Inequality of Skills

[buzzard]

It would appear to me that resetting the DCs would be the best way of making the 'weaker' skills more appealing. Now mind you, it won't prompt people to put much into them, but putting a bit in would have a nice return.

Though I have to admit, the common use of balance and armor check penalties is really a good idea. I will have to inflict that on people when I DM again.

buzzard

 

[barsoomcore]

Tumble should be opposed by something that scales, such as the attack roll, or perhaps only give a bonus to AC against attacks (of Opportunity, or otherwise), instead.

That's a pretty good idea, that one.

Tumble checks to avoid attacks of opportunity have a DC of 10 + the opponent's BAB. +5 to the DC for each square after the first. You make one roll and apply that to each square, for every opponent who threatens that square. So if you try to Tumble between a fighter with a BAB of +12 and sorcerer with a BAB of +4 and you roll a 16, the fighter gets to make an attack of opportunity against you but the sorcerer does not. If you then move through a second square that the sorcerer threatens, they can make an attack of opportunity (14 + 5 = 19) against you.

Huh? Huh?

 

[Kichwas]

I'd say the only skill that bothers me is Use Rope... Too specific.

 

[Maniac]

Originally posted by Celebrim

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

It in Asgard #6 and it is a very good article. However, it shows just how good the profession skill can be.

I reread the PHB text on profession and it specifically talks about abstractly making a living with any given prorfession but then it goes into being able to handle common problems. What I don't like is that in some cases a profession overlaps greatly with other skills. I am all for grouping things together but this is a bit much IMHO.

For example, from page 72 PHB.
"A sailor knows how to tie several basic knots (Use Rope), how to tend and repair sails (Craft and how to stand a deck watch at sea (Spot).

I can understand the profession skill when applied to areas of limited use (seamstress, baker) which includes running the profession but I don't like it when the profession can be modeld using other skills in the game.

Originally posted by Storminator
It's like a secret language only your PCs know!

If its like a language why not use the rules for languages - either you know it or you don't. If you want you could even have several different Innuendo Languages to learn.

M.

 

[Zaruthustran]

Balance is the worst offender, I think. D&D already has a mechanic for grace: the Reflex save.

IMHO situations that require a Balance check should instead require a Reflex save. Armor check penalty applies.

-z

 

[drnuncheon]

For example, from page 72 PHB.
"A sailor knows how to tie several basic knots (Use Rope), how to tend and repair sails (Craft and how to stand a deck watch at sea (Spot).

I can understand the profession skill when applied to areas of limited use (seamstress, baker) which includes running the profession but I don't like it when the profession can be modeld using other skills in the game.

The difference between the two, I would say, is that the sailor is only going to have very specific knowledge of ropes, sewing, and standing watch.

The sailor would be able to do a sheet bend or splice a rope because he does those as part of his job, but he wouldn't get to use his Sailor skill for tying someone up, to give a bonus to his Climb, lasso something, or any of the other possible uses of Use Rope. He'd be able to repair sails and maybe make a pair of canvas pants that would serve to cover his naughty bits, but he wouldn't be able to make a pair of pants that looked good (like someone with Craft could.) He'd be great at spotting land or another ship at sea, but no better than anyone else at spotting signs of an ambush on land.

The trick is to be very strict about what the profession skill covers.

J

 

[fba827]

Re: Intuit Direction

(RANT!)Intuit Direction needs to be removed as a skill, altogether

I could not agree more with that sentence alone

I can justify and find (good) use for most any skill listed there making it worth while to the character that took it. However, the one skill I can not no matter how hard I try is Intuit Direction for many of the same reasons you have listed already (a 0-level druid spell invalidates the need for it, Wilderness Lore can cover it in most situations). I hope it is gone in 3.5e

---

Also, someone referenced an Asgard magazine article on Professions. That's Issue #6, p31-35, written by me.

 

[Steverooo]

No Proactive saves

Balance is the worst offender, I think. D&D already has a mechanic for grace: the Reflex save.

IMHO situations that require a Balance check should instead require a Reflex save. Armor check penalty applies.

-z

Remember that saves are reactive (to avoid something), while skills are active (to do something). Sometimes this can be a bit murky (moving across a tightrope or slick roof without falling off), but generally it's pretty clear.

Besides; generally, you can't choose to increase your Reflex saves!

 

[Frostmarrow]

I love Innuendo. The big problem with it is that multiple characters need to take it for it to be truly valuable. I think it should be a class skill for all classes, just so it would be used more often.

It's like a secret language only your PCs know! I have a PBeM where all the PCs are rogues, and all have Innuendo. I get posts all the time like:

"I tip the bartender and with a phrase and a nod tell my partner 'this guys an ass, but those two in the corner look like easy marks.'"

It's just cool.

PS

Innuendo (WIS; TRAINED ONLY)
Check: The character can get a message across to another character with the Innuendo skill.
The DC for a basic message is 10. The DC is 15 or 20 for complex messages, especially those that rely on getting across new information. Also, the character can try to discern the hidden message in a conversation between two other characters who are using this skill. The DC is the skill check of the character using Innuendo, and for each piece of information that the eavesdropper is missing, that character suffers a –2 penalty on the check. For example, if a character eavesdrops on people planning to assassinate a visiting diplomat, the eavesdropper suffers a –2 penalty if he doesn't know about the diplomat. Whether trying to send or intercept a message, a failure by 5 or more points means that some false information has been implied or inferred.
The DM makes the character's Innuendo check secretly so that the character doesn't necessarily know whether the character was successful.
Retry: Generally, retries are allowed when trying to send a message, but not when receiving or intercepting one. Each retry carries the chance of miscommunication.
Special: If the character has 5 or more ranks in Bluff, the character gets a +2 synergy bonus on the check to transmit (but not receive) a message. If the character has 5 or more ranks in Sense Motive, the character gets a +2 synergy bonus on the check to receive or intercept (but not transmit) a message.

This is what the SRD says. In the beginning it is perfectly clear that only the sender makes a check. "Check: The character can get a message across to another character with the Innuendo skill." But then, strangely enough, under retries it says that you can't retry when receiving. This is a mistake since the receiver isn't supposed to make a check at all. You only check when sending or intercepting.
From the errata:

* Page 70, Innuendo, Retry: delete receiving or
* Page 70, Innuendo, Special: delete (but not receive)
* Page 70, Innuendo, Special: also, delete receive or

But I agree that it is more useful if all characters of the party has the skill. If they do the party can argue with eachother in the middle of a court trial.

 

[EarthsShadow]

the usefullness of a skill...

I agree that the usefullness of a skill depends on the DM and how much detail the DM wants in his games. In most D&D games I have played in the only skills used a great deal are Spot and Listen, and then from there the rest are used sporadically.

I think the major problem with them is that most DM's don't know how they can be used and in what diverse situations they can be used. I also think the PHB doesn't have enough examples of how often and/or just how useful they really can be. I am hoping in the revised book they have a good example or two on how each skill can be used and in what kinds of situations, and I think that will provide more people with a good understanding on how to use them.

Some of you have some amazing ideas for skill uses that I would have never come up with, especially for Use Rope, which I have never seen used.

A good idea for someone with some web design knowledge could take up is to create a document or website with alternate DC tables and examples of the skills and show how useful ALL the skills can be. I know I would appreciate something like that, and I already took the DC tables already provided about the Use Rope options.