Rogues: Not Skill-y enough?


log in or register to remove this ad

Fine. Then lets make the "Thief" scheme grant PP, OL, F/RT, Stealth, Climb and Listen (the classic Thief skillset). and let other builds do differently: (Acrobat: Climb, Jump, Balance, Tumble, Stealth, etc. Charlatan: Bluff, Forgery, Stealth, Streetwise, Insight).

Moral of the story: a Thief is not OL, F/RT and Stealth only.

I think your list is too comprehensive. It would make Skill Mastery brokenly overpowered, which quite frankly it already probably is. Given that you'll be able to ditch premade schemes and backgrounds and effectively just choose your own six skill bonuses, though, you'll be able to get mostly what you want anyway.
 

I think the problem Is Thief Scheme assumes it's more of Burglar than Cutpurse. Also, depending on how close the Closed Playtest is to the Open's, Schemes will offer more skills. There is alot of material we haven't seen yet, and this is concern that you should share with the development team. I've been playing since March & the little bit of the game rules I have, allow me to adjust things easily.
 

I think your list is too comprehensive. It would make Skill Mastery brokenly overpowered, which quite frankly it already probably is. Given that you'll be able to ditch premade schemes and backgrounds and effectively just choose your own six skill bonuses, though, you'll be able to get mostly what you want anyway.

Skill Mastery is a whole-nother beast. I think there should be a difference between grant 5-6 skills a +3 bonus and granting them a roll-floor of 10.

That said, Listen/Perception is probably overkill. Lets just add Pick Pocket and mayhaps Climb?
 
Last edited:

I don't like Skill Mastery because I don't like being able to take 10. I like to have everything that requires a roll of the dice to have a chance of failure.
 


Then just use skills you're not trained in... or don't play a rouge *shrug*

Or how about I get rid of taking 10 and Skill Mastery and just have you roll according to scenario.

For example: Climbing a ladder means no check at all.

Climbing a ladder with two guards standing at the top and you need to climb it quietly. Please make a roll.

The point in taking 10 was supposed to get rid of the failing of mundane tasks. The simple thing is to not worry about rolling for mundane tasks and roll for tasks that may be mundane and then have you roll for tasks that are not mundane.
 

For example: Climbing a ladder means no check at all.

Climbing a ladder with two guards standing at the top and you need to climb it quietly. Please make a roll.
Of course you make a roll. A stealth roll, that depending on the wisdom of the guards can very easily fail, even with a 10.
The point in taking 10 was supposed to get rid of the failing of mundane tasks.
Indeed it was, but the point of skill mastery was
3.5 SRD said:
The rogue becomes so certain in the use of certain skills that she can use them reliably even under adverse conditions.
 


I think this discussion shows we are already moving back towards the slippery slope that "if I don't have a bonus to the skill, I really don't have the skill" mentality that is what created the skill system in the first place.

I think skill mastery is currently what is causing that. The rogue has great dex so he has great dex based skills. But since he doesn't get skill mastery with all dex based skills it suddenly feels like he doesn't "really" have those skills.

I wonder if skill mastery would work better based on a stat instead of trained skills.

Like this:


Skill Mastery: Choose one stat. When rolling a skill using that stat, you can take 10 on the die or your rolled result, whichever is larger.


So a thieving rogue could choose dex. A conartist rogue could take cha. A bookworm rogue could take int, etc.
 

Remove ads

Top