Immortal's Handbook continuation thread

[Anubis]

I can concede +3 for Skill Focus easily enough.

UK, your problem is that you're trying to equate everything! Face facts, not everything is worth the same. A feat and ability scores can't be compared, nor can feats and skills. First off, to say that if a feat is worth 0.2 and ability scores are worth 0.1, then a feat giving ability scores should give 2 ability score points is flawed. All the skills bonuses and feat bonuses are BONUSES, not part of normal progression. Therefore, they must be rated entirely differently. Second, since all feats have different usefulness, you simpyl CAN'T assign one value to them all and go with it. To do so is a flaw in and of itself.

The biggest problem with your system, as it stands, is that it takes TOO MANY factors into consideration. The whole system, being based around variable, simply can't be equated. That is why I gave up on finding a hardcore system with which to calculate CR.

I daresay I can more accurately key CR to a creature from a first-hand look than you can with your system. It's because of the variables.

 

[Eldorian]

Skill focus is a tricky subject. The advantage of the feat is being able to exceed your normal max for the level in your skill of choice. 10% is great if you're a bard with perform, or a rogue with search or disable divise or UMD, or even a caster with concentration (generally, skill focus concentration is better than combat casting.) The main problem is that not all skills are equal for all characters. Perhaps in 3.5e they will do something like in d20 starwars, where skill use in, say, intimidate, would have saving throw values assosiated with it, and be able to have actual game effect, rather than only DM interpretation. Not that I think the star wars system was terribly well thought out, mind, but it was a good idea. If it were made that all skills are equal in use, and that they were useful enough that a +2 or +3 feat was good to take, and then toned down the racial bonus to skills from templates, it might all work out.

Eldorian Antar

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey Anubis mate!

I can concede +3 for Skill Focus easily enough.

Isn't it hypocritical to suggest that on the one hand the Skill Focus feat should bestow +3 to skill; yet advocate that CR +0.2 is worth 40 skill points?

UK, your problem is that you're trying to equate everything!

Exactly! Thats the whole point.

Face facts, not everything is worth the same.

Obviously. But everything can be rated using the same method.

A feat and ability scores can't be compared, nor can feats and skills.

Everything can be compared. Naturally you want to remove as much subjectivity as possible.

First off, to say that if a feat is worth 0.2 and ability scores are worth 0.1, then a feat giving ability scores should give 2 ability score points is flawed.

Based on what? I would have thought it was logical.

All the skills bonuses and feat bonuses are BONUSES, not part of normal progression.

This doesn't make sense. What about ability score BONUSES or weapon enchantment BONUSES or insight BONUSES etc.

Therefore, they must be rated entirely differently. Second, since all feats have different usefulness, you simpyl CAN'T assign one value to them all and go with it. To do so is a flaw in and of itself.

I have said from the start that I am happy to assign an AVERAGE figure for feats, just as class levels are averaged; just as spells are averaged.

The biggest problem with your system, as it stands, is that it takes TOO MANY factors into consideration.

Isn't that an indictment of 3rd Ed. as a whole though!?

The whole system, being based around variable, simply can't be equated.

What variable?

That is why I gave up on finding a hardcore system with which to calculate CR.

I am in the position where I have to develop one though. Failure is not an option.

I daresay I can more accurately key CR to a creature from a first-hand look than you can with your system. It's because of the variables.

Can't imagine you will be interested in my system then.

 

[Anubis]

Unless you can satisfy all conditions, then no. Your CR/EL may be useless to me indeed. My "look at to determine" way has served me well thus far.

 

[Clay_More]

Good evening again Upper_Krust...
Seems you always come on same time as me

Anyways, the problem with the skills all comes down to one central problem about CR that makes it an advisory system more than anything. The ways a DM uses the different monsters are very different. The skills are just an example of this, some DM's might use skills as a big factor of monsters where others hardly ever roll a skill check.
Should a DM give his players less experience if he forgot to use the Spell-Like abilities of an Ogre-Magi? Should he give less experience if they slayed a Dragon before it got to use its Breath Weapon, which is an essential part of the CR? Should a DM give less experience if his players encountered a couple of rogues out in an open space where they couldn't use all their special abilities and skills?
The skills are what you make them, IMO. If you play a style of game where the skills have little influence, that "could" easily be house-ruled out of the CR equation. If you play a game where skills are heavily used, with hiding ambushes, sneaky kobolds, epic spellcasters etc. then it might by house-ruled into the CR equation as well. Otherwise, the CR-calculating system would soon get too huge, if there should be individual tables for the DM's style of play. Off course, everything is only IMO

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi Anubis mate!

Unless you can satisfy all conditions, then no.

I think I can, but of course you are always free to disagree.

Slim though it is, what little evidence there is actually supports a bonus of +10 for the Skill Focus feat:

1. The Epic Skill Focus feat bestows +10. Typically (though not always) such feats are merely logical extensions (As with the Spell Focus and Spell Penetration feat chains).

2. A Ring of Climbing bestows a +10 skill bonus (2000 GP). The price of which is actually less than (half) a +1 weapon!

Lets look at some comparable items:

+1 Weapon: 4000 GP
+2 Ability Score Item: 4000 GP
Bracers of Armour +2: 4000 GP
+2 Cloak of Resistance: 4000 GP*

*If anything Cloaks of Resistance are priced too low. The above should represent a bonus to a single saving throw type; rather than all three.

Also an Amulet of Natural Armour is probably twice as costly as it should be. Since for some reason its the same price as a Ring of Protection yet unlike the latter it won't protect against touch attacks etc.

So even if we DOUBLE the price of the Ring of Climbing a +10 skill bonus is equal to:

+1 to hit & +1 to damage (and by extension either +2 to hit OR +2 to damage)
+2 to an Ability Score
+2 to Natural Armour
+2 to one saving throw (amended Cloak of Resistance)

Your CR/EL may be useless to me indeed. My "look at to determine" way has served me well thus far.

Thats certainly your prerogative mate.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hiya mate!

Good evening again Upper_Krust...
Seems you always come on same time as me

I presume you mean late in this instance?

Anyways, the problem with the skills all comes down to one central problem about CR that makes it an advisory system more than anything. The ways a DM uses the different monsters are very different. The skills are just an example of this, some DM's might use skills as a big factor of monsters where others hardly ever roll a skill check.

True, but lets look at how that will affect CR. For example a Balor works out at CR 35 (moderate) and 18 (difficult) by my current method.

A Balor has a +8 (racial) bonus to Listen and Spot Checks. Under my current theory that give him +0.3 to CR.

Does factoring that +0.3 seem unreasonable to anyone?

Perhaps that bonus might help it avoid a sneak attack now and again.

Should a DM give his players less experience if he forgot to use the Spell-Like abilities of an Ogre-Magi? Should he give less experience if they slayed a Dragon before it got to use its Breath Weapon, which is an essential part of the CR? Should a DM give less experience if his players encountered a couple of rogues out in an open space where they couldn't use all their special abilities and skills?

I don't think so.

Anyway, Situational Modifiers easily adjudicate for any such discrepancies.

The skills are what you make them, IMO. If you play a style of game where the skills have little influence, that "could" easily be house-ruled out of the CR equation.

If you play a game where skills are heavily used, with hiding ambushes, sneaky kobolds, epic spellcasters etc. then it might by house-ruled into the CR equation as well. Otherwise, the CR-calculating system would soon get too huge, if there should be individual tables for the DM's style of play. Off course, everything is only IMO

As I see it, its better to factor it in anyway. The differences are negligable at best (as I showed above with the Balor above).

 

[Anabstercorian]

Lets look at some comparable items:

+1 Weapon: 4000 GP

Dude, um... +1 weapons are 2000 gp. Where you been?

 

[Anubis]

The problem I have is not with the balor, but with the Vampire template or anything else with loads of bonuses to skills. I contest that the vampire's skills are NOT worth enough to bump it up a WHOLE CR like you claim. Plain and simple.

As to your example, you're once again trying to compare things that can't be compared. Or did it not occur to you that being able to have a normal +10 to a skill is FAR better than having a magic item that does the same? Skills can't be dispelled, destroyed, or gotten rid of. Magic items can. Plus cheap does NOT equal weak. The Ring of Sustenance is quite possibly one of the most powerful rings in the game, yet it costs only 2500.

Anyway, why am I the only person who seems to understand that Listen, spot, Hide, and Move Silently have NO effect on sneak attacks? You have to catch your opponent flat-footed or flank the opponent to use sneak attack. If you go before the enemy in initiative, then you catch that opponent flat-footed. If not, you can't catch them flat-footed at all, regardless of those skills. Once the character goes in battle, you can't catch them by surprise either, meaning the skills do nothing in the middle of a battle under all normal circumstaces.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey Anabstercorian mate!

Dude, um... +1 weapons are 2000 gp. Where you been?

DOH!

I was toying with the idea of doubling the Skill related item bonus and I seem to have got lost somewhere in the furore.

Thanks for not letting me stray from the path dude.