ThirdWizard said:
Maybe, as in if they put the ranks in those particular skills? Well, they don't necessarily do that, but I should have pointed out that my assumption was that they would put the points there.
Did that on purpose. Otherwise, it could have been a strawman making it pointless. Strawman bad.
Ah I understand. I thought we were talking primarily about picking up new skills. Either way, intent respected and appreciated.
Sadly, few in numbe rare those who even try to avoid men of straw.
First of all, on the knowlege versus ability side of things. Intelligence, and thus knowlege, definately comes into play on how well you are able to do things, that can't be argued because Int adds to skill points gained per level. The smarter you are, the better at multiple things you can be, or the quicker you learn so you can devote yourself to more, or the easier you remember, etc etc. Whatever you want to say about it.
So here's a question. How much does one rank represent? How knowlegable would a PC have to be before he could have three ranks? Four? Five? With retroactive skill points this changes based on level. A 4th level character who gains a little Int can learn 4 ranks worth of stuff with retroactive points. An 8th can learn 8, and so on. Why is this? The 8th level character hasn't spent more time than the 4th level character cooking (they both have 1 rank), but for some reason, he can gain far far more ability.
So, yes, I say pure ability. Ranks represent what you have learned. Just because you're smarter doesn't mean you know how to cook a suflet. You have to read the recipie, spend time working with it, and then finally figure out what works.
I know programming. You can't just get smarter and know how to set up a dynamic website. You have to read about the technology and actually try it yourself. Same goes for any skillset that I've ever attempted. A brilliant person who has never riden a bike doesn't know how to ride a bike purely off being smart. I'm smart and there are tons of things I can't do because I've never attempted them. Like cook. Well, beyond microwavable things and pastas.
I see. the underlying problem then is the "instant" nature of the game, right? You don't have a problem with someone getting smarter and knowing/learning more, just the appearance of it being instant. I think that is part interpretation and part "lets ignore training" in the 3.5 mode. I don't perceive levelling up like is in a video game. If you've very played Diablo I/II or Neverwinter Nights, you know what I mean. I don't view getting a level as an instant thing anymore than I am suddenly a year older on my birthday. Level is an abstraction to make gameplay simpler. Seen another way, it isn't like the end of school year meaning you suddenly know more things because you are now a (grade) level higher. It is a representation of the result of your experiences.
As to relative ability. They might have differing ability scores, but the potential is still there for the cook who suddenly gets smarter to be as good as the cowboy at riding a horse. He'll jump on and start standing in the saddle and other tricks. Because he got smarter. It just doens't click for me.
I'm not saying This is the Way it Is. But, it is the way I see it.
Yes the potential is there, provided the cowboy doesn't improve his ride skill. But that can be true w/o intelligence changes. The cowboy isn't good because he's a cowboy, he's good because he has a tendency and ability towards it and has made effort to increase his ranks, so to speak.
Consider the cowboy w/Dex 15, ranks 2. His total modifier (his "skill") is 4, not counting equipment. Can the cook be as good? Absolutely. He can have no dex mod, a rank of 1, and he is "down" 3 points. But if he adds an appropriate saddle he now is down 1 point (+2 for the equipment). A difference, generally and roughly of 5%. The cook, however, has a higher Int (is smarter) and thus more skill points.
So next level (level 2) the cowboy spends his points on Use Rope. He makes no increase to his ride skill. The cook, however, does. He adds pints to Ride, putting him on par with the cowboy ... and "better" if he has better equipment. No intelligence boosts needed.
So now, without being smarter (suddenly or otherwise), the cook is "suddenly" as good as the cowboy at riding horses. Per RAW this is perfectly normal as there is no training requirement.
As to how good a rank means, look at how more likely that rank is to allow to succeed at various checks.
Using the PHB, here are some standard ride checks:
guide w/knees or stay in saddle: 5
fight w/warhorse: 10
fast mount/dismount: 20
So if you are trying to fast mount/dismount your horse, the difference between rank 0 and rank 1 is what? A doubling. Previously you had a 5% chance (natural 20) to succeed, with no training and not counting dex mods. So with no ranks the cowboy with his +2 dex is three times as likely to pull it off (18,19,20) as the average dex (+0) cook. The cowboy will succeed at hit by virtue of dex alone three times as often as the cook, no ranks for either. On the other end, the cook will succeed at guiding the horse w/his knees 75% of the time. The cowboy will succeed 90% of the time (failing on 1 and 2). The multiplier is not so great but it's not difficult to do. Assuming an average roll of 11, neither will succeed at (dis)mounting fast, and both will succeed at guiding with their knees. On average, both can fight with a warhorse (DC10).
Keeping with the stats above, let us look at 1st level. The cowboy puts 4 ranks in ride, the cook puts 1. Now the cowboy will succed at the simple stuff (DC5) *all the time*, whereas the cook will succeed 85% of the time. The cowboy with his +6 will succeed at the really hard stuff (DC20) on 14 and above, thus 70% of the time versus the cook's 10%
At level 2, the cowboy puts his ranks elsewhere (use rope). So his total ride score is +6. The cook puts 3 points bringing him up to 4, with that as his total (no dex). Now the gap has narrowed dramatically. Add in a good saddle and they will succeed equally.
So now we have a difference of two points. How does that change the above checks? Now, the cook will always succeed at the simple stuff and will do the hard stuff 80% of the time versus the cowboy's 70%. We can see the 5% per point quite clearly.
So a rank is relative, and works out well (never thought about it much till now). Going from 0 to one rank is a doubling of your chances to do the hard stuff. Going from rank 1 to rank 2 not so much. Thus you have a diminishing return. Translation: it's easy to learn the basics, it's harder to learn the more minute and difficult aspects of a skill. The higher your rank, the less incentive there is to put points there as in general (specifically in ride's case) it has less of a benefit compared to early ranks. According to the PHB on p62, ranks are representative of "truly heroic potential" in that particular skill.
I'll use a real life example from my past. When I first participated in US Army Ranger competitions there was a challenge involving rapid assembly of multiple weapons from a single box. I was competing against guys who had been doing it for years. They had many ranks in it. Lots of practice. I did not. However, I applie dintelligence to what was primarily a dex based skill. I thought about the consequences of each order, how the different choices for assembly order affected the flow of movement. I considered how the position I would be in after each weapon impacted the beginning of the next. Was I standing or kneeling?
By careful choice of what order to use I tied the lead team member's time on my first attempt. Beginners luck. Nope. Next run I improved even more and had the record time for the team. By the end of a few runs I had perfected my technique and went undefeated.
Now I point out that this was not some extra skill for the team, it was part of our core skill set. Yet for all appearances I was "suddenly" better, despite not being quite as dextrous and nowhere near as dextrous as others I competed against. Gamewise I "suddenly" gained ranks in a skill I had never used before. And I was as good as those who had been doing it for ten plus years.
Perhaps that is why I can see this as something that can happen in game. I've personally experienced it.
As far is cooking a suflet, a smarter person is more likely to learn how quickly. He is more likely to be able to follow the recipe closely or at all, compared to someone of lesser intelligence. When following a recipe there is little of figuring out what works except when something doesn't.
Let is talk about knitting for a moment. Trust me it has relevence.
Recently my wife picked up knitting. She gained a level in Mother, had maxed out her other skills and thus she had some points to spare. So she spent them in knitting. She picked up a few patterns and they didn't work quite right. She figured out that they had flaws. Fatal ones. Yet the thousands of people before her (the patterns were made by "professionals" and used for decades) had never noticed the flaws. Now before you say "But that's craft (knitting), it's int based", consider the ramifications. Knitting is dex based unless you are creating or modifying patterns. That is where the ranks and ability come in handy, in doing things above and beyond the norm. In this case, my wife picked up a new skill "suddenly" - she was knitting socks, shorts, and other non-trivial items such as sweaters instead of the traditional scarves and hats beginners are started on. New skills taken on "suddenly", real case.
So if my wife and I (among millions) can "suddenly" get new skills, why is it hard to imagine a person getting smarter suddenly being better at skills they already have, even better than others who have spent longer doing it?
As far as the 4th level vs 8th level question, again take int boosting out of it. You can get the same effect w/o boosting intelligence and getting more points. If I'm willing to I can spend all my points to bring a new skill up to speed at higher levels w/o increasing my int.
Take a fighter with 4 skill points each level At eigth level I can dump four points into a new skill. No int boost needed. Is this a problem? What about the rogue with 12 points? At 9th level a rogue can add max ranks in a completely new class skill. Again, no int boost needed. Is this a problem? If it isn't, then neither is the "suddenly" smarter guy doing it.
For your 1 rank cooking difference, remember that levels are a result of XP. The PCs are older and (in the game's intention) able to process data better. The 8th level person has more experience cooking, in theory. But maybe his boosting it to 8 ranks is not the result of more cooking experience? Perhaps it comes from more eating experience. Maybe she has consumed a wider variety of food. Maybe he's just had more bad food to judge against. Perhaps it is a result of doing it but it never really clicked, or she didn't really think about it before. As a programmer I'm pretty sure you've run into that scenario before. If not, I am sure you will.
Not all "ability" or aptitude comes from practicing the skill. Maybe the cook spent all his time cooking the same basic meals (line cook), whereas the cowboy has had many different cooks and thus has more exposure to different meals, styles of cooking, and so on.
So where does it come from? The PHB tells us. It is the downtime that most DMs and players never deal with. Specifically the PHB says:
PHB3.5 said:
Characters spend time between adventures training, studying, or otherwise practicing their skills. This work consolidates what they learn on adventures and keeps them in top form.
There is your "where does it come from" answer. It comes from the parts of our characters' lives we generally don't play.
This would be the cowboy thinking about food when he's hungry, or remembering w particularly good cook and then going back in his memory to remember what the cook said and/or did.
Now as to the sudden-ness of a book or wish spell granting a permanent increase, nothing ever says you can get permanent skill points outside of levelling up. To allow a PC to get more (permanent) skill points in between levels is yet another house rule, and IMO not part of the original question. In your alien modification scenario above, I am assuming an equivalent for game purposes, working within the framework. I could see a DM allowing it within reason though.
This has been a fun and interesting discussion, TW. I am enjoying it. Your remark about your next game and making all skills class skills brought a smile to my face. It is one of my preferred house rules, and one way of dealing with what I hold to be an incomplete skill system.
As an aside, I just watched Dungeons and Dragons 2 on Sci-Fi (well, TiVO). I was quite amused by watching a mage fail her use magic device check with spectacular crappiness.
The references to actual D&D modules was just too much fun. Overall much more like D&D than the first one.
Cheers
