Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Gantros" data-source="post: 4566610" data-attributes="member: 15836">I like the idea of finding a fix for the runaway skill problem at higher levels, but I think your proposed solution shifts the problem to low level PCs instead.With the Rule of 3, a 1st level PC that attempted to completely max out a skill could only hope for a +3 or +4 at best, vs. +0 for a completely unskilled PC.&nbsp; That differential just seems too small... it basically prevents a highly skilled low-level PC from doing anything an average commoner couldn't do, they just get to do it a bit more reliably.&nbsp; A rogue with Dex 18 who attempted to max out their Open Locks / Disable Device skill would have no chance of opening even an average lock until level 3-6, even taking 20 with masterwork tools.The Rule of 3 also doesn't really address the complexity issue at high levels, where each skill has an excessive number of modifiers.&nbsp; Kitty Joker's idea is kind of interesting in that it kills two birds with one stone.&nbsp; Ability scores already have plenty of uses beyond modifying skill checks (ability checks, combat bonuses, prerequisites, extra spells, etc.)What do you think of this idea... instead of adding ability mods to skills or dividing everything by 3, just say the total bonus for any skill can ever exceed the key ability score for that skill.&nbsp; So for example, a PC with Cha 15 has a max Bluff skill bonus of +15 from all sources.&nbsp; This soft cap could be raised by increasing the key ability score by any means.I can see this having several benefits... it still allows significant skill differentiation at lower levels, while keeping things from getting out of hand at high levels (since ability scores are generally tougher to increase than skill modifiers).&nbsp; It also takes one modifier out of the equation for every skill (while still allowing higher ability scores to provide a benefit at higher levels), and simplifies the math a bit (since you can stop counting mods when you hit the max bonus).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Gantros, post: 4566610, member: 15836"] I like the idea of finding a fix for the runaway skill problem at higher levels, but I think your proposed solution shifts the problem to low level PCs instead. With the Rule of 3, a 1st level PC that attempted to completely max out a skill could only hope for a +3 or +4 at best, vs. +0 for a completely unskilled PC. That differential just seems too small... it basically prevents a highly skilled low-level PC from doing anything an average commoner couldn't do, they just get to do it a bit more reliably. A rogue with Dex 18 who attempted to max out their Open Locks / Disable Device skill would have no chance of opening even an average lock until level 3-6, even taking 20 with masterwork tools. The Rule of 3 also doesn't really address the complexity issue at high levels, where each skill has an excessive number of modifiers. Kitty Joker's idea is kind of interesting in that it kills two birds with one stone. Ability scores already have plenty of uses beyond modifying skill checks (ability checks, combat bonuses, prerequisites, extra spells, etc.) What do you think of this idea... instead of adding ability mods to skills or dividing everything by 3, just say the total bonus for any skill can ever exceed the key ability score for that skill. So for example, a PC with Cha 15 has a max Bluff skill bonus of +15 from all sources. This soft cap could be raised by increasing the key ability score by any means. I can see this having several benefits... it still allows significant skill differentiation at lower levels, while keeping things from getting out of hand at high levels (since ability scores are generally tougher to increase than skill modifiers). It also takes one modifier out of the equation for every skill (while still allowing higher ability scores to provide a benefit at higher levels), and simplifies the math a bit (since you can stop counting mods when you hit the max bonus). [/QUOTE]

Verification