Inequality of Skills

Hehe, well if anyone is interested in correcting this apparent problem, then I've been writing about a skill system change on this very forum:)

I believe that there are definately skills that are superior to others for a few reasons:

1) They are useful in a huge array of situations (spot).

2) They are able to get you out of possibly deadly situations (hide, tumble).

Some are also extremely weak for other reasons:

1) They are easily replaced by magic items (climb=spider climb, jump=fly).

2) They require a large amount of ranks to be of any use (swim).

While I don't think the problem is as bad as some people, I do agree the incongruity exists. And obviously certain skills get more use in certain campaigns then others. But I think for those of us who have played in several different types of games, it starts to become after awhile that certain skills are just more useful than others.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Wow, I guess in my games we are just not applying Use Rope in as many situations as others.

I can see some situations where we used rope but the GM did not have use make any rolls could have been used there.

Somehow though, I still don't see having a lot of my characters take it - I guess I just have a personal bias against it :)

(Only problem with lumping Balance into Tumble like certain d20 games is that Tumble is already so incredibly powerful... I think mayhap Tumble could use a power-down... DCs to avoid aoos should probably be higher.)

This is exactly my thought - somehow tone down tumble and include the balance stuff with it, maybe call it acrobatics or something else.

Maybe its the power gamer in me but I always have a hard time picking skills for my characters. By combining some it reduces the choices and makes it easier for me!


I wouldn't call any of the skills useless and if you, as a GM, are seeing skills ignored or untaken, start introducing some scenarios where the players could benefit from having those ignored skills...or point out after the fact where they might have used one.


I agree that it is up to the GM and I think the players to balance out skill use but some skills are much more broadly defined than others and so their use is much easier to arrange in an adventure. I just think a few are too narrow (Intuit direction) or too broad (Profession) and could use some tweaking.

What do you guys think of the profession skill?


M.
 

I think the fundamental question is 'Does you DM call for the skill?'

If he does, it is useful.

If he doesn't, it isn't.

My mouth is dropping to hear people consider balance a poor skill. I find myself calling for balance checks ALL THE TIME.

You do realize that a DC 5 balance check is required any time that a character must traverse a slope or uneven terrain? Normally, unless the armor check penalty results in more than a -5 penalty, the character may make take 10 on the check, and carefully make his way across such slopes without difficulty. But what about in combat? What about when making double moves?

Then in my campaign you make a balance check. And if your clumsy dex 9 cleric in full plate stumbles and finishes his move on his backside, well tough. And if he ends up rolling down the hill, that's too bad. You had to choose between protection and mobility, and you choose protection.

Have any of you actually done any caving before? Do any of you go hiking? Have any of you actually taken a walk in the woods off the trail? Please don't tell me how unimportant balance is. Please don't tell me how silly it is to call for balance checks when hustling across uneven terrain with 60-100 lbs. of gear, and trying to avoid getting axed by an orc. And frankly it is silly to complain how useless a skill is just because you don't want to deal with the consequences.

Not to mention I as a DM and fond of devising obstacles that will call for balance checks:

Ford the raging river - DC 10
Cross the room filled with clay statuettes - DC 5
Traverse the slimy moss covered slope in the funnel shaped room - DC 10
Cross a broken portion of a mountain trail without falling down the cliff. - DC 5
Cross the log used to bridge the stream. - DC 0 (can't take 10 unless you crawl)

If you aren't calling for balance checks, why don't you just throw away that whole armor check penalty thing?

Use rope gets called for a good deal less often, but a failed use rope check often results in character death.

Force the party to start making choices between flying to avoid a climb, balance, use rope, etc. check and keeping a fly resource ready in the event of a flying ranged attack monster and you will see them start to appreciate a broader range of skills.

As for Appraise, this is another skill that I call for all the time that causes my mouth to drop open when it is said to be useless? How do you know whether you are buying a masterwork weapon or merely an overpriced ordinary one if you can't pass an appraise check? How do you know what to carry out of the dungeon if you can't tell cut glass from gemstones? How do you know that clay statuette is the work of a famous master artisan and worth more than the silver statuette beside it if not for the appraise skill? How do you know that the guy you are selling the loot to isn't ripping you off in a huge way if you can't pass an appraise check? Don't go accusing the skill of being useless if what you really mean is that you don't want to deal with the consequences of the skill.

In my campaign, appraise comes up a heck of alot more than spellcraft, and balance is more generally useful than tumble.

I can agree with Intuit Direction. This is one of those skills like 'perform' or 'gather information' that the DM really has to work to incorporate into the average adventure. Sometimes you have to do that. Prepare lists of rumors for each module so that good 'gather information' checks do result in useful knowledge. Incorporate 'perform' in cunning ways or give oppurtunity for the skill in RP outlets. If you do, the party will start to see situations when a Bard could have been helpful. Intuit Direction is really narrow though.

There is a VERY good article on the Profession skill in a recent Asgard that EVERYONE who DM's should read.

I tend to allow Profession skills to be broadly defined. If for instance you had Profesion (Sailor) and I made a call for a Use Rope skill check, and you said 'I don't have that, but I do have 5 ranks of Profession (Sailor).' I would certainly respond, 'Ok, you can substitute that but the DC will be a little higher because rope use is only part of your training as sailor.' Then I'd add +5 or +10 to the DC depending on how important I think the skill is to the overall profession. I would happily allow Profession (Sailor) to be substituted for related craft skills like Craft (Carpentry), Craft (Shipwright), Craft (Net Weaver), and Intuit Direction, and in some cases (namely, when aboard a ship) Weather Sense, Climb, and Balance. All that changes is I add 5 or 10 to the DC. A few well chosen points in profession skills will cover alot of ground.
 

Rav: Tying the rope to a stump is a use rope check, not a climb check. A climb check is used to climb the rope. If the use rope check failed, it doesn't matter if you successfully climbed the rope - you better be able to climb the cliff without it. The +2 synergy from use rope has to do with familiarity with rope and the ability to tie knots that are useful in climbing ropes - like prusic loops, figure-8 loops, bowline, clove hitch, etc.

Do you actually rappel?

Do you see anywhere in the description of the climb skill it mentioning this skill is used to tie ropes?

What makes you think you can take 20 to tie a rope? Read that sentence again, 'When you have plenty of time, and when the skill being attempted carries no penalties for failure.' Would you say that thier is a penalty for failure if you are trying to rappel down a 300' shaft and your knot fails to hold?

And even if your DM is generous and lets you take 20 to tie a rope (say by having two people tug on it when it doesn't matter if the knot fails), it still takes at least two minutes (20 rounds) to do it. If your bud is at the base of the cliff bleeding to death, or you are in a hurry to get away, taking 20 just won't cut it.

Manacles are specialized objects with not alot of uses. Rope is multipurpose. When weight is an issue, mancacles get left behind.
 
Last edited:

Celebrim said:

What makes you think you can take 20 to tie a rope? Read that sentence again, 'When you have plenty of time, and when the skill being attempted carries no penalties for failure.' Would you say that thier is a penalty for failure if you are trying to rappel down a 300' shaft and your knot fails to hold?

You can take 20 to tie a rope, because failing the check brings no immediate consequences. Failing the check only carries a consequence if you actually use it.
 
Last edited:

Gunslinger: That's fine, but how are you going to know whether or not you succeeded in tying the knot unless you use it?

And as I pointed out, 'using' the knot in a condition when there is no penalty for failure - that is, you give the knot a good yank before you go over the edge - depends on your ability to duplicate the conditions the knot will experience when you do go over the edge. To a certain extent, knowing what those conditions are involves knowledge of ropes, which brings us into a circle - you can't tie the rope well unless you know ropes, and you can't judge the quality of the knot unless you know ropes. For instance, leaning your full weight against the knot and pulling with no sign of slipping might work perfectly fine for a short drop, but could well get you killed on a longer one. The longer the rope, the more your weight is amplified on the rope so that on a long repell the rope and the knot needs to hold AT LEAST three times your full weight. Most people can't apply three times thier own weight in force for any significant period by themselves, and people that don't know rope probably don't even realize that they need to. In other words, you might well _think_ you've done a good enough job if you don't have 'rope use' as a skill, but an experienced knot tier will look at your rope and realize it is going to slip.

If you don't have 'rope use' as a skill IRL, I'm not sure I'm going to buy your arguement. If you are an experienced repeller and you think the average untrained person can tie knots that are safe every time if they only take a few minutes to do so, then I'll be willing to hear your arguement out. But I'm personally not going to trust my life on a rope to someone's knot who has no training with rope.
 

Intuit direction is, I think, significantly worse than you may think. Note that it takes an entire minute of concentration to use, which tends to preclude walking through a dungeon and knowing where you're going at the same time.

Also note that an untrained user can determine their orientation by 'using visual clues' - so intuit direction is basically only of use if you are underground and not in a hurry, AND knowing north can help you (typically in an underground setting, it's not much use unless you can continually sense it).

My suggestions? Strip off the 'concentrate for a minute' crud, allow retries when new information is presented (ie - you come out of the dungeon, or find something which is labelled 'north'), and assume that the skill is taking the place of navigating by the stars and landmarks, something untrained users cannot do.

Voila - something which anyone who doesn't intend to follow a road needs.
 


I would also like to see some skills combined. Balance, Climb, and Jump could easily be combined into an "Athletics" skill with different ability modifiers depending on actual use. Forgery, Disguise and Bluff (Bluff is pretty useful, but Disguise and Forgery are rarely used) could be combined into some kind of "Mislead" skill. Sense Motive, Innuendo and Read Lips might all be lumped into something like "Empathy".

Obviously this gives a lot more skill flexibility, but I don't think that's such a bad thing. The large number of useful skills and relatively low number of skill points means that almost no skills are taken cross-class. All adventurers should probably get Spot and Listen, and lumping together repetitive skills together would let characters diversify.

In terms of balance, diversity in skills is negligible. As long as all the useful skills are represented by someone in the party, it doesn't really matter if one member or multiple members can use it. It usually only requires one.

The unfortunate thing is that this revision would be pretty major and a lot of things would be tough to convert if a significant chunk of their skills were combined. That makes it unlikely in 3.5E.
 

Sir Osis of Liver said:
I don't think they're nessarily more useful, they just get used more often.


That's kind of the definition of more useful. If you use it more then you use other things then it is by definition more useful.


A spot check might let you find a gold piece on the side of the road, but intuit direction might allow you to find your way out of the bad section of town you're lost in. Which would you say is more useful?


I'd say the spot check is more useful because it is used more often. It isn't that Intuit Direction is a useless skill it just isn't as important as spot. An example of a near useless skill I've seen is Innuendo. I have never seen a PC take this skill.

There are all sorts of creative ways to get your players to use other skills. At my last game session one of my players wanted to light a lamp inside a house without anyone being able to see the light from the outside. (It was night.) I had him make a Bluff roll to successfully hide the light. In retrospect I probably should have made him roll a Disguise check but he put me on the spot with his unexpected actions and I choked. What can I say?

Marc
 

Remove ads

Top