Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Greenfield" data-source="post: 7347716" data-attributes="member: 6669384">I wasn't trying to make this a &quot;My favorite system is better than yours&quot; thing.In 4e, you're either trained in the skill or you aren't.&nbsp; No granularity to speak of.&nbsp; In 3.5 characters get skill points per level, and can use them to add to existing skills or invest in new ones.&nbsp; Some are paid for at a 2-for-1 price because they're &quot;Cross Class&quot;, which discourages some people investing in them, and limits how many skill ranks they can actually have.Not touting one over the other, but since 4 seems to an &quot;All or Nothing&quot; kind of thing with skills, my observation was that people only invested in skills they could do well in, that they had the Ability bonus to back up.&nbsp; What I saw in play was that, if you had a skill, you were functionally a god in that skill.&nbsp; If you didn't have training in the skill, you also didn't have the ability score to back it, and thus you sucked at it.&nbsp; With no elective skill points to assign after creation (short of spending a feat), there weren't any areas where someone might become moderately competent over time.&nbsp; Now it's true that everyone gets a bit more competent over time (+1 every two levels), the general rule was that DCs also increased at the same rate, so your numbers might look better as you advance, but it's an illusion, a point inflation that makes the apparent gains meaningless.&nbsp; Your actual success rate didn't improve over time.&nbsp; You spend a career as good at what you do as you were at 1st level.In your example of Climbing, in 4e if the party had one good climber, he could effectively carry an army on his back, and they never needed to even try.&nbsp; In fact, if they did try it could cause them all to fail.&nbsp; (Okay, not really an army, but an adventuring party of just about any size.)That's a feature I'm trying to move away from in this effort.As for setting the DCs:&nbsp; That's kind of what the framework I was proposing was working towards.You want a Skill Challenge with an effective Challenge Rating of X.&nbsp; Dcs for skill checks should be based on X, say X + 14 just to pick a number.&nbsp; so a CR 1 Skill Challenge has Skill checks with a DC of 15. If your group is going to be a bit weak in some areas, call for more skill checks in that area, but lower the individual skill check DC by one or two per additional required dice roll.Now just fill in the blanks:&nbsp; What is the goal or theme of the Skill Challenge?&nbsp; What skill checks are appropriate?&nbsp; What Challenge Rating do you want the whole thing to be?We might find that CR +14 isn't the right target.&nbsp; I don't know.&nbsp; It's kind of why I was asking people here.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Greenfield, post: 7347716, member: 6669384"] I wasn't trying to make this a "My favorite system is better than yours" thing. In 4e, you're either trained in the skill or you aren't. No granularity to speak of. In 3.5 characters get skill points per level, and can use them to add to existing skills or invest in new ones. Some are paid for at a 2-for-1 price because they're "Cross Class", which discourages some people investing in them, and limits how many skill ranks they can actually have. Not touting one over the other, but since 4 seems to an "All or Nothing" kind of thing with skills, my observation was that people only invested in skills they could do well in, that they had the Ability bonus to back up. What I saw in play was that, if you had a skill, you were functionally a god in that skill. If you didn't have training in the skill, you also didn't have the ability score to back it, and thus you sucked at it. With no elective skill points to assign after creation (short of spending a feat), there weren't any areas where someone might become moderately competent over time. Now it's true that everyone gets a bit more competent over time (+1 every two levels), the general rule was that DCs also increased at the same rate, so your numbers might [I]look[/I] better as you advance, but it's an illusion, a point inflation that makes the apparent gains meaningless. Your actual success rate didn't improve over time. You spend a career as good at what you do as you were at 1st level. In your example of Climbing, in 4e if the party had one good climber, he could effectively carry an army on his back, and they never needed to even try. In fact, if they did try it could cause them all to fail. (Okay, not really an army, but an adventuring party of just about any size.) That's a feature I'm trying to move away from in this effort. As for setting the DCs: That's kind of what the framework I was proposing was working towards. You want a Skill Challenge with an effective Challenge Rating of X. Dcs for skill checks should be based on X, say X + 14 just to pick a number. so a CR 1 Skill Challenge has Skill checks with a DC of 15. If your group is going to be a bit weak in some areas, call for more skill checks in that area, but lower the individual skill check DC by one or two per additional required dice roll. Now just fill in the blanks: What is the goal or theme of the Skill Challenge? What skill checks are appropriate? What Challenge Rating do you want the whole thing to be? We might find that CR +14 isn't the right target. I don't know. It's kind of why I was asking people here. [/QUOTE]

Verification