Any more skills?
- Thread starter Tuzenbach
- Start date
DreamChaser
Explorer
Destil said:
The general idea is that each new skill added weakens the system (as each one is bought by ranks over time and requires a check) but each new feat or spell strengthens it (as each one is merely a new choice that functions independantly of the others).
Thus, no new skills usually.
DC
new skills dilute skill points
DreamChaser wrote :
> The general idea is that each new skill added weakens the system (as
> each one is bought by ranks over time and requires a check) but each
> new feat or spell strengthens it (as each one is merely a new choice
> that functions independently of the others).
> Thus, no new skills usually.
Correct. Every new skill dilutes the few skill points
characters have available to spend. Plus you have to
decide, who gets it as a class skill?
The WotC way to handle new skills seems to be to brutally
shoe-horn them in as new applications of old skills.
IIRC, d20 Modern explicitly says no new skills are allowed.
(But of course, that's d20 Modern, not D&D.)
Every new spell strengthens wizards (and clerics and
others). For Sorcerers and Bards, a new spell is a
toss-up. They can learn it only at the cost of one of their
limited spell slots.
The perception seems to be that every new feat strengthens
the game by giving more choices. I don't feel that way. I
feel that every new feat dilutes the very limited pool of
feat slots each character gets. And many of them, as a side
note, establish a penalty for people without the feat for an
act that previously anyone could try.
(I was nearly frothing when I read the feat that allows a
second rank person to attack a target in front of a front
rank person with a reach weapon without penalty, while
everyone else has -4. What, so EVERY single second and
third rank pike man in medieval armies spent one of their
precious feat slots on this? Human first level warriors
only have two feat slots. Pike squares were too effective
in combat to assume that most defenders were attacking at
-4.)
(Does anyone know the name of the feat I'm talking about?)
--index
DreamChaser wrote :
> The general idea is that each new skill added weakens the system (as
> each one is bought by ranks over time and requires a check) but each
> new feat or spell strengthens it (as each one is merely a new choice
> that functions independently of the others).
> Thus, no new skills usually.
Correct. Every new skill dilutes the few skill points
characters have available to spend. Plus you have to
decide, who gets it as a class skill?
The WotC way to handle new skills seems to be to brutally
shoe-horn them in as new applications of old skills.
IIRC, d20 Modern explicitly says no new skills are allowed.
(But of course, that's d20 Modern, not D&D.)
Every new spell strengthens wizards (and clerics and
others). For Sorcerers and Bards, a new spell is a
toss-up. They can learn it only at the cost of one of their
limited spell slots.
The perception seems to be that every new feat strengthens
the game by giving more choices. I don't feel that way. I
feel that every new feat dilutes the very limited pool of
feat slots each character gets. And many of them, as a side
note, establish a penalty for people without the feat for an
act that previously anyone could try.
(I was nearly frothing when I read the feat that allows a
second rank person to attack a target in front of a front
rank person with a reach weapon without penalty, while
everyone else has -4. What, so EVERY single second and
third rank pike man in medieval armies spent one of their
precious feat slots on this? Human first level warriors
only have two feat slots. Pike squares were too effective
in combat to assume that most defenders were attacking at
-4.)
(Does anyone know the name of the feat I'm talking about?)
--index
