Out of combat balance - skills trained and known

[AbdulAlhazred]

Personally I've not seen any issues with the RAW approach to trained skills. But if I was going to push towards uniformity I'd rather level up than level down. A thief without Acro, Athletics, Stealth, Perception, Thievery, Bluff and Streetwise is a sad thief . . . and that's already seven, not six!

Well, even 2e made you pick which thief skills you were really good at (or just be mediocre at all of them). I say its fine, and a good argument for ditching the "all rogues have these two skills" thing. Mine is an aerialist, he's got Athletics, Acrobatics, Stealth, and Thievery. Yours is more of a thug, he's got Athletics, Intimidate, and Streetwise, but sneaking and pick pocketing are not at all interesting to him.

 

[pemerton]

Well, even 2e made you pick which thief skills you were really good at (or just be mediocre at all of them). I say its fine, and a good argument for ditching the "all rogues have these two skills" thing. Mine is an aerialist, he's got Athletics, Acrobatics, Stealth, and Thievery. Yours is more of a thug, he's got Athletics, Intimidate, and Streetwise, but sneaking and pick pocketing are not at all interesting to him.

I don't think the two compulsory skills is so important - it seems more an element of flavour and role formation, rather than going to the core "balance" of the system.

But I still think that reducing a rogue's skills makes for a said rogue!

In part I see the rogue, and also the skill training feat, as counterpoints to the oft-made claim that, in building a 4e PC, I can't prioritise non-combat over combat. (The invoker/wizard in my main 4e game has two or even three instances of skill training. And is notably weaker in combat than most of the other PCs, or at least was until he reached 27th level and got 1x/enc AoE domination!)

 

[Garthanos]

Personally I've not seen any issues with the RAW approach to trained skills. But if I was going to push towards uniformity

Not uniformity balance.

I'd rather level up than level down. A thief without Acro, Athletics, Stealth, Perception, Thievery, Bluff and Streetwise is a sad thief . . . and that's already seven, not six!

Basically you might be in agreement with The Human Target.

Although I have certainly made a rogue without wanting thieving.

And if its in the city letting streetwise supplant many perception uses seems reasonable. I mean does that city boy wandering the forest have a general chance of noticing things and telling which are relevant or is that rustling in the green dangerous or just a rodent. After all who doesnt want perception?

I am wondering for athletics a rogue wants to be able to climb right... what if you can case the situation for a minute or 10, analyzing it then parkour using acrobatics to climb. (if the skill roll isnt really good you might find yourself spending a healing surge).

On the other hand how can one build Zorro without a huge complement of skills (here was the skill I did for a design of Zorro)

TRAINED SKILLS
Bluff +15, Stealth +18, Thievery +16, Acrobatics +22, Athletics +19, Perception +10, Diplomacy +16, Nature +10

UNTRAINED SKILLS
Arcana +6, Dungeoneering +5, Endurance +7, Heal +5, History +6, Insight +5, Intimidate +10, Religion +6, Streetwise +11

But did he ever party up with a bunch of heros?

 

[Garthanos]

If I were to build a Ulysses I would likely start with a Warlord... it would be very easy to find more than 6 skills for him.

Perception, Insight, Athletics, Diplomacy, Bluff, Nature, Endurance, Stealth, Heal, Intimidate, History maybe

 

[pemerton]

If I were to build a Ulysses I would likely start with a Warlord

I've always thought an archer warlord.

 

[Garthanos]

I've always thought an archer warlord.

They basically built that option for him.

 

[Garthanos]

dual post

 

[The Human Target]

Yeah, I'm not arguing with the lists at all, backgrounds pretty well made those irrelevant anyway, almost. I get what you and [MENTION=82504]Garthanos[/MENTION] are saying. I still feel like I enjoy the sort of "heist flick" motif of each guy has his favorite approach to solving problems. I never ran games with only 2 or 3 players, for whatever reason. If I did, I THINK I'd make them more tightly themed than usual. That would mean, for example, the PCs are playing an urban stealth kind of game, etc. They'd all be built on themes related to that, so probably they'd not too much feel the lack of Nature or History too much. If it became critical there's always a way to give the party a resource and make finding that with the skills they do have into the focus.

It just makes it feel more like your working for it to figure out how to leverage what you have, vs being omni-competent. Neither way is bad of course.

Oh definitely, it's just my preference to have things spread out a bit more.

Plus, people are more inclined to take the "lesser skills" like history or endurance.

Other than stealth and perception which people tend to gravitate towards as "must have" we still end up with a fairly diverse bunch of characters.

Really the 4e skill list could probably use a bit of expansion and my way would work better.

 

[Garthanos]

Really the 4e skill list could probably use a bit of expansion and my way would work better.

In olden times you might have a Wright (Shipwright, Woodwright, Seigewright)
While it generally means maker or builder it could be seen as the middle English
version of the word Engineer.

Abdul is looking at having Engineer and Leader as skills in his 4e descendent, HoML.

 

[Garthanos]

Arguably many Legendary and Mythic heros were very very versatile, rather than specialists.