Deuce Traveler
Adventurer
Hmmm... links didn't show up. Trying going to my previous post, #257 on this thread.
Deuce Traveler's Last Stand of the Dorinthians
- Thread starter Deuce Traveler
- Start date
Deuce Traveler said:
Great, thanks!
Will update the character today.
more on skills
I've been thinking all day about this idea, and thought I'd put out my 2cp. worth. I see it having five main effects:
1. each character has many more skills than usual. (Reducing skill points for each class will offset this a bit, but not much.) Entry into prestige classes is easier.
2. each characters skillsets will become a lot more similar: every rogue, bard, ranger (and monster!) will have the same skills at essentially the same level. There will be less individuation of characters, which is something the current 3.5 skill system encourages. Every character will have all the skills tied to their strongest stats.
3. players have less thinking to do: the flip side of this is that there is less opportunity to individuate characters. since presumably cross-class penalties no longer apply in the same way, again diversity is reduced. Even thinking about Danica, my intention for her not to understand her magic (low Kn (M), with only a single point in spellcraft) was meant to go against the default for casters. Such brilliantly nuanced characterizations are no longer possible [/irony]
4. synergy bonuses become obsolete, or effectively so, since synergized skills are worked in to the same uber-skill.
5. there becomes a heirarchy of skills, since not all skills are clustered. (What happens to all the Knowledge skills -- do they become one? how does that measure up against bardic knowledge) If Kn skills are not clustered, then Arcana becomes much stronger comparatively.
While I didn't think this when I started the day, I now think that all of these are negatives. I instinctively like the idea of clustering appropriate skills, but it seems to throw off the whole skill system in several ways that I didn't expect. In particular, points 2, 3, and 4 reduce the role-playing characterization of the PCs, which strikes me as bad.
There's my thoughts for the day.
KS.
I've been thinking all day about this idea, and thought I'd put out my 2cp. worth. I see it having five main effects:
1. each character has many more skills than usual. (Reducing skill points for each class will offset this a bit, but not much.) Entry into prestige classes is easier.
2. each characters skillsets will become a lot more similar: every rogue, bard, ranger (and monster!) will have the same skills at essentially the same level. There will be less individuation of characters, which is something the current 3.5 skill system encourages. Every character will have all the skills tied to their strongest stats.
3. players have less thinking to do: the flip side of this is that there is less opportunity to individuate characters. since presumably cross-class penalties no longer apply in the same way, again diversity is reduced. Even thinking about Danica, my intention for her not to understand her magic (low Kn (M), with only a single point in spellcraft) was meant to go against the default for casters. Such brilliantly nuanced characterizations are no longer possible [/irony]
4. synergy bonuses become obsolete, or effectively so, since synergized skills are worked in to the same uber-skill.
5. there becomes a heirarchy of skills, since not all skills are clustered. (What happens to all the Knowledge skills -- do they become one? how does that measure up against bardic knowledge) If Kn skills are not clustered, then Arcana becomes much stronger comparatively.
While I didn't think this when I started the day, I now think that all of these are negatives. I instinctively like the idea of clustering appropriate skills, but it seems to throw off the whole skill system in several ways that I didn't expect. In particular, points 2, 3, and 4 reduce the role-playing characterization of the PCs, which strikes me as bad.
There's my thoughts for the day.
KS.
Deuce Traveler
Adventurer
KS,
You make some excellent points, however I feel the limitations on skills actually create a situation where the characters aren't unique. Since you only start out with only so many skill points, most players put their points into what will be most useful in combat. This causes some glaring problems, such as the fact that I've never seen a cleric put a lot of points into Knowledge (religion). Also, how many rangers put points into Craft (arrow). With more skill points you can better add a background story for your character. How can you say, for instance, that your fighter was a blacksmith's apprentice before he learned about the sword, if he has no available points to put into Profession (Blacksmith). And how come we never see a dwarven cleric or fighter who likes to work with metal or wood to make something artistic. I think freeing up points gives a better opportunity to add personality to the character.
DT
You make some excellent points, however I feel the limitations on skills actually create a situation where the characters aren't unique. Since you only start out with only so many skill points, most players put their points into what will be most useful in combat. This causes some glaring problems, such as the fact that I've never seen a cleric put a lot of points into Knowledge (religion). Also, how many rangers put points into Craft (arrow). With more skill points you can better add a background story for your character. How can you say, for instance, that your fighter was a blacksmith's apprentice before he learned about the sword, if he has no available points to put into Profession (Blacksmith). And how come we never see a dwarven cleric or fighter who likes to work with metal or wood to make something artistic. I think freeing up points gives a better opportunity to add personality to the character.
DT
Deuce Traveler said:
Yeah, I get that. What would you think about each character class having two additional points for cross-class/knowledge/craft/profession skills only? that still requires choice, but allows each character to pick two 'individual skills' they might not otherwise be good at and still have a respectable roll? I'm not necessarily suggesting this as an alternative, but merely offering it as another possible way to meet your needs.
(And who makes Clerics without Kn (rel)?! I think I've always maxed out Kn (rel) and tried for at least five points in Kn (planes) with the clerics I'ver built. Hmmm. Shows how local assumptions givern! )
anyway, character will be up tomorrow. Just trying to get it looking pretty.
Deuce Traveler
Adventurer
I like your idea about 2 extra skill points, also. Right now I'm being experimental and may borrow that in the future.
GlassEye
Adventurer
I've been thinking a little about the merged skill system, too. As far as my character is concerned (who will have 6 skill points freed up) it's not likely that I'll spend those points on 'background' skills. I already have what I consider 3 background skills and 1 background feat, none of which have been particularly useful. So I'll likely improve Sense, a cross-class skill that I wanted to have at a better level but didn't have the points for before.
Deuce Traveler
Adventurer
Ok. Please post him as soon as you can.
Deuce Traveler
Adventurer
KS,
If you don't mind, I think this is a perfect opportunity to reintroduce Danica. If you think you are nearly ready, I'm going to place her in my next IC post tonight.
If you don't mind, I think this is a perfect opportunity to reintroduce Danica. If you think you are nearly ready, I'm going to place her in my next IC post tonight.
