KarinsDad said:
Regardless of whether 4E skills are modeled after Saga or not, the 3E/3.5 skill system sucks and needs a major overhaul (as evidenced by threads like this one).
By that token,
everything in D&D needs to be seriously overhauled or removed, though. People who prefer other systems but like D&D's settings are always ranting that this or that part of D&D needs to be removed or completely changed. So that's hardly evidence of anything.
Saga is still more elegant than farting around deciding how many points to put into with Spot, Listen, and Search. I have put a few points in Climb, Jump, Ride, and Swim over the years at first level, but I have almost never put points in these at higher levels and I have almost never seen anyone else do it either.
So? D&D is a granular system for varied fantasy settings. Saga is specifically made to better model cinematic Star Wars stunts and whatnot.
And what's wrong with some stuff being really useful early on, then not so useful once you gain the ability to fly around magically? It was probably still useful when you invested skill points in it. And Joe the NPC Commoner probably doesn't have the luxury of a flying carpet or whatnot, so he still needs to develop skills the old-fashioned way if he wants to get around in the mountians or what-have-you.
Face it. Some skills have more appeal and utility than others and the ones that do not rarely get increased. A system of auto-increasing skills should be mandatory, regardless of whether it is Saga or not. BAB increases automatically. Saves increase automatically. Why not skills?
That's just your opinion. And basic combat stuff goes up automatically only because D&D is designed rules-wise to handle combat primarily.
If you got to 5th-level as a whatever, you're either an old Commoner/Expert/Aristocrat who's gotten into just a few tussles but had to deal with all kinds of other crises, or an adventurer/warrior-type who's had to fight tooth and nail in many a battle, and developed some necessary combat skills.
Levels are a primarily combat-related mechanic and balancing factor in D&D. You can get a
ton of skill points at 1st-level (because they're more a matter of life experience than combat experience), but you can't become a combat gawd at 1st-level (an ogre will still squish you flat).
This is stuff that we (as in, the rest of us I guess) already discussed in the thread on Saga's skills and how they'd work with D&D 4E, in the General forum. I'd suggest you go and read through that thread if you're really adamant about the subject.
For example, a high level Wizard goes into a cavern. His Spot sucks because nearly all high level Wizard's Spot skill suck. After spending 15+ levels going into caverns and with an Int of 26, he is still too stupid to look up at the ceiling to notice the threat. That's a game mechanics flaw.
So - the fact that a few common adventuring skills may be reasonably tied to level, due to their close ties to combat/dungeoneering, is supposed to be proof that all skills must be tied to level? No. At most, a few skills are sufficiently related to combat/dungeoneering experience that they may deserve a level-based bonus or rank. But the majority of them do not.
Also: Mr. Wizard puts his nose in a book most of the time. His eyesight isn't going to be as keen as the party's fighter, rogue, or cleric, who spend more time practicing combat, athletics, reciting prayers/chants/whatever, or meditating. And of course by level 15 he's probably got Arcane Eyes or a familiar or something else that scouts around
for him, in his stead, most of the time.
