Search results

I never said it mattered a lot. But +2 still matters, even in the example you give. The point is, in 4E you are either on or off with a skill. A +5 or not a plus 5 in terms of ranking. In 3E there are lots of gradients. I can take +2 (someone who just started learning the skill), a +3-6( Somone...

Again, this just ends up making everyone the same. And I think you are both overplaying the "one guy succeeds so the party does" thing. This definitely happened rarely in most of campaigns. Especially on city based adventures. Sure there are moments when that happens. But there are also lots...

But lots of times, skills are about individual success (do I jump the canyon). You are building a straw man. Most skills tests are not just about one member of the party getting the whole party through. And even when they are, it is often a matter of who gets to shine. I have had countless...

+2 comes to about a 10% increase in your ability. I don't think that is as insignificant as you think.

3E had pretty extensive rules in the skill chapter. Giving lots of specifics on the different skills. Even 4E has a farily beefy section on skills as well. I think most people who are critical of it, dislike the trained/untrained approach and the consolidation.

I don't remember how well the actual mechanics worked, though I don't recall them being awful. But by AD&D 2nd edition, there were more non weapon proficiencies than there are skills in 4E. So I can see the argument. Actually I do kind of remember them working pretty well in the game.

AD&D had non-weapon proficiencies (at least second edition did--don't remember what they had in 1st).

What you are saying is mechanical diversity doesn't matter for in with non combat skills. But for some of us, it does. It enhances the game just as much as mechanical diversity for combat skills does. In 3.5 I found non-combat skills were used a lot more, and to much greatere effect. My...

Again it is so there can be degrees. I may have over made the point. 2 points isn't useless. But in relation to the guy with 10 ranks, it kind of is. Still two points gives you a +2 modifier, on top of your relevant attribute. But I being able to make different guys with varying skill levels...

No. My point was that the rogues success isn't always going to impact the skill roll the other guy makes. The Rogue may make his diplomacy check, but the cleric might fail and be sent to the dungeons. It helps flesh out characters and gives the game much more texture. If everyone is either good...

Yes, if he only spent 2 ranks in skills he should be useless at it, no matter what his level. Your example about the rogue and cleric doesn't matter if the cleric really needs to make a skill check, and can't rely on the Rogue's success to get him by.

I got a 2E PHB and DMG on amazon for like 50 cents. Got the theives handbook for 3 dollars. It is worth checking it out for used copies.

Sure. And if he spent that many ranks to get the +11, he deserves to breeze through when the skill comes up. But solving a mystery shouldn't hinge on 1 skill. Another reason why the consolidated skill list doesn't work as well in this situation. It puts more possibilities on the table. Hey if...

No it means one guy might breeze through, another might get by the skin of his teeth, and another fails completely.

1) The problem here is the consolidation and how it impacts variety. Yes there are ability checks and mechanics to take care of these things; but if you want to design an "Investigator" or a skill character whose skills shine in a murder mystery, being able to take and improve skills matters...

I never liked having class and cross-class skills in 3E. But I do think it is okay to have some classes have more skills than others (especially since it is the rogues thing in 3E). Everyone could participate, but sure mystery adventures will favor charaters that possess investigation related...

WARNING-WARNING-PERSONAL OPINION BEING STATED HERE Because 4E has a smaller and highly consolidated skill list. 3E has an extensive skill list, and the ability to take ranks in individual skills. If you are running a mystery adventure, there are simply more skills that are appropriate. And...

I think strictly for mystery adventures, 3E skills work much better than 4E skills. If the group doesn't believe in resolving those sort of things through skill rolls anyways, I suppose the point is mute.

I majored in history, and find it influences the way I construct my settings. But I am not a big fan of historical campaigns. Sometimes I will steal threads, or movements from real world history though.

I do understand, but to make skill work on a d20, the modifiers must be huge if you want to reduce the imprtance of the random factor, and therefor things quickly get harder to calculate. On a lower die, the modifiers can be much lower and have a larger impact. Personally I don't care for the...