Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Spatzimaus" data-source="post: 1415133" data-attributes="member: 3051">I've actually used something very similar to that rule.  And, in my experience, it's FAR more balanced than the core rule.  I'd say that you should tell your DM it's a great idea, except that based on your other comments you're clearly set against it.  You claim that it's increasing the separation between those who have skills and those who don't, and I'll agree, but I think that's a GOOD thing, that 3E desperately needs more reasons to want skill points.There are, IMO, a few distinct problems to be resolved here:1> Some skills are more valuable than others, and yet they're all priced the same.+10 to Jump might not be too impressive, but +10 to Concentration allows a 1st-level caster to Cast Defensively without fail.  The same goes for Tumble, where you might only need to hit DC 15.2> The price is too low.Your opinion may vary on this one, but in my experience a character could have a slew of +5-skill items on hand for emergencies.  Realize that +5 to a skill check is better than any one Feat can provide, and yet it only costs 2500 gp.3> On opposed skill checks, even a +5 bonus makes a huge difference, and yet these are considered "minor" items.Take a Spot vs. Hide opposed check.  If the bonuses are equal, the odds are 47.5%-47.5%, with a 5% chance of a tie.  If one person now gets a +5 bonus, it drops to 70%-26.25%, with a 3.75% chance of a tie.  Most players IMC took Improved Initiative for the similar effect; it was just too important to get that slight advantage over the bad guys.4> Someone who already has a high skill check can use a +skill item to reach Epic-level bonuses.This isn't that big of a problem, really, since most skills have a "soft cap".  If you've got +30 Tumble, what exactly does another +10 give you?5> Someone who doesn't bother with skill ranks can use +skill items to remove the advantages of skill-based classes.The Fighter puts on the Cloak and Boots of Elvenkind, and now sneaks around better than the Rogue; what's the point of playing a class with more skill points, then?  As it is, spells like Invisibility remove 90% of the benefits of Hide.(This is where the discussion of Wulf's Story Hour comes in; he was a Fighter/Rogue, whose Rogue skills ended up being inferior to low-level magic and cheap items.  Up the Sun!)The house-rule in question solves several of these.  Other house rules I've seen:> If the skill the item gives is a cross-class skill for you, you only get half the normal benefit, and if it's a exclusive skill not on your list, you get no benefit.  (Downside: a Ftr 19/Rog 1 would still get the full benefit of rogue-skill items.> Bonuses from items give temporary skill ranks, but your total skill ranks can't ever be higher than the max for your class.  That is, if it's a cross-class skill your ranks + skill bonuses can't be higher than (L+3)/2, and if it's a restricted skill (not in 3.5E) you can't do it at all.  You also don't get the other benefits of actual skill ranks (no qualifying for PrCs, no extra Bard songs for Perform skill), just the skill check bonus.> Creating any +skill item requires 1 rank for each plus, so the chances of finding a +10 Tumble item are relatively slim, because there aren't that many Wizard/Rogues out there.  Doesn't really change that much overall, but it does keep the party Wizard from churning out 50 different +skill items for the party.> Skills used in opposed checks cost twice as much as the other skills.  So do Tumble and Concentration.> Make two distinct types of +skill items:1: The "skill enhancers", that work off your existing skills.  These work like the house rule listed at the top of the thread (effectively doubling your skill bonus until you hit X ranks, at which point it's a flat +X).  These can be relatively cheap, and benefit people with lots of skills.2: The "skill imitators", that simply give you a skill as-is.  Effectively, they set you to X ranks, regardless of your own ability, since you're not actually learning the skill, you're simply replacing your ability with that of another person.  If you've played Cyberpunk-style RPGs, you'll know what I'm talking about, or read the Intelligent item rules (they get a flat 10 ranks).  These should be more expensive, since they're designed for those people with no skill of their own.You could make a third type that does both, but that'd just get too confusing.And to refute one other thing:"Its only very rare because DM's dont utalize that option. The fact is, its still an option if the DM uses it or not. You cant remove ranks, you can remove magic items. It doesnt matter what happened in anyones story hour. We're looking only at the rules as presented in the SRD and if this house rule is balanced based on that."It is NOT an option, and that's part of what I think he was trying to say.  Magic items won't be damaged by a spell except in REALLY rare cases, so unlike AD&D you can't depend on a Fireball to destroy someone's magical cloak.  More importantly, it only happens in situations where the defender fails his saves, which the attacker has no control over, so you can't plan on it as a strategy.You can Sunder, because there are specific rules for that, and you can strike objects.  But, against a player who has a magical shirt that gives +10 to Tumble checks, or a belt with +10 to Concentration, you have no consistent way of directly attacking the item.As for theft, in AD&D the Rogue's pickpocket abilities were a nice flat percentage that scaled with level; in 3E they're an opposed roll vs Spot, which means there's far less chance of actually succeeding in most situations.  So, unless the DM deliberately makes up an artificial situation ("You wake up to see a thief rummaging through your items"), players simply won't lose items in 3E, BY THE RULES.To make it worse, practically every high-level 3E group I've seen sleeps in an extradimensional space or teleports home to a secure location, and stores items in more extradimensional spaces, so THAT's not even an option after a while.  And, thanks to Divinations and such, even if the enemy does manage to take your items, you can always go get them back.  So no, taking away the party's magic items just isn't a real option.</blockquote>

Verification