Design and Development: Skills
- Thread starter UngeheuerLich
- Start date
Kelvor Ravenstar
Explorer
Hmm, my initial knee-jerk reaction is mixed. I like the specializations that skills open up in the more complexity module, but the idea of taking multiple skill trainings in the same skill, basically bringing back skill points, bothers me.
I'm currently opposed to the modular approach to complexity Mearls has been proposing, because it doesn't allow for players that prefer differing levels of complexity to play the same game. As a DM I'd be either polling my players for what modules to use, and then we'd come to a decision for that campaign. But if you have Player A that only wants the core complexity, and Player C wants all the available modules, no matter which ones are selected, someone is going to be frustrated. In 4e, post-Essentials at least, I can accommodate Player A by suggesting they play a Slayer or Thief, where Player C can pick options from many sources for his hybrid Psion | Wizard.
I like that 4e is played mostly with the same rules from group to group. It makes it easier to find players, and I can go from running Encounters to playing LFR, to playing in a home game without relearning the system. I'm not opposed to house rules (and I join almost all players of 4e I think when I wish the CB supported them better), but I'm glad the base rules stay mostly unchanged from product to product.
I'm currently opposed to the modular approach to complexity Mearls has been proposing, because it doesn't allow for players that prefer differing levels of complexity to play the same game. As a DM I'd be either polling my players for what modules to use, and then we'd come to a decision for that campaign. But if you have Player A that only wants the core complexity, and Player C wants all the available modules, no matter which ones are selected, someone is going to be frustrated. In 4e, post-Essentials at least, I can accommodate Player A by suggesting they play a Slayer or Thief, where Player C can pick options from many sources for his hybrid Psion | Wizard.
I like that 4e is played mostly with the same rules from group to group. It makes it easier to find players, and I can go from running Encounters to playing LFR, to playing in a home game without relearning the system. I'm not opposed to house rules (and I join almost all players of 4e I think when I wish the CB supported them better), but I'm glad the base rules stay mostly unchanged from product to product.
Incenjucar
Legend
Honestly, my second reaction was "oh god more rules to memorize."
My first reaction was "Climbing seems to grant a +2 to ALL ability checks while climbing, not just climbing." But I assume that's just a matter of not utilizing an editor.
My first reaction was "Climbing seems to grant a +2 to ALL ability checks while climbing, not just climbing." But I assume that's just a matter of not utilizing an editor.
LightPhoenix
First Post
Rather than choosing the "talents" (ie, feats) for a skill, I think it makes more sense for them to simply become available at certain skill ranks (see Alternity).
I could see this intermingling with Skill Focus as well. Instead of SF(Athletics), you take SF(Climb) with a prerequisite of being trained in Athletics. That opens up the "Climb" talents/feats/skill powers/whatever.
I could see this intermingling with Skill Focus as well. Instead of SF(Athletics), you take SF(Climb) with a prerequisite of being trained in Athletics. That opens up the "Climb" talents/feats/skill powers/whatever.
Ulorian - Agent of Chaos
Legend
I'm with you. To be fair, what he's presented is a form of what you're suggesting, the main difference being that you get to choose which "talent" becomes available at which skill rank. A more subtle difference is that his approach doesn't allow exposing two weaker talents instead of a single stronger talent at a given skill rank. Although two weak talents should probably be combined into a single regular strength talent anyway...
pauljathome
First Post
My initial reaction is likely unfair and based at least partially on my own current experiences at work.
But, man would I hate to be one of the actual designers WORKING for Mearls.
You have a recently promoted manager who is doing design in a very public way and in an admittedly half assed way. A sure and certain sign that he is going to be trying to micromanage the design process.
UngeheuerLich
Legend
Let me explain, what exactly i deem brilliant:
the ideas, that:
- strength determines speed
- the rule is universal and you could play without skills and still have the rules
- you can outsource this to the DMG (why should player bother whith such fiddly things)
- the bonus of +2 is about right
- climbing is not solely based on strength, but dexterity or wisdom if you are trying something clever.
- skillpoints were actually ok (as long as you dont have to auto raise some skills every level)
Not that the system may not need some tweaking, but this is how I imagine a good base for a skill system.
(the fiddly things for different points is the only thing I don´t like too much, as it reminds me too much on feats and what i don´t like about them)
the ideas, that:
- strength determines speed
- the rule is universal and you could play without skills and still have the rules
- you can outsource this to the DMG (why should player bother whith such fiddly things)
- the bonus of +2 is about right
- climbing is not solely based on strength, but dexterity or wisdom if you are trying something clever.
- skillpoints were actually ok (as long as you dont have to auto raise some skills every level)
Not that the system may not need some tweaking, but this is how I imagine a good base for a skill system.
(the fiddly things for different points is the only thing I don´t like too much, as it reminds me too much on feats and what i don´t like about them)
I really need to see the whole shebang first because I'm sure my concerns would be alleviated then... but one issue I see with skill use devolving back to ability scores is that if combat bonuses stay as is (like we have currently where each class has a primary and one/two secondary abilities) then each class basically becomes "this skill's class", with very little opportunity for variation.
With each class's combat skills currently pretty much based off of one particular ability score, it guarantees it's going to be the highest score the character has. Which means that (for instance) every warpriest will be great at Perception, Nature, and Insight regardless if it makes sense for the character to be. Granted, we have a similar issue in 4E, but that gets alleviated a certain extent by the +5 to the skill based upon training (so that a fighter with no appreciable Charisma score can at least equal a Bard in Diplomacy if the fighter becomes trained in it and the bard doesn't). But with taking a "skill" in Mearls' concept only granting a +2, it'll be harder and harder for classes with dump scores ever becoming as good in certain things as other classes based purely upon the fact they need the high ability score for combat reasons. And that just doesn't sit very well with me.
I think 4E took a great leap forward by having all six ability scores become "useful" finally by making each one a primary combat stat for different classes. But by doing that... it did cause the condundrum of every generic swordmage somehow being almost as knowledgeable about Religion as a trained divine character. If this is the new way of doing skills... then I think it might finally be time to follow Mutants & Mastermind's lead and just completely separate a character's combat ability from the ability scores altogether. Because so long as each class has a primary and one or two secondary ability scores that all their combat is based upon... and an escalating point-buy system that allows you to blow all your points on a high primary and just enough left over for a single secondary (and thus dumping the same other three each and every time)... almost every character created in any single class will be just as good in certain skills and just as bad in others regardless of what an individual player might actually want to create. Because while a player might WANT to have his fighter actually be good at Bluff... the combat system and point-buy system almost guarantees that it's just not really feasible to get his Charisma that high without completely gimping his character in combat. And unless there's a complete shift of emphasis in the game... combat effectiveness will ALWAYS trump effectiveness in other areas in this game of D&D.
With each class's combat skills currently pretty much based off of one particular ability score, it guarantees it's going to be the highest score the character has. Which means that (for instance) every warpriest will be great at Perception, Nature, and Insight regardless if it makes sense for the character to be. Granted, we have a similar issue in 4E, but that gets alleviated a certain extent by the +5 to the skill based upon training (so that a fighter with no appreciable Charisma score can at least equal a Bard in Diplomacy if the fighter becomes trained in it and the bard doesn't). But with taking a "skill" in Mearls' concept only granting a +2, it'll be harder and harder for classes with dump scores ever becoming as good in certain things as other classes based purely upon the fact they need the high ability score for combat reasons. And that just doesn't sit very well with me.
I think 4E took a great leap forward by having all six ability scores become "useful" finally by making each one a primary combat stat for different classes. But by doing that... it did cause the condundrum of every generic swordmage somehow being almost as knowledgeable about Religion as a trained divine character. If this is the new way of doing skills... then I think it might finally be time to follow Mutants & Mastermind's lead and just completely separate a character's combat ability from the ability scores altogether. Because so long as each class has a primary and one or two secondary ability scores that all their combat is based upon... and an escalating point-buy system that allows you to blow all your points on a high primary and just enough left over for a single secondary (and thus dumping the same other three each and every time)... almost every character created in any single class will be just as good in certain skills and just as bad in others regardless of what an individual player might actually want to create. Because while a player might WANT to have his fighter actually be good at Bluff... the combat system and point-buy system almost guarantees that it's just not really feasible to get his Charisma that high without completely gimping his character in combat. And unless there's a complete shift of emphasis in the game... combat effectiveness will ALWAYS trump effectiveness in other areas in this game of D&D.
Last edited:
the Jester
Legend
I've recently come to the conclusion that the more complicated and specific a skill system is, the less I like it.
That said, I'm with him until he gets to the skill talents or stunts or whatever; then it's just more option overload for pcs.
That said, I'm with him until he gets to the skill talents or stunts or whatever; then it's just more option overload for pcs.
Similar Threads
