Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="KarinsDad" data-source="post: 311496" data-attributes="member: 2011">Practice?Characters do not have to practice getting better at saves or BAB.They learn via experience.It's unfortunate that part of DND is "learn by buying". Sigh.But, not good enough that a Wizard with 13 Ranks in Search could not find the DC 25 trap?That's just lame. When talking skills, anyone with enough total to roll the DC should be just as good as any other character. You buy the skill ranks, you should get the same advantage as everyone else.Like I said, a stupid rule.This is an extremely poor counter argument.Columns in the book?There are 500 charts and columns in the books. That is why we have character sheets that have ability scores, saves, to hit, damage, skills, etc. on them.Moving 3 skills from the skill list on a character sheet up next to Saves is not a big deal at all.When talking NPCs, you still have to have it listed somewhere how good they are at Spot, even if they have 0 Ranks in it and are relying on Wisdom.I know of nobody who opens up the book and looks at columns during game time to find out what the AC of a 6th level Monk is unless they did not prepare the Monk at all ahead of time. In that case, it's a good bet that they have no clue as to what that Monks Spot skill may be, how his AC is affected by magic items, or anything else about the Monk.Why not? What exactly is wrong with acquiring a little perceptive ability slowly over time? We've played that way for over a year now in our group and have had zero problems with it.I guess this is the key question for your position. What is wrong with it?Your counter arguments have so far basically been that this is not how 2E or 3E is designed.Well, that's the point.You've also suggested a "weakening of rogues and assassins argument", but when you do that (see below), you change the discussion from an inherent one (having some skill) to an on par one (having equal skill) which I am not suggesting.You are mixing up two different systems. On par and inherent do not mean the same thing. An on par system might mean making perception skill class skills for other classes and giving them extra skill points, so that they can be +15 to Spot when the Assassin is +15 to Hide.Inherent means gaining perception ability like BAB where this is what you get. So, you are +4 or +7 or +10 to Spot when the Assassin is +15 to Hide. An inherent system also does not mean that there cannot be complimentary skills so that characters who want to improve even more than inherent allows them. In fact, that would be the best of both worlds.At 9th level in my current Inherent system, all characters are +3 to Spot, Listen, and Sense Motive over not using the house rule. Is that SO unbalancing for mid level characters? The same level Rogues are still often +12, +15 or even more to Hide. The PCs are just +3 to +8 to Spot as opposed to +0 to +5 to Spot. Btw, a caveat to this. I do not always give Spot or Listen rolls to every PC. You roll enough dice and you are bound to have someone roll high. Instead, I tend to have the closest PCs have a chance to notice or I give penalties to the PCs who are further away.I totally agree that an On Par system would not be good.But, I also think that a difficult to acquire and even when acquired, it is not sufficient system, like 3E perception, is nearly as bad.In fact, I created a 2E Perception Roll house rule since perception was totally lacking in 2E except for thieves. Duh! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification