Why do skill points only come in even numbers?

[Cyberzombie]

The logical progression would be (5/12)X+1, as that is the average of the good and poor progression. This gives a nearly identical progression to the one listed by Nonlethal Force (the only difference is, I think, that 19th level gives +8 and not +9).

It's been a while since I calculated it out -- and my harddrive is a disastrous mess -- but that sounds about right. The average save isn't arbitrary, but it is not an obvious progression.

Of all the answers I've heard, "It sounded good at the time" sounds the most logical to me.

 

[zoroaster100]

If the good save is (1/2)X+2 and the poor save is (1/3)X, then the average save should probably be (5/12)X+1, right?

That would work out to
Level Average Save
1 +1
2 +1
3 +2
4 +2
5 +3
6 +3
7 +3
8 +4
9 +4
10 +5
11 +5
12 +6
13 +6
14 +6
15 +7
16 +7
17 +8
18 +8
19 +8
20 +9

 

[Crothian]

Why would it help the class system out?

It would make sure that some had a clear advantage over the others in these areas. Maybe no one should have as good BAB as a fighter or as good reflex save as a rogue.

I don't see why adding complexity here is a win.

It is not any more complex. The numbers are giving on a table and changing the numbers will make it no harder for people to look up.

 

[Tetsubo]

This has never occured to me before... but the whole "it was just a random decision" seems the most likely...

I've never liked the whole 2, 4, 6, 8 skill points per level anyway... I've always thought it should be at least two points higher across the board...

 

[Blue]

I think it's a matter of simplicity - you need a few different numbers. Making them 2 apart gives enough difference - 1 apart wouldn't matter enough, 3 apart means the high end is very high. Now that you got every other, even number go easily.

Plus, if you need to spend ranks cross class you can do it in pairs. If you have an odd number of skill points and wanted to spend them all cross class, you'd be getting a 1/2 rank every level, which the rules can handle as well as most players, but isn't as elegant as every other level getting a full rank.

*shrug* It's not a big descision, I doubt there is a big reason.

Cheers,
=Blue

 

[Aus_Snow]

I've made classes with odd skill points, and modified others to have them too.

It makes little enough difference though, I suppose. There are cases where a point one way or the other makes it just slightly unbalanced (IMO), is all.

 

[diaglo]

My thought exactly.

i'll add another ditto.



diaglo "as john travolta sang in Grease -- i've got skillz they're multiplying and i'm losin' control" Ooi

 

[Mercule]

I thought of two possible explanations (besides "It sounded good at the time.").

First is the strong tendancy of mathematic progression that early 3E products seemed to have (a tendancy I really like, FWIW). In 3.0, IIRC, rogues were the best. Semi-skilled classes (ranger, barbarian, monk, bard) were half as good as the rogue. Unskilled characters were half as good as those. In 3.5, they just changed it from geometric to linear progression and added a forth classification.

Second, there's an optimal spread to the number of different "skill tiers", what the difference between each tier should be, and to how many actual points each tier should have. In 3.0, they decided that three tiers were appropriate and in 3.5, it was 4 tiers. They also decided that one skill point wasn't enough (thus 2, min) and they wanted to stay under 10 (so 8 or 9 max). Going with a 1 point spread doesn't provide meaningful distinction between each tier, and 3 points is too much.

They could have just as easily gone with 3, 5, 7, and 9, but then you'd be asking why the skill points only come in odds. In the end, evens were probably chosen because counting by twos (or basic doubling -- pick your edition) is a pretty basic math skill.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Of all the answers I've heard, "It sounded good at the time" sounds the most logical to me.

I want to somehow trace is this to the same reason they didn't use odd numbers for die bonuses (things give you +2, +4, +6, +8, not +3, +5, +7, +9) -- they wanted it to be statistically significant. If something gets odd-numbered skill points, then they aren't *signficantly* more or less skilled than the people on either side of them. Two points is a gap. One point is an anomoly.

It's a workable theory, anyway, and is likely closer to the truth than just a whim.

 

[gamecat]

Why do snowflakes have six sides?