How would you rate the d20 rules?
- Thread starter fimp
- Start date
I think the designers did a good job of creating a system that looks like the older AD&D while revamping the game.
They have brought the system up to the point where I consider it playable again.
I still find it annoying in the limitations it puts on character development. I've helped a number of people try and take a character concept and fit it into the D&D rules. Many of the problems can be one of skills rather than any balance consideration.
I also think there are two many intertwined rules in the system. Things like feats changing the way that a certain rule works. It is very difficult to keep them all straight and get them right during a game. Look at all the errors people like to point out in GameStoppers, and supposedly some people actually look at that before it is posted. Now try to run a game without making mistakes.
They have brought the system up to the point where I consider it playable again.
I still find it annoying in the limitations it puts on character development. I've helped a number of people try and take a character concept and fit it into the D&D rules. Many of the problems can be one of skills rather than any balance consideration.
I also think there are two many intertwined rules in the system. Things like feats changing the way that a certain rule works. It is very difficult to keep them all straight and get them right during a game. Look at all the errors people like to point out in GameStoppers, and supposedly some people actually look at that before it is posted. Now try to run a game without making mistakes.
Kae'Yoss
First Post
Funny thing, that: I often hear about feats or prestige classes being a disadvantage. But I think they are one of the greatest advantages of the system!
@KarinsDad: It's not 6 feats, its at least 7. Bein human increases that to 8, taking classes that get bonus feats can get you to almost as much as 20!
While it's right that they are quite alot feats that aren't balanced at all, most of the feats from Wizards themselves are balanced. And they're not all for every sort of character, so if you stay with the D&D rulebooks and accesoires and a small selection of d20 material, and if you consider only those feats that make sense for the character you imagine (no great cleave for that super archer, no empower spell for the average bounty hunter), those hundreds of feats dwindle to a mere couple of dozens.
And if you don't want to have all the stress that choosing feats involve, you just take the feats that give you HP and better saves, or such general stuff, right from the PHB.
I agree with you, though, that the ranger is practically inviting everyone to abuse it.
The skill points should be enough as they are, though. If you want more skill points for your character, get a class with many skill points (rogue or bard maybe), or multiclass into it, or give your character a high intelligence score.
And just being low on skill points doesn't meen you're low on skills. A fighter is a skilled warrior, skilled in fighting with all types of weapons. The Wizard is a skilled spellcaster, having an virtually infinite number of spells at his disposal. The Cleric is a skilled healer........ You should not confuse game terms and real life terms.
@Dispater: What's so bad about all the PrC's? You don't have to take them, just play a base class from 1st to 20th level. They offer possibilities, possibilities you don't have to take.
@KarinsDad: It's not 6 feats, its at least 7. Bein human increases that to 8, taking classes that get bonus feats can get you to almost as much as 20!
While it's right that they are quite alot feats that aren't balanced at all, most of the feats from Wizards themselves are balanced. And they're not all for every sort of character, so if you stay with the D&D rulebooks and accesoires and a small selection of d20 material, and if you consider only those feats that make sense for the character you imagine (no great cleave for that super archer, no empower spell for the average bounty hunter), those hundreds of feats dwindle to a mere couple of dozens.
And if you don't want to have all the stress that choosing feats involve, you just take the feats that give you HP and better saves, or such general stuff, right from the PHB.
I agree with you, though, that the ranger is practically inviting everyone to abuse it.
The skill points should be enough as they are, though. If you want more skill points for your character, get a class with many skill points (rogue or bard maybe), or multiclass into it, or give your character a high intelligence score.
And just being low on skill points doesn't meen you're low on skills. A fighter is a skilled warrior, skilled in fighting with all types of weapons. The Wizard is a skilled spellcaster, having an virtually infinite number of spells at his disposal. The Cleric is a skilled healer........ You should not confuse game terms and real life terms.
@Dispater: What's so bad about all the PrC's? You don't have to take them, just play a base class from 1st to 20th level. They offer possibilities, possibilities you don't have to take.
I voted : "It's Great".
D&D gets better with every edition. Yes, I do think that 2nd ed was way better than 1st ed.
There are still minor issues that I'm not happy with under 3rd ed (Mainly AoO and item creation) but D&D remains as the best fantasy sword & sorcery system on the market.
D&D gets better with every edition. Yes, I do think that 2nd ed was way better than 1st ed.
There are still minor issues that I'm not happy with under 3rd ed (Mainly AoO and item creation) but D&D remains as the best fantasy sword & sorcery system on the market.
KaeYoss said:
Hmmm.
I think feats is a crutch of the game put in to allow rules changes without really allowing them for everyone. Plus, now that the feats can of worms is opened, it can never be closed again. The game will always have them from now on in all future versions.
Yes, it’s an ok, even cool idea. But, they put no rules in on how to create feats. So, anarchy reigns.
For example, Item Creation feats.
Just like Combatant types get Armor and Weapon feats for free, Spell Caster types should get Item Creation feats for free. It should be a bread and butter ability for spell casters and there should only be about 3 item creation feats, not 8 (plus others in other source books).
Why is this separate and special? All spell casters should know how to create items just like all combatant types know how to use weapons. Worse case, it should be a skill.
Improved Cleave can give an extremely high number of additional attacks per round. Why? Clearly not well thought out.
Weapon Specialization. Why is this unique to Fighters? In fact, why is any non-magical / non-supernatural feat or ability unique to a given class?
Why can ALL Barbarians Rage, but nobody else can? And why can they only get mad once per day at first? Well, for balance reasons, but not because it makes sense. Other classes can use their abilities over and over again during the day.
Don’t even get me started on Knockdown which only normally happens in the game if someone purposely takes out an action to trip someone (but almost never happens with spells), but can happen almost every time with the feat because combatant types can almost always get their average damage up to 10 points. Sigh.
Getting knocked on your butt should be an integral part of the game without just feats and special attacks.
If a Dragon hits you for 35 points of damage, you should almost always get knocked on your butt.
Feats (as well as some skills) can also give a character AoO immunity in some cases. I personally think this is a mistake. AoOs are an integral part of turn segregated combat and resolve some of the problems that used to occur in 1E and 2E. “After killing the Zombie that was attacking you, you walk down the hallway to help out your friend. Suddenly, 12 Skeletons come out of the doorways 30 feet away and surround you before you can do a thing about it.”
AoO resistance is fine (you get +4 AC against a given type of AoO). AoO Immunity is a mistake (you do not even provoke an AoO). IMO.
Another bogus element of the game is Evasion.
If there is no room to get out of the way of something, there should not be an ability that allows it. It should be half damage and quarter damage. An ability should not be more powerful than magic. Again, IMO.
And, Improved Counterspell should be the rules of the game, not a special feat. In fact, you should be able to abort your next action to counter any spell, but if you do this, the counter should be equivalent to a Dispel Magic (i.e. you have to roll). Readying an action to counter a spell is a stupid, rarely used rule. This could have been done much better.
KaeYoss said:
I think there are a lot of feats from Wizards that are not balanced (either too weak or too strong). A boatload of the feats in the Defenders of the Faith book are too weak. Compare Extra Smiting to Weapon Specialization. You can do hundreds of extra points of damage every day with Weapon Specialization (since you rarely lose your main weapon), but you can only do +level damage with Smiting once per day and then, only on certain targets. By the time you get to 20th level to do 20 more points of damage, your opponents have 700 hit points and it hardly matters. Major difference in balance here.
Skill Focus and Toughness are too weak.
Spellcasting Prodigy is too powerful.
Greater Spell Focus is too powerful.
Greater Spell Penetration is too powerful.
Innate Spell is too powerful.
KaeYoss said:
I think are too few skill points. Adding 4 skill points to each class would make it about right.
And, some skills are not needed as separate skills.
Animal Empathy and Handle Animal could be combined.
And, why isn’t Tracking a skill?
Feat mania. That’s why.
Spot and Search and Listen. Why do you need three? You could have just one Perception skill.
And why is Scry a skill? If anything should be a feat, that should.
Why is Jump a skill? Can anyone carrying a 100 pound backpack REALLY be able to jump 43 feet on a running jump just because they had 23 ranks, 5 for Strength 20, and rolled a 20?
It’s basically ludicrous and not well thought out. Skills should not be able to emulate supernatural abilities.
Why do Sorcerers get 2 skill points per level? They are not busy studying like Wizards. They are not busy being proficient with weapons like Fighters.
It just seems arbitrary.
The game would have been better served if they would have had rules for feats and special abilities such that you could at least ballpark how powerful you can make them. And, they should have made rules for feat and ability trees such that anyone can get any feat or ability, but they still have to climb that tree.
Ditto for skills. Anyone should be able to get any skill.
And, if you only have 1 to 5 skill points per level for most characters, then having cross classed skills cost 2 points is bogus. They could have restricted them by having them cost the same, but still limiting the maximum level to 1/2 (level + 3).
So, your first level Wizard could be ALMOST as good at picking locks (rank 2 vs. rank 4 max) as a Rogue, but he will almost never catch up.
There are a lot of improvements that they can make in these areas for 4E.
I'm amazed at how many people think that the game is superb. I wonder how many people will make fun of 3E when 4E comes out, just like they made fun of 2E when 3E came out.
Black Omega
First Post
3rd Ed DnD is pretty decent. Still pretty limiting in many ways but I'm getting used to working around that.
Feats are deeply into the grey zone for me. They allow some cool ideas. But they also often seemed to be used to cover for 3rd Ed weaknesses. The system doesn't handle 'X' well, so we'll make it a feat.
Feats are deeply into the grey zone for me. They allow some cool ideas. But they also often seemed to be used to cover for 3rd Ed weaknesses. The system doesn't handle 'X' well, so we'll make it a feat.
Kae'Yoss
First Post
@KarinsDad: There are some good points. But one at a time.
Feats represent things that you usually cannot do. So you have to take a feat for some heroics, but you can't do it if you don't have it. Of course, a feat can be taken to far. (Spellfire Wielder for excample: should be no feat. Spellfire is supposed to be a overwhelmingly strong ability, way beyond the scope of a feat. Though it's up to the DM to allow it to anyone, it should be implemented in another way, maybe with a template)
You're right, feats are in, and stay in, for better or worse. Although many things have been improved since former versions (e.g. multiclassing)
I get it you aren't against feats on the whole, but against some certain feats. There's nothing wrong with that, there are feats I know that should be left out or done differently.
Personally, I always thought anarchy was a good thing
No, seriously, Even though there are no hard rules for making them, there is always the DM that dicides what's in and what's out.
Warriors know how to use weapons, wizards know how to use wands. But not every wizard knows how to create wands (or other magic items). Many are battle wizards or simply adventurers that are seldomly more than 2 days in the same place. So I think the Item creation feats are the right way to differ between those who always stay in their tower and create and those who only use.
Wizards get the Scribe Scroll feat for free, since scrolls are important for wizards, since it's their main source for spells (Divine spellcasters just get all spells there are for them, and bards and sorcerers have a limited number of known spells that they recieve automatically).
I agree, though, that they could be combined: Craft Magic Arms and Armor; Brew Potion and Scribe Scroll; Craft Rod, Staff or Wand; and Craft Wondrous Item (including Rings). Weapons and Armor are things you can use all the time, Potions and Scroll are one-use, rods, staffs and wands have uses per day or charges, and wondrous items and rings can both have uses per day or bestow their powers continuously.
In order to have all those attacks, you have to kill many foes, so they have to be low in HP. It won't give you advantages over strong foes. Whirlwind Attack is similar, in that you also have one attack against many foes. Both feats make you even stronger against hordes of weak foes (but those should be not a great problem anyway), but that big bugger will still give you a hard time!
At first, it's historical (fighers were always the ones that were able to spezialize). Also, fighters concentrate on fighting with weapons. And only on fighting with weapons. They won't be able to call upon the arcane art or a god's power. So they have to focus solely on weapon use. And that gives them the knack in fighting with those weapons.
Also, it's about game balance, and logic has to step back sometimes (after all, D&D's a fantasy game about heroics)
As I still play AD&D, I know those discussions whose classes get spezialization, and with how many weapons, and if they get it only with one, but not with any fighting stile, only to well, and I'm happy that they split the former specialization, gave everyone the possibility to get the attack bonus, but only fighters the ability to get the damage bonus.
Making them use rage over and over again practically gives them a permanent increase of STR and CON.
Barbarians are the only one's that can rage cause they are very near to nature in it's primal form, and know how to cross the line between anger and fury. Of course, others can get into rage, but they won't be able to use it to the full advantage (the barbarians have the knack for it, just with fighters and their specialization).
Again, logic has to step aside and make way for balance.
I never saw it in action, but if you make it an integral part of the game, you have to figure how many points of damage are necessary to knock you down, and your size and strength (and possibly, constitiution) have to be taken into consideration, and you have to rule when you're subject to being knocked down (if the dragon hits you with his claw, you should be knocked down, if you're subject to a cone of cold that freezes you lifeblood, you shouldn't, if the magic missiles hit you full frontal, you should, if you're hit with a horrid wilting spell, you shouldn't and so on.)
But, as I said, I never saw it actually applied in-game, and so can't exactly say if I like how it's applied.
I disagree, but not completely. I'd still allow it under certain circumstances: Tumble to avoid it makes sense: you know how to stay out of his reach, you confuse him and make a quick dash, so he'll head into the wrong direction and you can cross his territory quickly. Casting defensively let's you cast the spell without leaving yourself open for a quick AoO. But I'd always pose another obstacle you have to face instead of the AoO, or make the check to avoid the AoO hard: the variant tumble rules from the class guides makes a more agile enemy harder to tumble past, and casting Defensively alway incurs the possibility that you lose the spell.
And skeletons really should not be able to sourround anyone before he can do something about it, that's right
I agree, evasion makes no sense if you've got nothing to hide behind. But, again, if you're standing in the open and the great red wyrm dicides to invite you to Bar-B-Q (with you as the meat), you should not be able to reduce the impact at all. But reflex half saving throws are an integral part of the game, and affect game balance, so I shouldn't be taken out, and evasion is also OK, in face of game balance (just another situation where balance beats logic, but I prefer dealing with things that are illogical over things that destroy the balance and fun factor of the game.)
I agree, this time completely. I'll not say that using counterspell without feats like improved counterspell or reactive counterspell, especially to counter a spell with the very same spell, is useless, but it's not far from it.
Though I like it that way: I'd hate combats where the wizards don't harm even a single enemy, cause they counter each other all the time, while the fighers slaughter everything!
Smite evil doesn't only give you additional damage, but it also gives you an attack bonus (if you're high on CHA, but every respectable Paladin is.). This can be very important. Bisides, you'll deal this extra damage in a single round. If it's about dealing as much damage as possible, there is a difference.
Skill focus can indeed need a little boosting (There is a far spread house rule that makes skill focus +3).
Of course, the 3hp you get for toughness are useless for a Dwarven Fighter 20, but an Elven Wizard 1 can indeed find that feat useful (it could double his hit points). Toughness is for characters that are low on hitpoints (because they are low level and their class isn't to generous in that area). For higher level's, we have the additional Monster's Toughness feats from Masters of the Wild.
Spellcasting Prodigy is on the powerful side, that's true. If it wasn't for the requisite that you have to take it at first level, I'd make a (near) useless feat prerequisite so you practically have to spend two feats to get your +2.
Greater spell focus and penetration are OK as they are, as they actually cost two feats, since they won't stack with their respective prerequisite feats.
Innate Spell is powerful, that's true, but you pay a high price: Being able to cast a 1st-level spell at will can be quite nice, but they'll be not that powerful when you can cast 9th-level spells, and you'll have one less of those now. Being able to cast magic missile once a round is nice, but it won't do much against that big monster, and you'd like to have another meteor swarm handy....
That could be a little much, but 2 sound OK.
That's two different things (one of which is something only a ranger or druid can achive): Animal Empathy makes you influence an animal with your deeper knowledge of nature and a "spiritual connection", while handle animal lets you, well, handle an animal: teach it tricks, control it by sheer authority, and so on.
But I'd consider combining handle animal and ride.
Tracking (the feat) represents the ability to know what to look for. You can still track with a search check even when you don't have the feat, but all you can do is to look very hard. If you have the feat you'll know what to look for, and see clues that others would dismiss as unimportant.
Serch is a deliberate looking for something (and is based on int, since a smart person knows how to search fast and efficient). Spot is percieve something visually (and is based on wis, since wis represents your perception). Spot and listen concern different senses. Your sight could be better than your hearing, or one could be impaired more than the other (by outer influences), or your adversary might be much better in moving silently than in hiding, and you'll only percieve him visually (or vice versa).
Scrying's not something you could be naturally capable of, but something that is granted to you by a spell. You can use the scry skill only with the appropriate spells. If it would be a feat, you couldn't account on different levels of aptitude, as you'd either have the feat or not. But it's a skill, and so you can put ranks in it.
What you could do is making a spot or search check when using scrying spells.
You could make it an unmodified strength check, but that would not account for the training and experience you have with jumping (things like how to properly run up, how far, what leg you start with leading, and all that. It's been a while since I had athletics in school, but I think they told us such stuff)
They are busy with themselves. They don't get all their magic power at once. They have to discover it, meditate, experiment with it.
But sorcerers could use more skill points (see Monte Cook's alternate Sorcerer with d6 and 4+Int skill points)
There are a couple of feat trees (like all the feats that base on dodge, expertise, or power attack).
And the feats are open for everyone. You just have to multiclass properly.
Same as with feats and abilities: just multiclass. Giving every class the opportunity to be able to become anithing and get every skill ability would eliminate the need for classes. You'd have something I like to call "eierlegende Wollmilchsau". But since I (and the overwhelming majority of D&D players) like the class concept, there have to be things exclusive to some classes.
Cross-clas skills already cost twice as much in 2nd edition, and it has merit: As a cross class skill represents something you don't usually do, You have to learn harder: you'll need more time to grasp the idea of it, and you'll never be able to get as good in it as a person that does it all the time. If you'd reduce the cross-class skill cost to the same as class skill cost, that would mean that you'd be just as fast in learning how to pick a lock as a thief, but you may only train half as long as the thief does.
That's true either way, if cross-class skills cost more or not.
There are always improvements to be made. The game will never be perfect, and new ideas will arise all the time. But that doesn't mean the current incarnation can't be good (or even superb)
I already made fun of many things about 2e before 3e was out. Of course there will be some that placate the 3e rules as BS when 4e will be out, but I will be among them only if 4e will be so much better than 3e as it was with 2e/3e. 3e was an important step in D&D (that's why they dropped the "Advanced"). They got the creed "tools, not rules" and eliminated many things that were stupid in 2e (such as a wizard can never learn how to use a long sword, wizards will never be able to cast spells in armor, you'll need certain ability scores high enough in order to play some characters, some classes are not open to all races [elves being unable to become bards was just rediculous!], multiclassing was a pain in the ass..........). If they manage to improve 4e in similar manners, they earm my utmost respect!
Feats represent things that you usually cannot do. So you have to take a feat for some heroics, but you can't do it if you don't have it. Of course, a feat can be taken to far. (Spellfire Wielder for excample: should be no feat. Spellfire is supposed to be a overwhelmingly strong ability, way beyond the scope of a feat. Though it's up to the DM to allow it to anyone, it should be implemented in another way, maybe with a template)
You're right, feats are in, and stay in, for better or worse. Although many things have been improved since former versions (e.g. multiclassing)
I get it you aren't against feats on the whole, but against some certain feats. There's nothing wrong with that, there are feats I know that should be left out or done differently.
Personally, I always thought anarchy was a good thing
No, seriously, Even though there are no hard rules for making them, there is always the DM that dicides what's in and what's out.
Warriors know how to use weapons, wizards know how to use wands. But not every wizard knows how to create wands (or other magic items). Many are battle wizards or simply adventurers that are seldomly more than 2 days in the same place. So I think the Item creation feats are the right way to differ between those who always stay in their tower and create and those who only use.
Wizards get the Scribe Scroll feat for free, since scrolls are important for wizards, since it's their main source for spells (Divine spellcasters just get all spells there are for them, and bards and sorcerers have a limited number of known spells that they recieve automatically).
I agree, though, that they could be combined: Craft Magic Arms and Armor; Brew Potion and Scribe Scroll; Craft Rod, Staff or Wand; and Craft Wondrous Item (including Rings). Weapons and Armor are things you can use all the time, Potions and Scroll are one-use, rods, staffs and wands have uses per day or charges, and wondrous items and rings can both have uses per day or bestow their powers continuously.
In order to have all those attacks, you have to kill many foes, so they have to be low in HP. It won't give you advantages over strong foes. Whirlwind Attack is similar, in that you also have one attack against many foes. Both feats make you even stronger against hordes of weak foes (but those should be not a great problem anyway), but that big bugger will still give you a hard time!
At first, it's historical (fighers were always the ones that were able to spezialize). Also, fighters concentrate on fighting with weapons. And only on fighting with weapons. They won't be able to call upon the arcane art or a god's power. So they have to focus solely on weapon use. And that gives them the knack in fighting with those weapons.
Also, it's about game balance, and logic has to step back sometimes (after all, D&D's a fantasy game about heroics)
As I still play AD&D, I know those discussions whose classes get spezialization, and with how many weapons, and if they get it only with one, but not with any fighting stile, only to well, and I'm happy that they split the former specialization, gave everyone the possibility to get the attack bonus, but only fighters the ability to get the damage bonus.
Making them use rage over and over again practically gives them a permanent increase of STR and CON.
Barbarians are the only one's that can rage cause they are very near to nature in it's primal form, and know how to cross the line between anger and fury. Of course, others can get into rage, but they won't be able to use it to the full advantage (the barbarians have the knack for it, just with fighters and their specialization).
Again, logic has to step aside and make way for balance.
I never saw it in action, but if you make it an integral part of the game, you have to figure how many points of damage are necessary to knock you down, and your size and strength (and possibly, constitiution) have to be taken into consideration, and you have to rule when you're subject to being knocked down (if the dragon hits you with his claw, you should be knocked down, if you're subject to a cone of cold that freezes you lifeblood, you shouldn't, if the magic missiles hit you full frontal, you should, if you're hit with a horrid wilting spell, you shouldn't and so on.)
But, as I said, I never saw it actually applied in-game, and so can't exactly say if I like how it's applied.
I disagree, but not completely. I'd still allow it under certain circumstances: Tumble to avoid it makes sense: you know how to stay out of his reach, you confuse him and make a quick dash, so he'll head into the wrong direction and you can cross his territory quickly. Casting defensively let's you cast the spell without leaving yourself open for a quick AoO. But I'd always pose another obstacle you have to face instead of the AoO, or make the check to avoid the AoO hard: the variant tumble rules from the class guides makes a more agile enemy harder to tumble past, and casting Defensively alway incurs the possibility that you lose the spell.
And skeletons really should not be able to sourround anyone before he can do something about it, that's right
I agree, evasion makes no sense if you've got nothing to hide behind. But, again, if you're standing in the open and the great red wyrm dicides to invite you to Bar-B-Q (with you as the meat), you should not be able to reduce the impact at all. But reflex half saving throws are an integral part of the game, and affect game balance, so I shouldn't be taken out, and evasion is also OK, in face of game balance (just another situation where balance beats logic, but I prefer dealing with things that are illogical over things that destroy the balance and fun factor of the game.)
I agree, this time completely. I'll not say that using counterspell without feats like improved counterspell or reactive counterspell, especially to counter a spell with the very same spell, is useless, but it's not far from it.
Though I like it that way: I'd hate combats where the wizards don't harm even a single enemy, cause they counter each other all the time, while the fighers slaughter everything!
Smite evil doesn't only give you additional damage, but it also gives you an attack bonus (if you're high on CHA, but every respectable Paladin is.). This can be very important. Bisides, you'll deal this extra damage in a single round. If it's about dealing as much damage as possible, there is a difference.
Skill focus can indeed need a little boosting (There is a far spread house rule that makes skill focus +3).
Of course, the 3hp you get for toughness are useless for a Dwarven Fighter 20, but an Elven Wizard 1 can indeed find that feat useful (it could double his hit points). Toughness is for characters that are low on hitpoints (because they are low level and their class isn't to generous in that area). For higher level's, we have the additional Monster's Toughness feats from Masters of the Wild.
Spellcasting Prodigy is on the powerful side, that's true. If it wasn't for the requisite that you have to take it at first level, I'd make a (near) useless feat prerequisite so you practically have to spend two feats to get your +2.
Greater spell focus and penetration are OK as they are, as they actually cost two feats, since they won't stack with their respective prerequisite feats.
Innate Spell is powerful, that's true, but you pay a high price: Being able to cast a 1st-level spell at will can be quite nice, but they'll be not that powerful when you can cast 9th-level spells, and you'll have one less of those now. Being able to cast magic missile once a round is nice, but it won't do much against that big monster, and you'd like to have another meteor swarm handy....
That could be a little much, but 2 sound OK.
That's two different things (one of which is something only a ranger or druid can achive): Animal Empathy makes you influence an animal with your deeper knowledge of nature and a "spiritual connection", while handle animal lets you, well, handle an animal: teach it tricks, control it by sheer authority, and so on.
But I'd consider combining handle animal and ride.
Tracking (the feat) represents the ability to know what to look for. You can still track with a search check even when you don't have the feat, but all you can do is to look very hard. If you have the feat you'll know what to look for, and see clues that others would dismiss as unimportant.
Serch is a deliberate looking for something (and is based on int, since a smart person knows how to search fast and efficient). Spot is percieve something visually (and is based on wis, since wis represents your perception). Spot and listen concern different senses. Your sight could be better than your hearing, or one could be impaired more than the other (by outer influences), or your adversary might be much better in moving silently than in hiding, and you'll only percieve him visually (or vice versa).
Scrying's not something you could be naturally capable of, but something that is granted to you by a spell. You can use the scry skill only with the appropriate spells. If it would be a feat, you couldn't account on different levels of aptitude, as you'd either have the feat or not. But it's a skill, and so you can put ranks in it.
What you could do is making a spot or search check when using scrying spells.
You could make it an unmodified strength check, but that would not account for the training and experience you have with jumping (things like how to properly run up, how far, what leg you start with leading, and all that. It's been a while since I had athletics in school, but I think they told us such stuff)
They are busy with themselves. They don't get all their magic power at once. They have to discover it, meditate, experiment with it.
But sorcerers could use more skill points (see Monte Cook's alternate Sorcerer with d6 and 4+Int skill points)
There are a couple of feat trees (like all the feats that base on dodge, expertise, or power attack).
And the feats are open for everyone. You just have to multiclass properly.
Same as with feats and abilities: just multiclass. Giving every class the opportunity to be able to become anithing and get every skill ability would eliminate the need for classes. You'd have something I like to call "eierlegende Wollmilchsau". But since I (and the overwhelming majority of D&D players) like the class concept, there have to be things exclusive to some classes.
Cross-clas skills already cost twice as much in 2nd edition, and it has merit: As a cross class skill represents something you don't usually do, You have to learn harder: you'll need more time to grasp the idea of it, and you'll never be able to get as good in it as a person that does it all the time. If you'd reduce the cross-class skill cost to the same as class skill cost, that would mean that you'd be just as fast in learning how to pick a lock as a thief, but you may only train half as long as the thief does.
That's true either way, if cross-class skills cost more or not.
There are always improvements to be made. The game will never be perfect, and new ideas will arise all the time. But that doesn't mean the current incarnation can't be good (or even superb)
I already made fun of many things about 2e before 3e was out. Of course there will be some that placate the 3e rules as BS when 4e will be out, but I will be among them only if 4e will be so much better than 3e as it was with 2e/3e. 3e was an important step in D&D (that's why they dropped the "Advanced"). They got the creed "tools, not rules" and eliminated many things that were stupid in 2e (such as a wizard can never learn how to use a long sword, wizards will never be able to cast spells in armor, you'll need certain ability scores high enough in order to play some characters, some classes are not open to all races [elves being unable to become bards was just rediculous!], multiclassing was a pain in the ass..........). If they manage to improve 4e in similar manners, they earm my utmost respect!
Similar Threads
