A few basic rules questions...

[Larcen]

I'm with KD on a lot of this skill points per level stuff. I think, as he said, some skills should be acquired by osmosis over time.

In fact, this whole problem points to something that annoys me about 3E in general, and that is this: Most of a PCs abilities are based on what the player CHOOSES and not on what the PC DOES.

Minor example: Your PC can be the type of guy who constantly searches every nook and cranny of every room, but unless you beef up his Search and Spot, he nevers gets any better at it.

Extreme example: Your PC never picks up a weapon in his/her life, but can instantly multiclass into a Fighter and get proficient in all martial weapons. Sure, the DM can veto this, but the rules don't really encourage it.

I'm sure we can all come up with countless other examples of haphazard player choices being incongruous with the PC's past in-game play style and background. It's kinda like the PCs become good at something and THEN begin to do it, not the other way around.

 

[Zenon]

Yeah, my mom turned 66 this year and has the same problem. In fact, she has hit cars in Mario Andretti's town (she worked there) and not even known it. Yikes!

She must have worked in Nazareth, that's not all that far from me. I'll keep my eye out for her while I'm on the road....

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Dear god! Why would you want to intentionally faint in combat!?....Wait a minute

...do you mean feint?

Christine would do that! And she would look really good!

P.S.: smarta$$

 

[Kae'Yoss]

[edit: accidently hit the return key]

Do you think it would be game breaking to have combatant types who are waiting there for someone to make a move to actually be just as good as Rogues at reacting?

I think reacting is a matter of initiative, not of Bluff/Sense Motive.

It's not a matter of being attentive. It's a matter of 20th level characters being about as attentive as 1st level characters, just because they have so few skill points.

We already agreed that there should be more skill points to spend, yes?

That's because you are limiting your thinking to how 3E was designed.

If Spot and Listen and Sense Motive were abilities like BAB and Saves as opposed to skills, then you could still have opposed rolls against them, but the Rogue would gain one point per level in each of these, the Fighter might gain three points per four levels and the Wizard might gain one point per two levels.

Then, the problem would not exist like it does today.

Well, then you would have quite the opposite: You would keep getting better in things you never do.

To me, Spot and Listen and Sense Motive are bread and butter abilities just like BAB, Saves, Hit Points, etc. All characters should slowly gain some level of competence with them as they go up levels merely due to the fact that they are adventuring and learning stuff by osmosis (just like a Wizard who NEVER fights in melee has a gradual increase in BAB nonetheless).

I don't quite agree: While everyone has to use saves and hit points at a regular basis (and usually, BAB is also used very often), you don't have to use spot, listen or sense motive. If you have someone in the party who always does the sentry work, you probably don't do those things that often. And sense motive occurs only if the enemy is bluffing you a lot.

And Wizards use BAB more often than you might think: many attacks use melee or ranged touch attacks, and your abilities to hit someone are taken into account then.


I still prefer the idea of increasing the skill points over making some skills abilities. That leads to special rules and extra columns in the class tables, and IMHO that's a step back to 2e.

 

[KarinsDad]

She must have worked in Nazareth, that's not all that far from me. I'll keep my eye out for her while I'm on the road....

Hmmmm.

Maybe you and I have gamed in the past.

Or, maybe not. All my friends back there are playing Rolemaster.

My suggestion: stay off of 248 during daylight hours (she won't drive at night). Although she is now retired and my Dad does most of the driving, that's the road she'll take if she does drive.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

I'm with KD on a lot of this skill points per level stuff. I think, as he said, some skills should be acquired by osmosis over time.

Well, you either increase the skill points per level, OR you introduce "skill osmosis", but not both. I'm for the first one, cause so I can still play an inattentive, naive fighter and use the (extra) skill points for other things. 3e is for possiblities, and I think rules changes should support this.

In fact, this whole problem points to something that annoys me about 3E in general, and that is this: Most of a PCs abilities are based on what the player CHOOSES and not on what the PC DOES.

They did that because they wanted you to be able to customize your character as much as possible. But they're aware of the problem, and the DMG deals with that, giving the advice (for those DM's that don't think of it themselves) that the DM requires the players to actually use the skills he improves: he should note what skills he uses often, and what skills he doesn't use at all, and next time he levels up, he can rule that he can't upgrade that skill (you could even go that far that you let him upgrade it only by one point next time, even if he used it between the level-ups. Only if he uses it excessively, he can max it out again)

Minor example: Your PC can be the type of guy who constantly searches every nook and cranny of every room, but unless you beef up his Search and Spot, he nevers gets any better at it.

Some people never learn, and that's a fact. Also, there's a limit on how much you can learn in a given time span, and that is given in the limit of skill points per level.
If you increased all the skills he used, there could be a lot of abuse: a stupid (Int 8 fighter) who searches every single room he encounters, tries to bluff every single person he meets, climbing up a wall even if they're stairs, spending nights putting a plank on two bricks and tiptoing along them. Add to that the stuff that happens "automatically" like sense motive for every single dialogue and search and spot all the time, and he will demand 7 skills to be increased (most of which are cross class), while he could only increase one by the rules (and only if it ain't cross class).

Extreme example: Your PC never picks up a weapon in his/her life, but can instantly multiclass into a Fighter and get proficient in all martial weapons. Sure, the DM can veto this, but the rules don't really encourage it.

The DM can surely demand that you show genuine interest in the doings of a class long before you multiclass (i.e. if your wizard5 wants to be a wizard5/fighter1, he has to start taking fighting exercise as soon as he becomes wiz5).

The Star Wars D20 roleplaying game has a interesting way to deal with that particular problem (multiclass to scrounge free feats): Every class has a list of starting feats which usually includes the weapon proficiencies. For excample, the Jedi Consular gets Exotic Weapon Proficiency(lightsaber), Force Sensitive, Weapon Group Proficiency (blaster pistols) and Weapon Group Proficiency (simple weapons) as starting feats. If you choose that class at 1st character level, you gain all them feats, but if you multiclass into it, you gain only one of those feats (your choice). So no taking one class of soldier to receive Armor Proficiency(light) and proficiency in 5 weapon groups.
This could be adapted for D&D as well, but it would cause problems with the requirements of certain PrC's....

I'm sure we can all come up with countless other examples of haphazard player choices being incongruous with the PC's past in-game play style and background. It's kinda like the PCs become good at something and THEN begin to do it, not the other way around.

Maybe the character trained the skill before he used it on adventure. This goes great with games where you have to train to gain a level. But honestly, I don't like the obligation to train for a level-up.

If you are the DM and have problems with that, you can always rule that players have to use the things before they can improve them on level-up, but in some cases you should allow them to train in some save environment (no master stuntman became a master stuntman because they trained by pulling of the most dangerous stunts right away)

 

[KarinsDad]

I don't quite agree: While everyone has to use saves and hit points at a regular basis (and usually, BAB is also used very often), you don't have to use spot, listen or sense motive. If you have someone in the party who always does the sentry work, you probably don't do those things that often. And sense motive occurs only if the enemy is bluffing you a lot.

The Sense Motive type of skill would be useful any time you talk to someone in town, not just when someone is trying to bluff you. Say a gate guard is directing you to a given inn. He is not trying to bluff you per se, but he may get a kickback from that inn, so noticing that he seems fairly insistent about it might be important.

And, I think Spot and Listen are totally critical. You are in the wilderness. You are on guard duty. The Rogue is asleep. It suddenly gets quiet. That's a Listening check to notice that it is getting quiet and understand that it could mean that something is creeping up on camp. People confuse Listening rolls with always hearing faint noises. Even a Rogue with a +25 to Listen cannot hear a noise that is too faint to hear. But, the difference is that he will notice faint noises and be able to make a good guess as to what they might mean.

My entire group makes anywhere from 4 to 20 spot or listen checks per session. It is NOT just the Rogues, (and to a lesser extent Bards, and Rangers) that should be good at this. That is a poor design on the part of WotC.

But, disagreeing is part of discussing things.

I still prefer the idea of increasing the skill points over making some skills abilities. That leads to special rules and extra columns in the class tables, and IMHO that's a step back to 2e.

The only reason I feel that they should not be skills per se is that they should be things automatically acquired over time due to experience, just like BAB.

Non-observant Adventurers is an oxymoron (i.e. they should be dead), but that is how the game is designed.

"Ah yuk, yuk, I'm a 20th level Wizard, but I wouldn't know it if a 12 year old pickpocket took my spell component pouch until I got home. Yuk, yuk."

Sigh. That's a poor design IMO.

That's why I use the +1 to Spot on levels 1, 4, 7, etc. type of house rules. Rogues (and anyone else for that matter) can still buy even more skill in it if they wish, but everyone has at least some ability to learn over time.

 

[Plane Sailing]

If Spot and Listen and Sense Motive were abilities like BAB and Saves as opposed to skills, then you could still have opposed rolls against them, but the Rogue would gain one point per level in each of these, the Fighter might gain three points per four levels and the Wizard might gain one point per two levels.

Then, the problem would not exist like it does today.

This is a very interesting possibility. I'd not thought about it, but maybe it would be worth considering.

I do agree very much with the opposed skills conundrum when one party is unlikely to have the skill points. I bet the 20th level fighter would get really, really annoyed that *all* the rogues feint him out time after time in combat!

 

[AuraSeer]

Minor example: Your PC can be the type of guy who constantly searches every nook and cranny of every room, but unless you beef up his Search and Spot, he nevers gets any better at it.

Um... yeah, are you surprised by this? If you want to get better at Search, then add ranks to it.

In the game, you can practice a skill forever, and never improve unless you expend points in it. As pointed out in the driving examples above, it's possible to do something every day for years without realizing how bad you are at it.

If you want to get better at searching, just going through the motions is not enough. You need pay attention to your own actions when you do it, making an effort to break bad habits and develop good ones. At level up, this is represented by adding ranks to Search. However, if you're expending attention on your searching skills, you have less time and mental energy available for lockpick practice or fencing drills or magical experimentation. This is why you only have a limited number of skill points, and also why some classes have more than others.

The whole point of the skill system is to force tradeoffs. If you want a 20th-level wizard who's decent at searching, you can have him. He just won't have as much Spellcraft or Knowledge as the other wizards who buried their noses in books at every possible moment.

 

[Plane Sailing]

The whole point of the skill system is to force tradeoffs. If you want a 20th-level wizard who's decent at searching, you can have him. He just won't have as much Spellcraft or Knowledge as the other wizards who buried their noses in books at every possible moment.

Unfortunately the cross-class skill caps make opposed rolls really problematical once characters hit the late teens (and probably earlier too in many cases). A wizard could spend 2sp on spot or sense motive per level, but he could never get more than rank 11 (character level +3)/2.

In my campaign I opened it up a little bit by making the cap for cross-class skills character level +1, as against character level +3 for class skills. Those with class skills will always be best if they concentrate, but even fighters and wizards can end up with respectable scores in cross-class skills if they wish to pay the price.

Cheers