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

[Mallus]

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?

These days I prefer going the exact opposite route: either simple static skills like 2e's NWP's (which don't scale with level), ability checks instead of skills (which is actually what 2e's NWPs were, I think), or no skills at all in the default rules.

The way skills were set up in 3e, they made rules-mastery more important than, hmmm, let's call it "situation-mastery". The biggest bonuses to skill checks came from clever use of the build mechanics, while the bonuses from live play were set (well, suggested) at +2/-2.

This had the effect of insulating characters from the effects of the environment they're acting in. Success was more a question of manipulating the rules, rather than interacting with the fictional environment.

I'd like to see more focus on situations, and less mechanical bonus-hunting.

I also like the idea PCs can be really good at something right from the start. If skills don't scale w/level, they can be. And since skills have tended to be 2nd-rate "levers" with which to move the game world, this wouldn't pose balance issues (of course, thieves skills would have to go back to being class abilities, and not part of the general skill system).

Plus, the skill granularity in 3e was mostly irrelevant, in my experience. The system favored specialists. While adding a rank here or there for characterization purposes was nice, it was also largely meaningless in terms of PC success rates.

I'm all for characterization, but in most cases it shouldn't cost build resources.

 

[Charwoman Gene]

I'm all for characterization, but in most cases it shouldn't cost build resources.

I happen to like a different playstyle than you. If you want to skill options that are different than the one I support, more power to you. Could you do me a favor and find or make another thread to dismiss my preferred type of skill system?

I like using the fiddly bits of character creation to flesh out my characters in a personal way, even if it is not mechanically ideal. Lots of people do. Even if it never comes up in play, having a mechanical representation feels more real and is more immersive to me.

 

[Deadboy]

Ugh. I've never understood why people liked spending skill points - 4e skill system in my mind is so brilliant I don't understand why every RPG doesn't do it that way.

I hate spending skill points. Hate, hate, hate it. It feels like work to me and easily doubles the amount of time it takes to make a character. Plus I've never understood how having Religion +1 is more immersive for anyone - It's more immersive for me to just say my character knows a little about religion.

Non-adventuring skills (entirely different from non-combat skills, as all skills have non-combat uses) I've also never understood as they make me feel limited, not empowered. With those present, I have to give up build resources JUST so I can pay lip service to the fact my character used to be a Blacksmith or an underwater basketweaver. If I don't, I pretty much can't say I'm a Blacksmith. It takes away, in my mind, rather than giving, as I'd much rather use my characters build resources for things I'll actually use in an adventure. I'm the sort of person who always plays humans in 4e because they get an extra skill and picks backgrounds the broaden what skills I can choose, so I have more places I can contribute in game, because contributing in game is fun. So if I have to give up some of that just so my backstory can have mechanics, I don't see the point.

I've also noticed that craft skills are often abused by people who use them to game for more gold - you know the guy who when the characters return from months of running around in swamps and caves says his character spends all his downtime making longswords rather than consider the fact that a real person would be way more interested in sleeping in a warm bed, taking a bath and drinking all the horrible memories into oblivion.

Synergies are horrid. Please, please, please don't bring them back. It's more fiddly math upon already fiddly math. I never even figure out synergies when I play games with synergies.

All that said, it's likely they can easily accomodate both types of playstyles. It's easy to give a character a certain amount of skill trainings OR an equivalent amount of skill points, and non-adventuring skills can be entirely optional so that I can say I'm a blacksmith and just say that my character is making a longsword, and you can have a skill and roll all you want. It'll be harder to allow synergies as an optional thing because those who have too much free time on their hands to figure them out get an unfair bonus, so maybe they won't be back, but maybe WotC will figure a way to accomodate that too.

 

[Charwoman Gene]

What I find funny is that my wife hates fiddly math and loves skill synergies. I do not get the hate.

 

[DonTadow]

I agree, hate the fine detail that must go into skills. It also is information overlaod for a charavcter because whereas they only need to know about the one class, they now have to read all the feats and skills ewww, lets play monopoly. (goal is to use monopoly in as many threads as possible today)

 

[Mallus]

I happen to like a different playstyle than you.

OK.

(For the record, though, I like a variety of play styles, and my current PF character is built much as you outlined, with skills taken/not taken based on characterization, rather than for pure mechanical benefit.)

If you want to skill options that are different than the one I support, more power to you.

OK.

Could you do me a favor and find or make another thread to dismiss my preferred type of skill system?

Not to pick, but I didn't "dismiss" your preferences. I merely stated mine (plus some observations re: my experiences 3e's skill system). Note I didn't take your preferences as a dismissal of my own -- that would have been silly.

Not to pick further, but you did ask: "Does anyone else support this idea?". This kinda implies you wanted an answer to the question.

Perhaps you should have added: "And if you don't agree with me, stay out. I don't want to hear it." That would have eliminated any confusion.

Even if it never comes up in play, having a mechanical representation feels more real and is more immersive to me.

I understand and respect that, even though my current feeling is 4e default skill system should be simpler/nonexistent. But something more like 3e's skill system would be nice as an option.