Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="irdeggman" data-source="post: 2910913" data-attributes="member: 16285">My point was that the 10 or more to one conversion had to be done if only because of the non-proficiency penalty you are talking about using. This was independent of any changes also needed to embrace BAB.Won't be balanced unless you lay it all out.Not really.  Which is why I had mentioned all of the class abilities need to be converted into skill points.For example, if you do not take away any class abilities and only rely on a converesion to skill points that can be used for either skills or combat abilities (i.e., attack bonuses), the class that is known as the "best" combatant (i.e., the fighter) will no be relegated to a lesser role since the ranger and barbarian will both get more skill points per level with which to gain attack bonuses. The only thing left for fighters are the fighter bonus feats (whcih as I pointed out earlier will be diluted due to the skill emphasis).Rangers will still get all of their abilities (spells, animal companion, etc.) and more skill points to put towards attack bonuses.Barbarians will likewise still retain all of their class abilities (DR, rage, increased movement) and get better attack bonuses because they get more skill points per level.Remeber that all of these classes will get the same amount of skill points due to having a giid BAB, the only difference will be their "normal" skill points.Simple, it is not 3.5 D&D.It has strayed from the core rules and has evolved into something else entirely. The skill points per level will end up being something very, very large when compared to the 2 to 8 sp per level of the WotC game.While it can still be a viable game and an enjoyable one - it is no longer D&D but rather brand new mechanic for playing a medieval fantasy game that seems a lot like D&D.Now, but all plumbers have tools and fix piping. Some specialize in industrial piping, some in residential, etc.  But they all still have things in common. More things than a plumber and milkman do.My point was the core 3.5 system already recognizes variation. It allows for and even encourages it.OK - but how much 3.5 have you played?You have now lost me on this one.There are a whole lot of different ways to to be better at combat. A fighter could be a swordsman, an archer, someone who specializes in 2-handed weapons (like a great axe), someone who specializes in fighting with 2 weapons and wearing light armor. All of these are already built into the 3.5 system.OD&D and 1st ed were very sterotypical. 2nd ed started to separate, especially at the end with the onset of the Player's Option series - but it was still fairly stereotypical.  3.x is very much not stereo typical due to the advent of feats and the development of skills.So a ranger and fighter are the same then. Well then the "cosmetic" differences can't be used to accentuate the fact that a ranger in the new system will end up being a better combatant than a fighter.This is the one thing that absolutely needs to be done. I think as you progress you find more and more things that need "tweaking" in order to remain balanced. You might end up droping the entire class sytem itself and have all class abilities have a specific slill pint value associated with them thus allowing a character to have a "set" amount of skill points per level (plus any awards given) that can be applied in any manner the playere desires.  This will open the door totally to non stereotyping.Good luck. I think in about a month or so you will need to evaluate how the project is progressing.Just take the things I pointed out as items to keep in mind to retain a sense of balance in the new system.</blockquote>

Verification