My Wife Has a List of Demands! Part One: Skills

[DEFCON 1]

It is also that only having a handful of "skills" in the non-adventuring slot is insufficiently interesting to matter--which is probably why they had cross-class and half ranks initially, and kept it mixed.

Oh, don't worry... if the "non-adventuring" skill list ever seemed too light... I think putting Use Rope back in is just what the doctor ordered!

Pu it right next to the reintroduction of the Fire-Building and Origami non-weapon proficiencies!

 

[Fanaelialae]

My marriage is in serious trouble ever since 2008 put us on opposite sides of and edition war. So much that I almost tried converting to Pathfinder of all things, despite my revulsion for all things Paizo*. Unfortunately, they actually moved the disputed issues in the same direction as Wizards, so that was ruled out. I agree with her on the points but I liked other aspects of 4E enough to not want to run 3e anymore.

I have my concerns that 5th Edition will not include these things. So I am hoping to rally support and find out if others feel the same.

Demand one: REAL SKILL POINTS.

Does anyone out there like having truly flexible skill points spendable one at a time with a fine grained and broad skill selection to be a major feature of 3.X vs. PF and 4E? I miss non-combat skills. I miss taking one rank in Religion to represent my Catechism classes. I miss taking a rank of Swim for those classes I took at the YDMA** Pool.

We also miss synergy bonuses. Yes, they need to be controlled, but it made simulationist sense and encouraged having a shtick.

Does anyone else support this idea?

*[sblock]Forgive my hyperbole.[/sblock]
**[sblock]Young Dwarves Moradinite Association[/sblock]

Based on (I think) a recent Mearls quote, I'm lead to believe that you'll be able to select the level of detail with which you construct your character. As such, I believe that (if desired) you'll be able to use Skill Training while your wife uses Skill Points, at the same table. Realistically, that wouldn't be all that difficult to house rule into 4e either.

Synergy bonuses I'm rather meh about. I feel that too many bonuses inevitably spoil the brew, and synergy bonuses definitely contribute to that.

 

[Charwoman Gene]

Can someone give me a short explanation of PF skill rules, I may have misread them?

 

[Jawsh]

In principle I prefer 3e/PF-style skill ranks. In practice, they're just so damn complex for no great benefit.

I think PF made some huge improvements - switching class skills to a +3 bonus instead of "half-ranks" was a major improvement, consolidating the skills was a really good move (though they should have had an Athletics skill, consolidating Climb, Swim, Run, etc, and also allowing characters to increase their base movement - instant chase mechanic!), and getting rid of synergy bonuses was a definite plus, IMO.

I don't know what you're talking about. In practice, no one who didn't want to bother with half-ranks did. Some people who were interested in the math played with half-ranks. In practice, most characters just maxed out their skills.

That's what bothers me about 4E and Pathfinder. They didn't actually make anything simpler, they just deleted options. That's also one of the reasons why 5E sounds promising, because they are going back to the model where you can adjust to the level of complexity desired by each player.

 

[Salamandyr]

My one hope for skills in 5e is that 20 ranks in one skill is harder to achieve than 5 ranks in 4 skills.

 

[Hassassin]

Can someone give me a short explanation of PF skill rules, I may have misread them?

You get per level skill points (e.g. 2 + Int as a fighter), without x4 at 1st. Any skill you put one in improves by +1. However, any class skill you have put at least one point in gets an additional +3 bonus.

So five ranks in a class skill -> ability modifier + 8.
Five ranks in a cross-class skill -> ability modifier + 5.

 

[Charwoman Gene]

I just reread the PF SRD. Actually, the way they handle skills in general is pretty good, aside from the secondary issue of no synergies.

 

[harpy]

Can someone give me a short explanation of PF skill rules, I may have misread them?

You get skill points the same way as in 3e, along with a list of class skills.

How class skills work is that if you put a rank in a skill that is a class skill then you get an immediate one-time +3 bonus. This essentially brings the skill bonus in line with how you could have 4 skill points at level 1.

There are no synergy bonuses.

There are no half points, you either get that +3 or you don't.

You can get a skill point each level if you take a level in your favored class.

Pathfinder is kind of in a middle ground in terms of skill consolidation. You're getting more for each skill point, which tangentially is kind of a consolidation, but also some of the skills were folded up into each other. However you can still invest in basket weaving if you so desire.

 

[delericho]

I don't know what you're talking about.

I mean that when I read the 3.0e rules, I hit the skill chapter and thought, "yep, that's quite right." In theory, I still think that's the right solution.

However, I've now had ten years of experience with the system. I've had ten years of seeing otherwise-smart players not quite grasp the skills system. Every time one of my groups created characters someone would get the skills system wrong - they'd spend too many points, or not enough, or they'd make a mistake over class and cross-class skills. Or something. Every time.

So, while in theory I still think the 3.0e-style skill ranks is the better solution and gives far better options for customising characters, in practice it creates far more hassle than it is worth.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I don't know what you're talking about. In practice, no one who didn't want to bother with half-ranks did. Some people who were interested in the math played with half-ranks. In practice, most characters just maxed out their skills.

That's what bothers me about 4E and Pathfinder. They didn't actually make anything simpler, they just deleted options. That's also one of the reasons why 5E sounds promising, because they are going back to the model where you can adjust to the level of complexity desired by each player.

The problem with the 3.* half ranks/cross-class is in multiclassing. The different points at start was also an issue. That wouldn't be much of a problem if multiclassing was rare, but in a system that really encourage you to go multiclass to build your character the way you want, it is a problem. It means that the order you take your levels and spend your ranks changes the math of the skills for the exact same multiclass end result.

Whatever else it is, this is bad design. So the PF solution is a good work-around to keep approximately the same math. (Going off of what was posted here. I don't have PF. But I can appreciate a nice finesse of a sticky problem when I see it.) And obviously the 4E design team didn't have an idea they liked better than bypassing the problem altogether with trained skills.

Theoretically, if there were no class skills, per se, because your classes didn't determine how your ranks were spent over time, but was rather some arbitrary picks as an adventurer early for concept--perhaps modified by flat bonuses to certain skills by class, then the idea of ranks with "known" and "unknown" skills might work. Half-points would still be a gross kludge--just double the points and charge accordingly--but the idea of different costs based on emphasis could work. Then mutliclassing wouldn't change the math at all, beyond those modest, flat adjustments.