10 level progression:

[Sblock=Possible Save table]

Good Avg. Poor
2    1    0
3    1    0
3    2    1
4    2    1
4    3    1
5    3    2
5    3    2
6    4    2
6    4    3
7    5    3
7    5    3
8    6    4
8    6    4
9    6    4
9    7    5
10   7    5
10   8    5
11   8    6
11   9    6 
12   9    6

[/Sblock]

It's not perfect, of course, but it holds the balance fairly well.

I honestly think it is needed for giants and other creatures that already have a good con and high HD. Fort saves as I have previously dicussed really get too high on so many monsters that many casters feel they are not worth casting. Trading good fort for average fort and will would slightly even the field

I think a set your own saves option would be nice, where one good save could be traded in for 2 average saves. The fighter and the giant would both love to have a chance at making a few will saves. Of course doing this requires using a system for ''fractional saves", which unlike fractional BAB, mushpots do not want.

 

[el-remmen]

I use the "middle" save for several homegrown PrCs.

 

[frankthedm]

No, this isn't in the Rules forum, because there's no possible rules basis for this question. This is purely about the psychology of game designers.

Every WotC class (base or prestige) and every third party class I've ever seen has an even number of skill points per level -- 2, 4, 6, or 8. Never 3, 5, or 7. Why? Why do game designers reduce their possible choices?

The only thing I can think of is that it's supposed to be some sort of parity with hit dice. Dice are, by their nature, even. But that doesn't seem like a *good* reason to limit the choices on skill points...

Nope it is not a 'good reason'. Thankfully it is easy enough when running a game to give the PCs more skill points. Whether it is just increasing the amount given, or giving bonus ranks in skills for signifigant uses of the skills ala Chaosium's BRP/CoC.

When doing so I strongly recommend trial based entry into PRCs varient from Unearthed Arcana.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

I think even skill point allotments reinforce the difference in skills between respective classes myself. An odd progression could take away the pronounced difference if there is only a skill point of difference.

Maybe it is just part of a level system, where progression comes in significant chunks. An odd progression just might not be significant enough?

Btw, Merry Christmas all!

 

[Darklone]

It's because of cross-class skills costing 2 skill points per rank.

Agreed.