ZombieRoboNinja
First Post
So I'm generally very pro-4e, but this one point has been irking me for a while.
In the pit fiend and DDM mini writeups we've seen, monsters (apparently) receive a bonus to their attribute rolls equal to half their level. (For example, the pit field is listed as "Dex 24 (+20)," which presumably breaks down to +7 from raw Dex and +13 from level.) Although we know monsters play by different rules than players, I don't see any reason to assume this particular point would be unique to monsters.
Skills work in a similar manner, it would seem: if I understand the SAGA rules correctly, you get a bonus of half your level to all skill checks, and you get an additional +5 bonus to your "trained" skills.
I'm concerned that this would make little sense in play. A level 10 wizard with 8 Strength would receive a +4 net bonus to Strength checks... meaning he can beat Joe the level 1 NPC blacksmith at arm wrestling. Gorf the level 7 Barbarian (okay, "fighter" for now) would be a better chess-player and diplomat than the average aristocrat. And so on.
I can see this working for skills in a Star Wars game, because character "roles" are less defined in those films. Characters evolve on a spectrum from "wimp" to "badass," and you fully expect a high-level Jedi to be pretty good at arm wrestling, chess, diplomacy, writing haiku, whatever. But in D&D, I *WANT* my Raistlin-esque feeble wizard to be physically weak even at high levels.
I'm not concerned about level-based bonuses to AC, defenses and attack bonus; I can handwave that easily enough as "combat experience." (Even Raistlin presumably learned to flinch a bit more effectively after having draconians try to stab him for a few years.) But the universal skill bonuses, and especially attribute bonuses, seem just wrong to me.
I'd welcome any assurance that I'm reading the previews or SAGA rules incorrectly.
(I've read the SAGA book but don't own it.)
In the pit fiend and DDM mini writeups we've seen, monsters (apparently) receive a bonus to their attribute rolls equal to half their level. (For example, the pit field is listed as "Dex 24 (+20)," which presumably breaks down to +7 from raw Dex and +13 from level.) Although we know monsters play by different rules than players, I don't see any reason to assume this particular point would be unique to monsters.
Skills work in a similar manner, it would seem: if I understand the SAGA rules correctly, you get a bonus of half your level to all skill checks, and you get an additional +5 bonus to your "trained" skills.
I'm concerned that this would make little sense in play. A level 10 wizard with 8 Strength would receive a +4 net bonus to Strength checks... meaning he can beat Joe the level 1 NPC blacksmith at arm wrestling. Gorf the level 7 Barbarian (okay, "fighter" for now) would be a better chess-player and diplomat than the average aristocrat. And so on.
I can see this working for skills in a Star Wars game, because character "roles" are less defined in those films. Characters evolve on a spectrum from "wimp" to "badass," and you fully expect a high-level Jedi to be pretty good at arm wrestling, chess, diplomacy, writing haiku, whatever. But in D&D, I *WANT* my Raistlin-esque feeble wizard to be physically weak even at high levels.
I'm not concerned about level-based bonuses to AC, defenses and attack bonus; I can handwave that easily enough as "combat experience." (Even Raistlin presumably learned to flinch a bit more effectively after having draconians try to stab him for a few years.) But the universal skill bonuses, and especially attribute bonuses, seem just wrong to me.
I'd welcome any assurance that I'm reading the previews or SAGA rules incorrectly.
(I've read the SAGA book but don't own it.)
