Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="billd91" data-source="post: 4946435" data-attributes="member: 3400">The different amount of skill points in 3e is largely the result of horse-trading class abilities. Fighters get full BAB, excellent armor, excellent hit points, tons of feats = low skill points. Wizards and sorcerers get most powerful full spell casting progression = low skill points. Clerics get very powerful full spell casting and excellent armor = low skill points. Druids get weaker full spell casting, weak armor, good oddball powers = medium skill points. Rangers get weak armor, moderate hit points, good BAB = high skill points. You get the idea...But people keep telling me that 4e's methodology, of balancing combat separately so that every character is as useful as every other in virtually every fight, is different and that combat and out of combat were NOT balanced against each other. So while 3e's different skill point amounts make some sense as I see it, I can't explain 4e's. If archetype explains, why would they rely on an archetype to create characters a bit out of balance out of combat when they explicitly tossed that idea for combat?That's why the archetype argument doesn't work with me, not as anything but a mistaken decision in design methodology.</blockquote>