NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="StreamOfTheSky" data-source="post: 4596659" data-attributes="member: 35909">1. The only two editions of D&D with full-fledged skill systems both use int for how many skills you can have.  4E simply reduces to a binary yes-no whether you have ranks or not.  It's still int-based, and you need at least some int to learn new skills via feat.  What would you do?  Just have skill points be a flat number w/o variance for each class?  I like that int is at least slightly useful to anyone.2. Int represents more than just book learning.3. What character concepts is it eliminating?  Min-maxed ones with a negative int in order to have more room for other stats that you then cry over because you can't have your cake and eat it, too (have lots of skill points)?  There's only playing a human (+1 skill point/level), the Nymph's Kiss feat (ditto), Open Mind feat (+5 skill points), dipping at level 1 in a class with a bucket load like the Rogue, feats to add to your class skill list to make purchasing a specific one cheaper...  Man, 3E sure is crushing your "high skill points, low int character" options, huh?4. It's nice you think that it's a broken system.  Most in this forum probably disagree.Anyway, as for what aboyd was saying, a higher level character can up his charisma to improve said skills, go for synergy bonuses, try and get an item that increases the skill bonus, or *gasp!* put some ranks in, because 3E lets you "train" in any skill you like.  It's just a slower and more costly process if it's not a class skill.  Doesn't change the fact it can easily be worth it.  My wizards and sorcerers GLADLY pay double for ranks in tumble.</blockquote>

Verification