+1 ability per level?
- Thread starter MarauderX
- Start date
MarauderX
Explorer
Scion said:
Yeah, that's part of the idea though. Those used to building a tricked out monster by 4th level would have certain hinderances to get there. Impossible? No, but it would put off certain skill abilities a few levels from what they start out at. Keep in mind that at each level their skills would rise due to abilities as well as skill points.
As far as pulling punches, I remember the OD&D days when a group of 3 goblins could kill half a party before running off unscathed, mostly due to some poor rolls. With a typical cleric build in 3.5 you could take out a dozen of them before finally dropping, with just average rolls. The players should be scared at first level, not rampaging from room to room at the lower levels. Rogues should be second-guessing jumping into melee to backstab when a direct shot or two could take them down.
I think feats like Endurance and skill assisting feats would see more use in the game as now they are skimmed over for the ones that give more combat power.
The first level for skills tends to be one of the most important. It sets the stage for what the character can have in his backstory so far, it grants those who put extra points into int with a bit of a bonus, mainly it just helps out those who want to play skill based characters.
Mostly skills are only useful to a certain degree, individually, it takes many to make a well rounded character who can do a good degree of things. Cutting out that option is, imo, a very bad thing. Hence why I suggested the psuedoretroactive style. It makes it so that you can start off how you want, but later on the characters are not all penalized for that start. Or in need of serious min/maxing in order to get the skills they want for their character.
Mostly skills are only useful to a certain degree, individually, it takes many to make a well rounded character who can do a good degree of things. Cutting out that option is, imo, a very bad thing. Hence why I suggested the psuedoretroactive style. It makes it so that you can start off how you want, but later on the characters are not all penalized for that start. Or in need of serious min/maxing in order to get the skills they want for their character.
Brother MacLaren
Explorer
Here’s an idea – you have your full natural abilities at first level (full point buy), but you haven’t figured out how to best make use of them. Modifiers are “restricted” or “unrestricted” depending on the application. The “restricted” modifiers only apply up to your level. Even with a +4 Str bonus, at first level you only get a +1 to hit and damage. The Int bonus might be unrestricted for skill ranks but restricted for DCs of spells.
Skill checks could be restricted by either your level or your skill ranks (whichever is higher). So the 1st-level Bard with 4 ranks in Diplomacy and an 18 Charisma can add his full +4 Cha bonus as could the 4th-level Fighter with 0 ranks.
This approach constrains the bonuses that make low-level characters so much more powerful than the commoners without saying, “You are average in every way.” It will lead to a rapid scale-up in power from levels 1-4, after which point there will be little if any difference between this system and the rules as written. If you want to stretch it out, say that “restricted” means you can’t apply any bonus more than half your character level.
I’d say you’d be better off not restricting the following: number of skill ranks earned; basic ability checks; checks for skills that are widely known and can be used untrained (Swim, Listen); Con bonus to hit points; carrying capacity; bonus spells known; and Fort saves (given how common disease is, a high-Con level 1 commoner should be visibly more disease-resistant than average).
These could quite reasonably be restricted: most combat modifiers (hit, damage, AC, initiative, grapple/trip/disarm modifiers); spell DCs; checks for more exotic skills (Spellcraft, Disarm Device); Reflex and Will saves; and rage duration.
But keep this in mind: even in OD&D, low-level characters were above the norm. Commoners did not have character classes at all - they were 0-level "Normal Men" and extremely weak (no Con bonus to HP, no feats). Titles like "Veteran" for a 3rd level fighter and "Hero" for 4th suggested that even a low-level PC was still a pretty experienced character compared to the world at large. PCs, NPCs, "commoners," and monsters were all weaker; monsters didn't have ability score bonuses to HP or AC, and only sometimes a bonus to damage. Orcs did d8, I think, and now a CR1 orc can do 1d12+12 per hit, or 3d12+36 on a critical.
Skill checks could be restricted by either your level or your skill ranks (whichever is higher). So the 1st-level Bard with 4 ranks in Diplomacy and an 18 Charisma can add his full +4 Cha bonus as could the 4th-level Fighter with 0 ranks.
This approach constrains the bonuses that make low-level characters so much more powerful than the commoners without saying, “You are average in every way.” It will lead to a rapid scale-up in power from levels 1-4, after which point there will be little if any difference between this system and the rules as written. If you want to stretch it out, say that “restricted” means you can’t apply any bonus more than half your character level.
I’d say you’d be better off not restricting the following: number of skill ranks earned; basic ability checks; checks for skills that are widely known and can be used untrained (Swim, Listen); Con bonus to hit points; carrying capacity; bonus spells known; and Fort saves (given how common disease is, a high-Con level 1 commoner should be visibly more disease-resistant than average).
These could quite reasonably be restricted: most combat modifiers (hit, damage, AC, initiative, grapple/trip/disarm modifiers); spell DCs; checks for more exotic skills (Spellcraft, Disarm Device); Reflex and Will saves; and rage duration.
But keep this in mind: even in OD&D, low-level characters were above the norm. Commoners did not have character classes at all - they were 0-level "Normal Men" and extremely weak (no Con bonus to HP, no feats). Titles like "Veteran" for a 3rd level fighter and "Hero" for 4th suggested that even a low-level PC was still a pretty experienced character compared to the world at large. PCs, NPCs, "commoners," and monsters were all weaker; monsters didn't have ability score bonuses to HP or AC, and only sometimes a bonus to damage. Orcs did d8, I think, and now a CR1 orc can do 1d12+12 per hit, or 3d12+36 on a critical.
Last edited:
MarauderX
Explorer
Ok... some more thoughts pertaining to skills...
I think the skills would certainly be balanced, as the classes that are more skill weighted would naturally have more points per their class, as balanced in the original PHB. Is it detracting from the number of skill points anticipated at first level? Of course, but it would be something that would have to be planned for by the player. The abilities would eventually more than compensate, but the initial lower skill points (in addition to abilities) would be something players would need to plan around.
Perhaps instead of limiting any character at first level for skill points (since few would have Int bonuses), give them a bonus of 8 points (+2x4 at 1st level). Also it could be possible to let them build up ranks with a new max rank limit of 6 or 8 to allow clerics and others with fewer class skill catagories a place to spend them. Rogues would be the worst off at 1st level proportionally compared to the others (as they would be if you added any number of skill points across all classes), but their abilities and skill points from the levels afterward would allow them to accel beyond the others in their skills.
I wouldn't want to add in the complications of restrictions applied from abilities, as it becomes more of a pain to track.
Thanks again for the good input!
I think the skills would certainly be balanced, as the classes that are more skill weighted would naturally have more points per their class, as balanced in the original PHB. Is it detracting from the number of skill points anticipated at first level? Of course, but it would be something that would have to be planned for by the player. The abilities would eventually more than compensate, but the initial lower skill points (in addition to abilities) would be something players would need to plan around.
Perhaps instead of limiting any character at first level for skill points (since few would have Int bonuses), give them a bonus of 8 points (+2x4 at 1st level). Also it could be possible to let them build up ranks with a new max rank limit of 6 or 8 to allow clerics and others with fewer class skill catagories a place to spend them. Rogues would be the worst off at 1st level proportionally compared to the others (as they would be if you added any number of skill points across all classes), but their abilities and skill points from the levels afterward would allow them to accel beyond the others in their skills.
I wouldn't want to add in the complications of restrictions applied from abilities, as it becomes more of a pain to track.
Thanks again for the good input!
Brother MacLaren
Explorer
MarauderX said:
*shrug* The point of "restricted abilities" is that I wouldn't play in a campaign where I was told "You can't be stronger than average because you're a new recruit to the city guards." On the other hand, I would consider playing in a game where I was told "You haven't yet learned how to properly use your strength in combat because you're a new recruit to the city guards."
The idea "You can't apply more than your level as a bonus" is based on a rule I remember from the Immortals' Handbook that you can't apply more than the weapon's maximum damage as a Strength bonus. There are a lot of ways to keep abilities in check. I just think it's imperative to avoid saying "Everybody has to be average" as the way to do it.
In reality, not everybody is average. Intelligence isn't entirely a matter of education, and strength isn't entirely a matter of training. Levels in d20 only come from facing risk; are you sure you want to say people can only become stronger/smarter/faster than the average by repeatedly facing death?
Last edited:
Kalanyr
Explorer
The problem with skill points at first level is that you have 11 int you're missing 16 skill points if you'd normally start with 18 and need to "earn" it over the levels. You need to have an Intelligence of 4 points above whats possible in the core at each level for 4 levels before you get it back, thats going to take quiet a lot of time to acheive.
If you use PrC entry, noone but fighters will be getting into their PrC either, since everyone else won't have the skills to do it.
If you use PrC entry, noone but fighters will be getting into their PrC either, since everyone else won't have the skills to do it.
Scion said:
The way we do it in my campaign, is that at every fourth level you get 1/2 your level in extra points for point buy. It ends up allowing for one score to slowly increase very high, or all of them to be come better over time. Allows for some overall high ability scores, but we play very low magic so it evens out.
Similar Threads
