Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="amnuxoll" data-source="post: 5549409" data-attributes="member: 13028">It's kind of you to say so.That's the primary reason.&nbsp; It's also easier for spellcasters to get more tokens.&nbsp; So, making them only increase weapon attacks it creates more teamwork.&nbsp; My home group has gotten savvy with this.&nbsp; For example, we know that the ranger/rogue is most effective when he has two power tokens&nbsp; (sneak attack) and 1 speed token (shield bash) every round so the druid and the paladin make a point of keeping him supplied with them.&nbsp; Combats feel like a team effort.&nbsp; Nice catch!&nbsp; I will fix that.I agree that the concept takes some getting used to, but once you do it seems to work well.&nbsp; The goal here is to make Perception less of &quot;must have&quot; skill by taking some of its capability and splitting it off into Search.&nbsp; So, when building your character you have to choose what you want to be good at (or invest in both skills).&nbsp; In your example, both the ranger and the druid will have moments when their respective skill investment pays off. Well, you're absolutely right.&nbsp; This is an issue I've spent a lot of time ruminating on over the last 12 months.&nbsp; I have a friend who is a game designer who made a similar criticism to yours and I almost changed the system then but decided to give it a go as is.&nbsp; I'm glad I did.&nbsp; We've been playing the game for a while now and I think he's come to appreciate the current approach.&nbsp; (I'll ask him.)&nbsp; I certainly like it.I've considered a number of different alternatives including using different base values as you suggested.&nbsp; I settled on this solution because:&nbsp; a) it's simple to use and remember b) it strongly rewards players who invest in skills.&nbsp; Drawing on your example, when that assassin with 1 rank in stealth approaches the party then when the ranger who has a rank invested in Perception notices him approach then it makes that ranger look heroic.&nbsp; It also makes the player feel rewarded for that investment.&nbsp; It also makes the ranger valuable to the party.&nbsp;&nbsp; Also, remember that Perception is passive.&nbsp; So, it's not a case of everyone at the table rolling a die and being told that they aren't good enough.&nbsp; The DM simply announces &quot;Ranger Rick, you detect the glint of moonlight off of a drawn dagger as a shadow detaches itself from the nearby alley.&quot;&nbsp; So it's not about who failed but isntead about who succeeded.I personally believe that these sort of &quot;spotlight moments&quot; really improve the game, as long as every PC gets them in roughly equal proportion.&nbsp; If you ask me why so few players played pure rogues in D&amp;D 3.5e, my answer is that skills didn't turn out to be as valuable as they were intended to be.&nbsp; These changes to the skill system are one move I made to correct that.&nbsp; And I think it's working.&nbsp; One of my playtesters, who is known for creating powerful builds, actually took the feat that lets him get additional skill ranks to spend.&nbsp; In 3.5e, taking a feat like that would have been seen as a wasted feat by most players.&nbsp; On the contrary, it comes across as very well informed and thoughtful.&nbsp; You've touched on some points that really indicate a strong understanding and appreciation of what I've done here and I'm flattered by that.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="amnuxoll, post: 5549409, member: 13028"] It's kind of you to say so. That's the primary reason. It's also easier for spellcasters to get more tokens. So, making them only increase weapon attacks it creates more teamwork. My home group has gotten savvy with this. For example, we know that the ranger/rogue is most effective when he has two power tokens (sneak attack) and 1 speed token (shield bash) every round so the druid and the paladin make a point of keeping him supplied with them. Combats feel like a team effort. Nice catch! I will fix that. I agree that the concept takes some getting used to, but once you do it seems to work well. The goal here is to make Perception less of "must have" skill by taking some of its capability and splitting it off into Search. So, when building your character you have to choose what you want to be good at (or invest in both skills). In your example, both the ranger and the druid will have moments when their respective skill investment pays off. Well, you're absolutely right. This is an issue I've spent a lot of time ruminating on over the last 12 months. I have a friend who is a game designer who made a similar criticism to yours and I almost changed the system then but decided to give it a go as is. I'm glad I did. We've been playing the game for a while now and I think he's come to appreciate the current approach. (I'll ask him.) I certainly like it. I've considered a number of different alternatives including using different base values as you suggested. I settled on this solution because: a) it's simple to use and remember b) it strongly rewards players who invest in skills. Drawing on your example, when that assassin with 1 rank in stealth approaches the party then when the ranger who has a rank invested in Perception notices him approach then it makes that ranger look heroic. It also makes the player feel rewarded for that investment. It also makes the ranger valuable to the party. Also, remember that Perception is passive. So, it's not a case of everyone at the table rolling a die and being told that they aren't good enough. The DM simply announces "Ranger Rick, you detect the glint of moonlight off of a drawn dagger as a shadow detaches itself from the nearby alley." So it's not about who failed but isntead about who succeeded. I personally believe that these sort of "spotlight moments" really improve the game, as long as every PC gets them in roughly equal proportion. If you ask me why so few players played pure rogues in D&D 3.5e, my answer is that skills didn't turn out to be as valuable as they were intended to be. These changes to the skill system are one move I made to correct that. And I think it's working. One of my playtesters, who is known for creating powerful builds, actually took the feat that lets him get additional skill ranks to spend. In 3.5e, taking a feat like that would have been seen as a wasted feat by most players. On the contrary, it comes across as very well informed and thoughtful. You've touched on some points that really indicate a strong understanding and appreciation of what I've done here and I'm flattered by that. [/QUOTE]

Verification