How do Saga skills work?

[Nifft]

@ drothgery: I like that house rule.

@ KarinsDad: You're probably right about skills, though keep in mind we're looking at an extreme case (Trained + Focused + quad-boosted ability modifier), which should be worth more than merely Trained + decent modifier. I don't think I mind if Trained + Focused guys are overwhelmingly successful in their field of focus... have you found this to be broken?

Cheers, -- N

 

[drothgery]

@ drothgery: I like that house rule.

@ KarinsDad: You're probably right about skills, though keep in mind we're looking at an extreme case (Trained + Focused + quad-boosted ability modifier), which should be worth more than merely Trained + decent modifier. I don't think I mind if Trained + Focused guys are overwhelmingly successful in their field of focus... have you found this to be broken?

Cheers, -- N

The one area where it's somewhat problematic is with Skill Focus (Use the Force); it makes low-level characters pretty much defenseless against force powers, and can make block/deflect nearly autosuccesses against low-level characters.

 

[KarinsDad]

@ KarinsDad: You're probably right about skills, though keep in mind we're looking at an extreme case (Trained + Focused + quad-boosted ability modifier), which should be worth more than merely Trained + decent modifier. I don't think I mind if Trained + Focused guys are overwhelmingly successful in their field of focus... have you found this to be broken?

It's pretty darn strong.

The entire intent of 4E is to balance some of this stuff out so that the sweet spot goes through all of the levels.

So, look at first level.

The Rogue has +13 in Tumble, the Wizard has +0.

DC 15 is way too easy for the Rogue (95%) and DC 20 (5%) is way too difficult for the Wizard. What DC do you set for something that both PCs have a decent chance of success and a decent chance of failure?

The only way this can be cleaned up is to lower the delta between the two classes.

As per my suggestion above:

The Rogue has +9 in Tumble, the Wizard has +0. DC 15 Rogue makes it 75% of the time. Wizard makes it 30% of the time (as opposed to 95% and 30%). DC 20 Rogue makes it 50% of the time. Wizard makes it 5% of the time (as opposed to 70% and 5%).

45% better, not 65% better. That delta is TOO HUGE.

Look at 20th level:

The Rogue has +21 in Tumble (maybe bumped up Dex four times since he can bump up two stats every 4 levels), the Wizard has +11 (he bumped up Dex only twice). DC 25 Rogue makes it 85% of the time. Wizard makes it 30% of the time (as opposed to 100% and 30%).

With my suggestion above, the DM can set the DC such that the Rogue has a high chance of success and the Wizard has a low chance of success, but it is not 90% and 10%.

And this does not include stat boosting items (which it's looking like they should drop for 4E).


But, I did not play SWSE to a high enough level to make sure of this. But, the math looks fairly convincing.

 

[KarinsDad]

I've houseruled in quick and dirty fractional BAB. Because there are only two BAB progressions in SWSE (full and 3/4), I've just said you can add up all your levels in 3/4 BAB classes and treat them as one class for purposes of figuring BAB.

This encourages multiclassing too much I think.

Having +3 BAB with four different classes is much better than having +0 BAB.

 

[Puggins]

It's pretty darn strong.

The entire intent of 4E is to balance some of this stuff out so that the sweet spot goes through all of the levels.

So, look at first level.

The Rogue has +13 in Tumble, the Wizard has +0.

Whoah, there. Feats don't grow on trees. If the rogue decided to take both skill training AND skill focus, and the wizard is a lot less dexterous than the rogue then I'd say that's a pretty fair spread.

Take the skill focus away from the rogue (after all, he's not gonna have it in every feat) and give the wizard at least some decent hand-eye coordination (dex 12) and you have a +8 vs. a +1. That's a pretty reasonable spread. You're using an extreme case, which you won't see in practice all THAT often.

 

[Nifft]

It's pretty darn strong.

...

But, I did not play SWSE to a high enough level to make sure of this. But, the math looks fairly convincing.

Well, I'm honestly not convinced. Let me try to explain my reasoning on this one.

1/ I *like* that a Focused 1st level hero is nearly guaranteed success in his one (or two if human) field(s) of Focus. That's what "hero at 1st level" should be like IMHO.

2/ Wizards that I've seen tend to prioritize Dex and Con only slightly below Int. Dexterity for Ray attacks, AC/Reflex, and at high level Initiative. So the Wizard in your example should IMHO have a +2, rather than a +0.

3/ 1st level Wizards should NOT have a good chance of Tumbling around. Tumbling is frankly against archetype.

4/ The real loser here should be the Cleric, who might very well have a +0 Dex modifier, and will moreover have on some kind of armor with a penalty -- shall we call it -4?

- - -

So, let's look at four guys:

A - an Acrobat (Trained, Focused, +3 Dex mod)
B - a Burglar (Trained, +2 Dex mod)
C - a Conjurer (+2 Dex mod)
D - a Disciple of Pelor (+0 Dex, -4 ACP)

Level 1, DC 10 / 15 / 20 (using +5 Saga rules)
A - 100% / 95% / 70%
B - 90% / 65% / 40%
C - 65% / 40% / 15%
D - 30% / 5% / 0%

Level 1, DC 10 / 15 / 20 (using +3 KD rules)
A - 100% / 75% / 50%
B - 80% / 55% / 30%
C - 65% / 40% / 15%
D - 30% / 5% / 0%

Level 6, DC 10 / 15 / 20 (using +5 Saga rules)
A - 100% / 100% / 90%
B - 100% / 80% / 55%
C - 80% / 55% / 30%
D - 45% / 20% / 0%

Level 6, DC 10 / 15 / 20 (using +3 KD rules)
A - 100% / 90% / 65%
B - 95% / 70% / 45%
C - 80% / 55% / 30%
D - 45% / 20% / 0%

I dunno about that. A level 6 master acrobat has a one in ten chance of failing to avoid an AoO. Sure, at level 8 he'll finally get that perfect 100% (+1 from two point boost to Dex, +1 from level), but I think it's safe to assume that even level 6 guys will occasionally fight in rough terrain and otherwise face penalties to skill rolls -- so the master acrobat will fail at his shtick more than 10% of the time.

To put it in perspective, in D&D a maxed-out Rogue can get +3 Dex, +2 synergy, +3 Skill Focus and 6 ranks in Tumble by level 3 (for 100% chance to hit DC 15).

Thoughts?
Cheers, -- N

 

[drothgery]

It's pretty darn strong.

The entire intent of 4E is to balance some of this stuff out so that the sweet spot goes through all of the levels.

So, look at first level.

The Rogue has +13 in Tumble, the Wizard has +0.

The important thing, though, is that at 20th level that gap hasn't changed much. If the Rogue puts all the stat boosts from leveling up in Dex that he can, he's got a +25, and the wizard has a +10. Whereas in 3.5, the Rogue 20 has 23 ranks + 8 from 26 Dex (gloves of Dex +6) + 3 Skill Focus (Tumble) + 2 Acrobatic + 5 from some magic item + 5 from some combination of race / class abilities = +46. And the wizard still has +0. Or maybe +3 if he increased his Dex along the line somewhere.

 

[Branduil]

That might work.

Multi-classing is already pretty good, though. You get 1 feat (starting) + 1 Talent (because everyone gets Talents at odd class levels). If you're dipping just for the Talent (as I often do when building SW Saga characters), then the skill may be too good.

Cheers, -- N

How about you only get an extra trained skill if the class you're multiclassing into gets more trained skills than you already have?

 

[Hairfoot]

My question is whether the new skill system will cut down on accounting, and whether it will still create PCs with absurdly narrow talents.

Rogues are my favourite 3E class to play, but managing their skills can be nightmare. Also, I don't think it's unreasonable for a ranger to be able to use rope fairly competently, a cleric to have some knowledge of religion, or a bard to diplomatic or deceitful, even if he/she/it hasn't invested points in those skills.

 

[Nifft]

My question is whether the new skill system will cut down on accounting, and whether it will still create PCs with absurdly narrow talents.

Both. PC / NPC creation is one stage easier (and PC / NPC ability score change is VASTLY simpler), and overall competence is enhanced at the cost of specialization.

Cheers, -- N