Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="HeapThaumaturgist" data-source="post: 1803012" data-attributes="member: 12332">Mmm, sin, I'm not seeing it either.In the end, the game was designed from a certain standpoint to be balanced in certain ways.  One of those is extra SP for high Int.  It's a value-added for the Int stat.  Your argument seems to be that, in the scheme of things, Int has enough added value from the possiblity for spellcasting to balance it against other skills OR that some stats just weren't born equal and Int shouldn't be gifted with greater impact BECAUSE:Skills should be entirely based on archetypes and the strictures of Stats inherent within the D20 system?I'm not sure.  That seems to be what the last post was saying.  Strong heroes should be good at Strength skills because they're Strong heroes AND they should have lower SP totals because they're Strong heroes and that's inherent in the archetype.Your supporting statement's that if they want more SPs and to be "smarter" in terms of SPs they should take levels in Smart hero, as it's archetype is Intelligence skills and higher SP totals?In the end the sticking point for me is your assumption that the Stat must forever be the Most Important Determinant for any particular stat-linked skill.  The construction of the system seems to suggest that pure ability accounts for SOME of one's aptitude with a skill (Ability bonus) but that LEARNING (skill points) account for more in the long run.  By your assumption that Archetype (and thus class) should be totally deterministic for skills, why have skill points?  Why not say that Strong heroes should increase the bonus to X Str-based skills each time they level up?  That's sort of what I'm seeing your argument boil down to.  You want Int based skills, take a Smart level and increase your bonus in X Int-based skills.The problem I'm seeing is the focus on one aspect of the game to the exclusion of others.  By focusing on hypotheticals, possible-stories, and what Skill/Stat combinations should "make more sense" in any particular Archetype you're coming up fast on that area where you're going to break one aspect of the game in an attempt to "fix" it to perfection.I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the game is abstract.  As an abstract system, it's not going to coincide with any particular view of reality.  Which is good.  Your take on reality may not be my take on reality.  Games tell stories, and we can tell a thousand stories about the how/why of any particular rule or rule combination.  Who can tell the better story about whichever rule combination they think is better isn't really going to do much good ... your story isn't my story, my story isn't Rodrigo's story, his isn't yours, and all up and down the web.So in the end we need to step back to the rules of the game, as a game, as an abstract.  It's still my opinion that Intelligence, as a game stat, is increased in utility by the addition of bonus SPs.  It allows us more options in story-telling (more open archetypes, in my GAME, is better than stricter archetypes, so saying EVERY level of Str gives EXACTLY the same SPs put ONLY in specific skills limits my story), and keeps Int, as an abstract, with the specific amount of utility it currently has.  Within the system, as it stands, Skill Points are linked to Intelligence and Skill Points are linked to EVERY Skill.  I feel that's core to the system.  By removing the connection of Skill Points to Intelligence, you remove the connection of Intelligence to Every Skill as well ... both were your intention, but I think both are part of the utility of Intelligence.  Spell access IS a value-added to Intelligence, but I think it's already taken into account in the other fundamentals of the game design, so you're taking away from something I see as balanced already, making an imbalance in the game.Just to talk about balance ... Charisma has, for quite a while, been a less-balanced stat, in my opinion.  Fewer value-adds.  Cha has the interaction skill list, which is important for some game types, but not for all ... Use Magic Device is a Cha skill, which I think is effective.  Cha also gets some stuff related to Turn Undead (not every campaign) and some interesting feats (some of which I add to my games as value-adds for Cha).  One of the most interesting value adds for Cha that I've seen in a while, and one I very much like, is Grim Tales' horror mechanic.  Very nice.  It brings Cha up there with the other skills and reduces its attractiveness as a "useless" stat.   I also have a mechanic in my own games based off of Cha for "Luck"-based checks ... found items and the like.  Adds to Charisma, makes it more useful.Nothing about story or archetype, I just think Int has the relation to SPs and thus to all skills for a pretty core design reason and I haven't been convinced otherwise.<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />  This was all one of the background principles I thought about long and hard when I was moving magic over to a Skills based system.  Which is one big reason I felt that having many of the skills in any particular style of magic based on DIFFERENT abilities worked the best.  If all magic were based on Int, say, then the synergistic relationship between magic/skill-points/Intelligence would be too great.--fje</blockquote>

Verification