Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
ShortQuests -- Pocket Sized Adventures! An all-new collection of digest-sized D&D adventures designed for 1-2 game sessions.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mouseferatu" data-source="post: 1223938" data-attributes="member: 1288">Well, I've been pondering the notion of doubling the skill points, as suggested. And yes, that would lead to people having more skills maxed out.But I'm wondering, is that really such a bad thing? People still have to pay double for cross-class skills, and people still have a maximum limit per level. So all it does is make any given character a little more broad-based. (And not so much at low levels, since I wouldn't be granting the x4 at first level.)I'm not sure that's a problem, honestly. I don't think the game is so tightly balanced that having more well-rounded characters is going to be a game breaker.Yes, the idea of going from 0 ranks in a skill to max ranks over the course of one level is a bit unrealistic, but there are ways around that, even if it's just the DM saying "Hey, you can't put all your points there just yet, you haven't had time to learn all that." Right now, I'm more concerned with the bigger game balance issues. The details I can work out later.So, am I missing something? Is there really a balance-related reason not to double the skill points for everyone?(BTW, the campaign in question is lower-magic than average, particularly when it comes to items that boost abilities and the like, so at least some of the boost they get here will be mitigated by having lower ability levels than characters who are finding lots of Tomes and Manuals and Headbands and all that.)</blockquote>

Verification