Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="D'karr" data-source="post: 5694030" data-attributes="member: 336">Even though this "system" is not fully defined and therefore "theoretical" it takes the skill system in the "wrong" direction by simplifying away granularity even further.  IMO this is a mistake.  IMO one of the current weaknesses of the 4e skill system is skill access.  This also existed in 3x.  The idea of class and cross-class skills for access should be entirely removed.  If you're a wizard and want to be good at athletics, go for it.  There should be no restriction on it, just like restrictions were lifted from races being certain classes.What should exist is a class bonus to "class" skills.  So a rogue is better at Thievery right off the bat than a Fighter.  A wizard is better at Arcana than a cleric, etc.  But who cares if your rogue decides to spend some of his" character investment" in Arcana?  Go ahead.  However, the wizard should have a bonus to his Arcana simply because he is a wizard.This keeps the iconic skills for a class, iconic, but does not prevent others from having access to the skill.  I hate the idea of spending feats, etc., to gain access to skills.  It reeks of lazy design.  The other weakness of the system is the endless stacking of bonuses from the PC side.The idea of ranks for tasks is not a bad one but has a couple of weaknesses that don't seem to be reconciled.  The game has always been built around the idea of improving with experience.  Obviously there are some tasks that should be so easy as to not warrant a check of any kind.  Walking should not require a check.  But walking across a rope should be at least difficult to some level and walking across a rope that's on fire with gale force winds hitting you in the face should be difficult to some level.  However with the proposed system there would come a time when no task would be impossible.  The lack of granularity removes the uncertainty/challenge of some tasks.  Once you're at the top level any task in that space is "automatically" open to you.  This just does not sit well with me.  At some point the DM just runs out of things to "challenge" the characters with.  At least with the current DC system you can always bump up the challenge a bit to account for that unexpected circumstance.  With the rank system it looks like you run out of bumps after a certain point.The other weakness relates to player vs. character.  There are some players that try as they might would not be "creative" enough to come up with the steps involved in creating an arcane formula.  Well, they shouldn't have to.  The same way that we don't expect the bard player to do somersaults at the table to demonstrate his "acrobatics".  With this system some tasks would remain "locked" to the character unless the player was creative enough to be able to "bump" the skill check to the next level.I agree that you want to have a game system that challenges both the player and the character but this "rank" skill system seems to do one by sacrificing the flexibility of the other.This theoretical system does not seem to move the skill system in a direction where the weaknesses of the current system are addressed and it seems to retain very little of the "good things" that the current system provides.  By going to a "less granular" system it pushes in the opposite direction by making the stacking of bonuses even more powerful.Of course we have not seen an entire "real" system but what I'm seeing is not impressing me.</blockquote>

Verification