Do Star Wars Saga skill rules make d20 better?

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

You'd be more persuasive if any of your examples actually reflected the way the game works. Or any kind of logic, really.

1. You can ride horses untrained and armor check penalties do not apply to ride.

2. There's no reason for a 20th level character to have an armor check penalty of more than -5 while travelling. (that of MW Full Plate) You usually don't wear shields when climbing walls.

3. Since when is a 15' brick wall in decent shape an easy climb without help, either in D&D, archetypal fantasy fiction, or real life?

Of course, throw a rope with a grappling hook over it - which is what would happen in most fantasy fiction - and Mr. Buttstomper can take 10 and waltz right over it. (and he'd never roll a -3, since his strength is in the 20s, so he actually has a positive climb modifier even after the armor check penalty)

4. Using Intimidate in combat only lets you make the opponent shaken, not change his attitude or tell him to run away. (that takes 1 minute) That, and it's an opposed roll, with the goblin rolling 1d20+4+Cha (assuming he maxed out Intimidate) vs. 1d20+20+Wis+Bonus on Saves vs. Fear for the 20th level character. Good luck with that.

He might have been a bit hyperbolic, but let's not dismiss the point by with rules-lawyery. The climbing issue stands. I could climb a 15' brick wall when I was 10, and I was a chubby kid. Until I hurt my back last year, I could still have done it, though probably with more difficulty, and I'm a desk-jockey grad student (albeit less chubby than in my youth). I might have a 12 strength on my best day, and only that by virtue of yard work around my house and having taken the gym seriously for a couple years not long ago, and my very rare forays to the climbing wall and some experiences while camping don't equate to many ranks in Climb. A world-renowned 20th level fighter with 20+ strength shouldn't need a grappling hook. And if he was a fighter-type in any fantasy literature we've ever seen, he'd be free-climbing sheer cliffs, because that's what they do in heroic fiction.

So the game models neither real life nor "literature."

And the intimidate example is simply slightly different..... the 1st level goblin (or for that matter, any bumbling idiot with strength and dexterity penalties but high charisma) might not succeed in intimidating Headsmasher, but will be FAR better at intimidating others than Headsmasher is. So, the pathetic goblin, or for that matter the level 1 bard who trips over his own feet and pricks himself regularly with his own rapier, is somehow an inherently more intimidating person than a 6'8" 350 pound defensive tackle with an arsenal of magical equipment and a face only a mother could love?

Again, that fails to model..... well anything. Mr. Headsmasher there, even ignoring his name, is very good at bashing heads and otherwise exists purely as comic relief.

 

[mmu1]

He might have been a bit hyperbolic, but let's not dismiss the point by with rules-lawyery. The climbing issue stands. I could climb a 15' brick wall when I was 10, and I was a chubby kid. Until I hurt my back last year, I could still have done it, though probably with more difficulty, and I'm a desk-jockey grad student (albeit less chubby than in my youth). I might have a 12 strength on my best day, and only that by virtue of yard work around my house and having taken the gym seriously for a couple years not long ago, and my very rare forays to the climbing wall and some experiences while camping don't equate to many ranks in Climb. A world-renowned 20th level fighter with 20+ strength shouldn't need a grappling hook. And if he was a fighter-type in any fantasy literature we've ever seen, he'd be free-climbing sheer cliffs, because that's what they do in heroic fiction.

So the game models neither real life nor "literature."

And the intimidate example is simply slightly different..... the 1st level goblin (or for that matter, any bumbling idiot with strength and dexterity penalties but high charisma) might not succeed in intimidating Headsmasher, but will be FAR better at intimidating others than Headsmasher is. So, the pathetic goblin, or for that matter the level 1 bard who trips over his own feet and pricks himself regularly with his own rapier, is somehow an inherently more intimidating person than a 6'8" 350 pound defensive tackle with an arsenal of magical equipment and a face only a mother could love?

Again, that fails to model..... well anything. Mr. Headsmasher there, even ignoring his name, is very good at bashing heads and otherwise exists purely as comic relief.

Really? You could climb a 15' brick wall?

I think you ought to clarify what you mean by a "brick wall", then, because while I know of people that could climb a wall like the one pictured, I've known plenty of athletic people, but no one who could climb 15' of that. Never mind something in brand new condtion.

As for the intimidation issue... The solution exists, it's called "circumstance bonuses". Moreover, the skill is basically used to get people to do things they wouldn't normally do, and while people won't normally be afraid of a 1st level bard, they're definitely be afraid of a 20th level juggernaut of destruction. The 20th level character just won't be able to intimidate other high level individuals as effectively as the 1st level bard can intimidate other low level people.3

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

Really? You could climb a 15' brick wall?
I think you ought to clarify what you mean by a "brick wall", then, because while I know of people that could climb a wall like the one pictured, I've known plenty of athletic people, but no one who could climb 15' of that. Never mind something in brand new condtion.

Yes, though in retrospect, they probably weren't much more than 10 ft. When you live it the world's most boring suburb, you tend to take a lot of dares to pass the time. I have several small scars to show for it. Heck, the coolest place to hang out in our town was the Dunkin' Donuts, and we couldn't even GET there until we had cars. Being 10 in that environment was considered akin to purgatory.

All of that aside, since every player I've ever met tries to build his character to model the guys in movies and books that are scaling the sheer cliffs, the fact that their characters generally can't manage to climb trees without making a die roll is a little silly, wot?

As for the intimidation issue... The solution exists, it's called "circumstance bonuses". Moreover, the skill is basically used to get people to do things they wouldn't normally do, and while people won't normally be afraid of a 1st level bard, they're definitely be afraid of a 20th level juggernaut of destruction. The 20th level character just won't be able to intimidate other high level individuals as effectively as the 1st level bard can intimidate other low level people.

So.... you're fine if the system makes maintaining the competence difference between high and low level characters the DM's job, but if it's explicit in the rules that's bad?

 

[Hjorimir]

Skills in D&D are pretty bad, imo. How can you take a class like fighter (or warrior), who would be the most likely of guards and not give them Spot and Listen as class skills? How can any 20th level character (regardless of class) not have access to Knowledge skills? How can a character spend years in the saddle moving from one adventure to the next and not advance his skill as a rider?

 

[wingsandsword]

Skills in D&D are pretty bad, imo. How can you take a class like fighter (or warrior), who would be the most likely of guards and not give them Spot and Listen as class skills?

Spot and Listen may be perfect skills for guards, but typical guards aren't perfect guards, they are typical soldiers doing a routine task, staying awake and vaguely alert are more common skills for guards.

How can any 20th level character (regardless of class) not have access to Knowledge skills?

They have as much access to it as any other character. Just because it is not a class skill does not mean it's forbidden. Heck, one lone skill point for a half-rank so they can make Trained Only checks off their Int means they know things that the average person would never have a chance of knowing, and only the learned would know.

How can a character spend years in the saddle moving from one adventure to the next and not advance his skill as a rider?

Cross-class skills. I know it's not "optimum", but it's not forbidden. There is a big difference between an optimized character (who would never put a few cross-class ranks in Ride because it is "optimum" to keep a certain number of skills always maxed and never buy skills below maximum or cross-class) and a more realistic character (who did because it made sense for the character)

 

[Greg K]

Cross-class skills. I know it's not "optimum", but it's not forbidden. There is a big difference between an optimized character (who would never put a few cross-class ranks in Ride because it is "optimum" to keep a certain number of skills always maxed and never buy skills below maximum or cross-class) and a more realistic character (who did because it made sense for the character)

Yep, and if someone doing the former in my game complained, I'd tell them to stop whining. It was their choice to ignore certain skills in order to max out others. Thankfully, however, my players fall into the latter category and take things, because it makes sense for the character.

 

[Hjorimir]

Spot and Listen may be perfect skills for guards, but typical guards aren't perfect guards, they are typical soldiers doing a routine task, staying awake and vaguely alert are more common skills for guards.

As somebody who used to be a prison guard, I'd have to disagree.

They have as much access to it as any other character. Just because it is not a class skill does not mean it's forbidden. Heck, one lone skill point for a half-rank so they can make Trained Only checks off their Int means they know things that the average person would never have a chance of knowing, and only the learned would know.

It isn't a question of being forbidden; it is a question of not automatically absorbing some knoweldge skills through 20 levels of experience. "I'm sorry, I know that I've spent the last two years plane-hopping and fighting countless outsiders, but I know nothing about how magic works or what those creatures are up to." Rubbish!

Cross-class skills. I know it's not "optimum", but it's not forbidden. There is a big difference between an optimized character (who would never put a few cross-class ranks in Ride because it is "optimum" to keep a certain number of skills always maxed and never buy skills below maximum or cross-class) and a more realistic character (who did because it made sense for the character)

Like Knowledge skills, the issue I have is that the character's experiences have no impact on their abilities.

I'm not saying the SWSE is perfect with the skills, but I find them far superior to 3E's system.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

I'm not saying the SWSE is perfect with the skills, but I find them far superior to 3E's system.

It's been said in-thread already, but it's actually fairly elegant. Simply by leveling, you get some ability at everything, but it really IS just sort of "what you pick up by kicking around the world" because of the extensive differences between what you're allowed to attempt "trained" vs "untrained."

My one worry from looking over it was remembering all the examples of what untrained people can't do, but most of them made logical sense. Mundane examples of the skill could be performed by anyone, whereas someone trained can try tricky things. I haven't been in a game, so I can't honestly say it would be obvious at all times, but it seemed pretty intuitive once I'd looked it over.

 

[Victim]

And the intimidate example is simply slightly different..... the 1st level goblin (or for that matter, any bumbling idiot with strength and dexterity penalties but high charisma) might not succeed in intimidating Headsmasher, but will be FAR better at intimidating others than Headsmasher is. So, the pathetic goblin, or for that matter the level 1 bard who trips over his own feet and pricks himself regularly with his own rapier, is somehow an inherently more intimidating person than a 6'8" 350 pound defensive tackle with an arsenal of magical equipment and a face only a mother could love?

Again, that fails to model..... well anything. Mr. Headsmasher there, even ignoring his name, is very good at bashing heads and otherwise exists purely as comic relief.

That's not really how I view Intimidate. A huge fighter, infamous wizard, etc present a certain obvious dangerousness that people will usually take into account somehow. Intimidate allows characters to amplify apparent threat (perhaps that goblin is more than meets the eye!), and direct other's actions with it. Someone might not laugh off a death threat on a failed Intimidate check, but maybe they scream for help or only feign cooperation instead of submitting.

 

[Faraer]

Narrativist play is focused on the story, the drama, the act of creating a specific narrative (hence the name).

In Ron's definition, narrativism is also about exploring a particular premise.

Simulationist play looks more toward a realistic or at least believably immersive experience in which the course of the game reflects the expectations of the players.

What's simulated doesn't at all have to be realism: a simulationist Star Wars RPG is designed to reproduce the experience and dynamics of the Star Wars films. In this case, though, the material being simulated is itself narrativist in nature, at least in the loose sense that it works according to the laws of myth and story, which is one of the cases when trying to misapply GNS as either/or breaks down (as would any other tripartite scheme).