Is "skilled guy" a good character class?

[Jimlock]

I see where we disagree.

There's no way that "Skilled guy" should have a monopoly on cunning. I also refuse to translate "everyman" into "Skilled guy".

No one claimed they have a monopoly on cunning, they are just better at it.

No one said that Gandalf and Merlin are not smart...

or that William Wallace and Sir Lancelot are stupid...

It's just that their mind works "differently"...

Each one of them thinks and behaves differently, no anyone is necessarily inferior to the other.

Look at it this way.

If we were to compare a Wizard with a real life profession, we would most likely compare him to a scientist.

A scientist is smart, intelligent, his mind has "learned" to work in a way, where, as science is concerned, he is top of the line.

On the other hand, he know little of lying, of bribes, of cheating in a card game, of pretending to be someone else on the phone.

He might know some of the above, or have an idea of the above, but he's far from being as good as a... say

...streetwise criminal in those domains.

That's where a crook is better at. A crook will sell you something 3 times it's value,

because he has convinced you that the item is more valuable than it actually is,

he will sneak into your home at night while you sleep so as to steal your TV set,

he will dress like YOU do so as to enter your office building,

...and he will forge the appropriate papers so as to bypass security etc etc...

The scientist will create miracles in his lab, he will revolutionize medicine, mathematics,

astrophysics, he will teach you about black holes, but once on the street... he is nothing but a cub.

...........

....


Now... I can't Imagine Gabriele Veneziano and John Schwarz (string theory pioneers) climbing walls like

David Bell, lying like Jeffrey Skilling, or fighting like Randy Couture in a ring....

Such a guy would be nothing less than a superhero,

a boring superman, where you'd probably have to invent some sort of "cryptonite" as a storyteller, so

as to make this dull character, al little less dull....

Classes are like professions. NO ONE is good at everything.

 

[Vespucci]

Because the more you give a class, the less different/unique you make it
Because the more you give a class, the less the player thinks creatively.
Because the more you give a class, the more you turn that class into a superhero without flaws.(subjective... I hate superheroes capable of everything...)
Because the more you give a class, the less flaws that class has. Therefore the less flaws the character has the less a player roleplays. (A good-at-everything-guy is not really the roleplaying idol/symbol).

Once again, you're missing an important step! I know it's convenient to run off at the mouth about the terrible consequences, but they don't happen until and unless you explain how we get from "if there isn't a skill guy, the other characters (plural) will do their work" to "and here we have a character (singular) who can do everything".

player skill?

I disagree (hey that's what we are supposed to do here)

Player skill is tested when there are more constraints.

Macgyver is smart because he makes bombs out of toilet cleaners,

not because he lights up the fuse of TNT.

Yeah, but you disagree with a straw man. I have yet to see you seriously engage my position.

In fact, one way of implementing "no skill guy" is to keep everyone at pre-Thief levels of competency. You can hide behind things, but you can't Hide in Shadows. That's more constraint on the players than the skill guy version of the game!

 

[Vespucci]

On that literary inspirations list, I'd take off Achilles- - and replace him with Ulysses. Achilles is a hot-head, brash & impulsive. Ulysses, OTOH, is often called "cunning", an epithet he lives up to repeatedly in story after story to the point that some among the Greeks delude themselves that his abilities in subterfuge and tactics somehow make him less manly...

...And even cunning Ulysses is more of a warrior than rogue/skills guy.

Heck, Theseus would be closer, too, but again, mapping figures like this into RPGs is always tricky. Theseus is like Ulysses in his intellect, but again, is no slouch as a warrior.

Daedelus, perhaps, is one of the best exemplars of using skills, but he's an intellectual artisan- an engineer, not a gadgeteer.

Overall, the line between the the smart, crafty skills guy and other smart, crafty heroes is more one of focus and drive than anything else. He's not necessarily smarter than the rest, he's just applying his mind to tasks in ways you might not think of...same as a mage, priest, or warrior would within their fortes.

Don't get me started on priest (it's a class like blacksmith is a class).

The struggle with theming characters is enlightening in itself. It's pretty easy to lump characters into magic-user/not: just check the special effects! But when you get down to drawing a line between rogue and warrior (or "skill guy" and warrior), it's even less clear.

Before anyone gets the idea that this thread is a waste of time, it has pushed me towards a conclusion. (Believe it or not, the exchanges with Jimlock were quite informative.) I now think that 3.X was very successful in establishing its Skill system as a form of magic that people liked. Indeed, some people liked it so much that they tried to force other magic to follow the same mechanics. But just as with any new set of magic rules, the class built to use them has no hallowed status.

 

[Jimlock]

Once again, you're missing an important step! I know it's convenient to run off at the mouth about the terrible consequences, but they don't happen until and unless you explain how we get from "if there isn't a skill guy, the other characters (plural) will do their work" to "and here we have a character (singular) who can do everything".

...I think I answered that in my big post, ...? ...

Yeah, but you disagree with a straw man. I have yet to see you seriously engage my position.

The way I see it, I engage your position as seriously as you engage it yourself.

There are multiple readings there...beware...

In fact, one way of implementing "no skill guy" is to keep everyone at pre-Thief levels of competency. You can hide behind things, but you can't Hide in Shadows. That's more constraint on the players than the skill guy version of the game!

That's what is already happening, more or less. Now if the players keep spending all their skills on class skills,

that's not the game's problem. The rules do not forbid you from taking cross-class skills. They just cost more.

Like I said before, If the casters spend everything on Concentration and Spellcraft so as to create "untouchable" spellcasters, it's their fault.



But let's assume for a second that I agree. Ok, you keep everyone at pre-Thief levels of competency.

Who now gets a chance with thief/post-thief levels of competency?

...Let me answer that one for you: The same classes you gave them your so called "pre-Thief levels of competency".

(Believe it or not, the exchanges with Jimlock were quite informative.)

Now why do I sense an insulting innuendo in there?

...of the sort:....."Like the jester serves the king".... ?

?

 

[Tovec]

...IMHO... the game needs ROLES...

like the good old Mission impossible series....

remember?

Oh yeah, I wonder why they didn't really need that in the newer Mission Impossible movies. They had it semi in the first one but even by the second he could do every job.

Roles are important only so far as they help the game/story. Beyond that they are a hindrance and an annoyance.

(why can't my PC learn magic? is he stupid?)

I wasn't going to say it.... but Yes.

Why can't everyone in the DnD universe cast magic? Why is magic only a wizard's role. Sure dedicating your life to understanding the arcane arts makes sense to have a Wizard have more or better forms but a basic form of magic should be available to anyone who can run sand through their fingers, recite the magic words and hope the enemy falls asleep.
Divine casters are different, because the source isn't theirs it is their gods and requires devotion and belief, not simple material components. Even then, as long as a character dedicates their life to a god, why shouldn't that god give them the occasional spell or mercy?

Then you go down to one class... and suddenly you've got a party made of:

007
Jack Bauer
Chuck Norris
Jason Bourne

Okay, let me pause for a second, how cool would that be first of all?
Second of all, in the DnD world adventurers have the potential of being like the above characters. Third each of these characters are all male humans, from a "realistic" earth. Why would one have to be a caster, another a fighter, another a rogue and the last one a cleric? Why couldn't they just be adventurers?
Third, what is wrong with having a team of "supermen" so long as each has a flaw? That is the theory behind the justice league or avengers. They are people, with gifts who fight evil. That sounds like a (good) adventuring party to me.

EDIT: I know we have moved on, I just wanted to address this still.

I do like much of the conversation on this page of the thread (page 2) I love the annalogy of wizard = scientist and rogue = street tough. Where it breaks down is that the street tough can and often will fight people, so they may not have the maneuvers of a UFC fighter but they should still be able to shank you with a knife to take you down. If anything they'll do it more easily.
It also breaks down in that the scientist mentioned above wouldn't go off adventuring. One of my archaeology professors from university once told me that no one he has ever met in his field has ever been an "Indiana Jones" type treasure seeker. They always have large, well funded groups, and grants and permission and safety equipment, etc. They don't dive into a tomb solo to retrieve a golden idol from poisonous traps and a rolling stone ball.

 

[Vespucci]

...I think I answered that in my big post, ...? ...

If you did, it wasn't clear to me. Could you try to make just the point of how we get from "a bunch of guy, including skill guy" to "supermen", without spending most of the time on the terrible consequences? (As other posters have noted, the consequences may not be that bad, but I just want to know how we get there.)

(regarding characters with pre-Thief competency)

That's what is already happening, more or less. Now if the players keep spending all their skills on class skills,

that's not the game's problem. The rules do not forbid you from taking cross-class skills. They just cost more.

Like I said before, If the casters spend everything on Concentration and Spellcraft so as to create "untouchable" spellcasters, it's their fault.

Didn't you also say that the game should be all about specialists, not generalists? I find your position to be a little inconsistent here. It's also suspect to say, "It's not the designers fault that people don't play their game properly!"

But let's assume for a second that I agree. Ok, you keep everyone at pre-Thief levels of competency.

Who now gets a chance with thief/post-thief levels of competency?

...Let me answer that one for you: The same classes you gave them your so called "pre-Thief levels of competency".

OK. Let's accept that as it's written. Those classes get "a chance" at that level of competency. Sticking strictly to the 3.X mechanics, the super-duper thief abilities can be stashed away with Prestige Classes.

Is everyone superman now?

Now why do I sense an insulting innuendo in there?

It's the internet. All posts are assumed insulting. Seriously, though: I was just noting that, despite the appearance that we were just butting heads and not learning anything, the discussion was helpful to me (at least). When you started putting forward that everyone being skilled would be too powerful, that cued up the insight that the skill system has become like magic. (Though obviously Star Wars, etc, had laid the foundation.)

 

[Jimlock]

[MENTION=6675688]Vespucci[/MENTION], I'm honestly getting a little confused here.

I will asnwer, but could you just clarify in a simple phrase what the problem

with skill guy is in the first place?

Perhaps that way I can adress your point ..to the point..

 

[Vespucci]

In a simple phrase? Brevity is a virtue, but I think my saintliness has been over-stated in these quarters... alright, I'l quite whining and try. The best I can do is provide you with a paraphrase for "skill guy":

"The kit masquerading as a character class."

 

[Jimlock]

I believe I've explained thoroughly how I do not agree with your views on skills.

So, please, I beg you, do not tell me once more how I failed to meet your argument. Your argument has been met.

It's just that you don't agree with it.

That's fine! We are here to... also... disagree.


Let me clarify our differences:

You - You feel that basic skills are not really available to every class but the rogue. In your opinion others classes should be able to do a big part of what the rogue does, especially considering skills such as spot, listen, sense motive etc...
By this... skill "deregulation", you believe it'll be pointless to have a class that simply uses skills, since, now all other classes can have them.

(This is what I understand from your posts in general)

Me - A skill with 0 ranks, uses the ability modifier. Any skill that does not require training can be used like that. This represents the average ability of a person in a game to spot, listen etc. All classes have access to those skills and it's only natural. When you start spending skill points on a skill, it means that you actually train those skills/senses so as to score "HIGHER THAN AVERAGE".
When you spend skill points, it means that you actually take some action/training/exercise, that makes
you "professionaly-better" in that specific skill.

If I could make an example out of driving...:

When I drive to work every morning I do not train my "drive skill". Me and everybody else on the road has 1 or perhaps 2 ranks in drive (that could easily be a 0, but I take it that Skill-Drive is a trained only skill). You get that for getting your driver's license and for the experience you obtain over time... but we actually never go above this. Now... what does it really mean if I start spending skill points on drive?

It means that I'm getting trained to be a race driver!
5 ranks? local tournament...
10 ranks? I make it to national...
15 ranks? I'm in the top league of my country..
20? I'm in F1 or WRC...
30? I'm Michael Schumacher!!!!


The fact that for a rogue it's more easy to train his skills/senses, is because his "profession" entails much bigger an involvement with those skills/senses.
As I described above with the modern-crook example, you will notice how it makes sense.
Keep in mind that not all rogues are the same.
They sure get many skill points, but even that is not enough to cover one's expertise in EVERY domain
There are social skills, there are stealth skill's, there are perception skills, there are athletic skills, there are knowledge skills etc etc...
A rogue can never cover all those domains.... He might be really good in disguise and bluff and he can be good at passing by unnoticed, but he can't be just as good in using magical items, diplomacy, knowledge skills, climbing, tumbling etc... etc...
That is to say, that even the famous "skill monkey" CANNOT be good at every skill his class offers him.
At 20th level... he has covered some holes....but we better not get into that ...considering what spell casters are capable of at that level....

Now, why do I blame the gamers and not the game?

Because it's the player's fault if he expects his Wizard to be just as good in Spot as the Rogue is!
It's not the game's fault if he spends all his skills in his class skills, so as to create the "master Wizard"!

The player should know that the master wizard is very close to the "master scientist". By spending all skills in science related skills, means that character is so focused in what he does, that he is pretty useless outside his lab! It means that the scientist has never left his lab!

We cannot expect the scientist to be just as good as spotting the enemy at night, while hidden behind bushes and behind enemy lines...as a trained commando is! The commando has spend years in training so as to "know" what to look for... He's not good at it simply because he doesn't wear glasses!

And now comes the argument:
"But the wizard is just as an adventurer as the rogue is! He's not enclosed in some study lab! He should be good too!"

You don't say!!!!!
The start spending skill points on ANOTHER skill than just spellcraft!!!!

It's up to you to create the wizard as realistically as you want!!! Don't expect the game to do that for you. And never expect to be as good as the rogue is in spot. That's what HE DOES MOST. What YOU DO MOST is that you spend time with your books so as to understand the arcane!
If you feel like you should concentrate on spot, the LEAVE your books...and take another class in the next level...

It's very very simple.

I don't understand how the Rogue get's all that heat...It's not like it's a broken class or anything....

 

[Vespucci]

Let me clarify our differences:

You - You feel that basic skills are not really available to every class but the rogue. In your opinion others classes should be able to do a big part of what the rogue does, especially considering skills such as spot, listen, sense motive etc...
By this... skill "deregulation", you believe it'll be pointless to have a class that simply uses skills, since, now all other classes can have them.

(This is what I understand from your posts in general)

No. That's not my position at all. You've assumed that I'm talking about 3.X on a forum dedicated to discussing all pre-4e versions of D&D, in a thread tagged "Game Theory and Design". In addition, you've assumed that the Rogue is up for grabs, when the OP specifically mentions the three class option.

Beyond that, even the structure of the argument is incorrect. I'm asking why have the skilled guy, not proposing to make him redundant and then calling for his removal.

Me - A skill with 0 ranks, uses the ability modifier. Any skill that does not require training can be used like that. This represents the average ability of a person in a game to spot, listen etc. All classes have access to those skills and it's only natural. When you start spending skill points on a skill, it means that you actually train those skills/senses so as to score "HIGHER THAN AVERAGE".

The fact that for a rogue it's more easy to train his skills/senses, is because his "profession" entails much bigger an involvement with those skills/senses.

His "profession" is adventurer. The same is true for the fighting man and magic user.

They sure get many skill points, but even that is not enough to cover one's expertise in EVERY domain

You need to take that up with the guy who said removing the skill guy (i.e. making everyone a skill guy) would lead to omnicompetent characters.

Now, why do I blame the gamers and not the game?

Let me just do a quick find-and-replace routine on your argument. (It's legitimate, as the class I replaced gets as few skill points as the one I'm introducing.)

Because it's the player's fault if he expects his Fighter to be just as good in Spot as the Rogue is!
It's not the game's fault if he spends all his skills in his class skills, so as to create the "master Fighter"!
The player should know that the master fighter is very close to the "master soldier". By spending all skills in military related skills, means that character is so focused in what he does, that he is pretty useless outside the battlefield! It means that the soldier has never left the battlefield!
We cannot expect the soldier to be just as good as spotting the enemy at night, while hidden behind bushes and behind enemy lines...as a trained commando is! The commando has spend years in training so as to "know" what to look for... He's not good at it simply because he doesn't wear glasses!

And now comes the argument:
"But the fighter is just as an adventurer as the rogue is! He's not enclosed in some battlefield! He should be good too!"

You don't say!!!!!
The start spending skill points on ANOTHER skill than just jump!!!!

It's up to you to create the fighter as realistically as you want!!! Don't expect the game to do that for you. And never expect to be as good as the rogue is in spot. That's what HE DOES MOST. What YOU DO MOST is that you spend time with your weapons so as to understand combat!
If you feel like you should concentrate on spot, the LEAVE your weapons...and take another class in the next level...
​

If that looks absurd to you, it does to me, too. But it's your position.

Now, perhaps there' a compromise here. We could have just magic-user (supernatural) and hero (normal times one hundred). So the four man party is now James Bond, Moses, Odysseus, and Merlin.

Is there something deeply wrong with that?