Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Michael_R_Proteau" data-source="post: 4134507" data-attributes="member: 48658">I thought one of the hallmarks of 3.5 (and one of the major differences between 3.5 and 4E) was tha tthe rules that apply to PCs are supposed to apply to NPCs and Monsters as well. Advocating using one system for PCS and ignoring the system for NPCs and monsters seems to go against the design intent of having similar systems for both. I also feel that if you are calling for ignoring a rule or system for the majority of the characters created (because more monsters and NPCs will be created than PCs unless you have a TPK or near TPK every adventure) then you might as well not even have that rule or system in place. Having different systems for NPCs/monsters and for PCs has its appeal in some cases, but one of the appeals of 3.5 is the uniformity of applying the rules. I would prefer a simpler system be universally applied than to have 2 seperate systems in place. As to time assigning skill points, 5 minutes per level is nowhere near what my experience has been. I have played with a number of groups beyond my regular group, and 5 minutes per skill point assigned is far more common than 5 minutes total assigning the entire group of skill points. As for the granularity of skill points, for me it's not an appeal at all, but to each his own. I don't see that it adds anything to the game that makes the experience better for me or the people I have played with, but that is personal experience and preference. But hey a poll is calling for us to express and articulate our preferences. For those calling for one skill points to be core and an optional pointless system as an option, why not the other way around, the simpler (pointless) system as core and an optional sidebar with rules for using skill points instead as an option for those who want to add complexity to achieve granulaity or differentiation between characters. I realize people may want more complexity than I do at times, but I simply think it is better to start with a simpler baseline and let people add the complexity to the level they want rather than start at a more complex baseline and work backwards to simplify for those who want to-i.e it is easier to add on than to take off. And Psion, I didn't intend to disabuse you of your notion, I was using your quote as the basis of my comments/reaction since they were what prompted my line of thought. It's always cool to agree to disagree for me. To answer some of the points raised in the posts:Psion said: So, one elf rogue with the dodge feat should be the same as another? I don't concur.Me: Skill points won't affect dodge in the slightest. Also do those 2 rogues have the same Dex scores, the same armor? If so they will have the same AC. Skill points doesn't change that at all. I gave a list of things to differentiate characters, the last of which was personality/role-play to which Psion said: That may be good enough for you.It's not good enough for me. Never has been. I'm sure I could dig up some arguments in usenet about how "roleplaying" should be good enough (or more recently, where Castles & Crusades is the issue.) To me, some roleplaying is meaningless if not backed up by abilities that reflect their portrayal and background.new Me: I never said roleplaying was enough by itself, I said that using ability scores, race, class, feats, equipment AND roleplaying all offered ways to define/differentiate characters, and that these worked better than skill points. Selecting trained skills vs. untrained skills also provides definition/differentiation. My point and opinion is that if the only difference between 2 characters in the number of ranks they have in a certain skill then there really is no differentiation between them, and that if they are differentiated and defined by ALL of the other factors I mentioned (role-play being one of them not the only one) then skill points shouldn't be necessary to provide that differentiation or definition. Blue Said: Example for ranks:Let's say I have a character that over time from delving into many ruins and dungeons develops an interest in history. I can't retroactively change my class or race. No class has a focus on it - maybe the loremaster PrC or you could shoehorn bard and ignore most of what the class can do. Equipment? Maybe a +2 for a masterwork ... um, encyclopedia. Spending your one feat ever 3 levels on skill focus (know (history)) is a big investment. But a skill point or two every level can add up. It's the granularity of skill points that make them an important vehicle for the character.Me:An interest in history does not equate to skill in or knowledge of history (as an aside I have had many students over the years who are interested in history but have no ability in it whatsoever <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> ). If it is something that the character is familiar with from experience, then you could grant a circumstance bonus of +1, +2, +5 or whatever to the checks for familiarity to reflect his interest and experience, or perhaps the character seeks out sages and acquires scrolls or codexes about topics giving him an equipment bonus when consulting those when making a knowledge check. Now granted Knowledge (history) is not a class skill for your character (unless a wizard, bard, or cleric with the knowledge domain, you didn't specify), but as I suggested in one of my posts I like the idea of removing limitations based on class skills added after character creation so they can reflect the character's experiences. I would like a system that allowed that character to take Knowledge (History) when they get a new trained skill to reflect the interest in history he gained in adventuring. The circumstance bonus, equipment bonus, and eventual gaining the skill as a trained skill can all mechanically reflect the characters growing interest in and acquisition of skill in the area without using skill points/ranks. It may not be enough for some, but for me it allows enough flexibility and differentiation for the groups I play with. Again, an optional more granulated system that can be added on for those who want it is not a problem for me, but I want the core or baseline to be simpler. Blue also said:Example for more discrete skills:Let's take an example from my game. I've got one character who talks and listens. Good diplomacy and listen skill. But closer to the absent-minded professor trying to spot things. As a side note, I have an archer who's the exact opposite - an eagle eye from training it, but nothing out of the ordinary when it comes to listening. As a side note, for your example above, both are human, just core classes (none which can explicitly help spot or listen). Neither spent a feat or has equipment which modifies spot or listen, but somehow they are very different. The one that talks has a much better wisdom - but the lower spot.Me: I think the issue for these characters is more the combining of Spot and Listen into Perception than the use (or lack thereof) of skill points/ranks. These differentiations could still be achieved without skill points if Listen and Spot were separate skills-your talker trained in Listen but not Spot and your Archer trained in Spot but not listen. Personally I like the merged skills, and some of the races have racial bonuses for one particular sense buit not the other, so there is a way to differentiate between them. I will concede that combining the skills does lessen opportunities for differentiation in characters like these, but I maintain that this differentiation could still be maintained without skill points or ranks. IF the Alpha rules were to reseparate the skills but still have no skill points/ranks in the next version, I could live with that (of course I would likely recombine them, but that is me.)</blockquote>

Verification