Celebrim said:
Duncan: You think skill creep is a problem in D20?
Have you ever played GURPS? There is a limit to how many skills are actually good for a game.
Funny you should mention that, since I play GURPS in preference to D&D. I personally find the GURPS skill system gives a lot more realistic feel to skills and skill levels.
Seriously, it would be nice in D20 to have some skills default to some other skills at higher DC's.
Those of you that think that you should get more skills per level, how highly do you rate Int as an attribute for fighters, clerics, paladins, and barbarians at present? You want more skills, pay the piper. What you really want is to not pay a price for your low intelligence scores so you can buff strength up. If everybody got +2 skills per level, who would bother with high intelligence that didn't have too? Adding 2 points of free skills doesn't unbalance the classes, but it does unbalance the attributes.
If you really want more skills for your fighter, either play a human fighter with 13 int (so you can take expertice), or take a level of rogue. Or expert. Or aristocrat. Or barbarian. Or ranger. Or some combination thereof.
God forbid that you couldn't be the best at everything you wanted to be good at.
Actually, it really depends on how many of the skills are vital to being able to do your class function.
Sorcerers have it worst. They need Concentrate and Spellcraft. That completely takes care of their skill allocation, they are now dependent on Int Mod or racial modifiers. In most games, not maximizing both of these make them ineffectual in their primary function.
Wizards have it best. Since their prime attribute (Int) gives more skill points, at high levels they have more than enough skill points to buy the skills they want. They are competing with the Rogues for number of skill points, and a LoreMaster will probably exceed the Rogue.
Wiz with 15 Int (Standard Array) will steadily increase it. They may only start with 4 skill points a level, but by 4th level it is already up to 5 skill points/level. They will have the first choice and best of skill boosting items, giving them another 1-3 skill points per level.
Even using the Standard Array, the Iconic Wizard is going to have more skill points per level (Int 20 + Int boosting magic) than a rogue that didn't boost Int. I imagine it becomes truely gross at Epic levels.
Rogues are somewhere between. They are expected to be the skill monkeys. The problem is the number of skills they are expected to have. How many groups would be happy with a rogue missing one of these skills: Search, Disable Device, Open Lock, Spot, UMD?
GMs can also make this bad.
How many GMs figure maxed skill ranks when trying to determine what is a good challenge? Do you keep raising what is the 'best possible' and 'typical' as people level, so anyone who wants to broaden their character now risks making them become ineffective?
Unless the GM basically says something like '5 ranks is good, 10 ranks is expert' and keeps this constant through the campaign, characters are forced to keep skills nearly maxed out. They don't get a chance to develope new skills, because their old ones become obsolete so quickly.
Lets compare this for a moment to GURPs.
In GURPS, you start putting 4-8 points into a skill just to raise it 1. For 1/2 to 2 points, you can become fairly good at a skill. You frequently have enough points where you can afford to put 5 points or so into 'background/job skills' without risking that your character will become ineffective. Since there is no such thing as class vs. cross class skills, the person who can't swim is that way because they chose to be. There are still a few characters who are good at climbing, swimming, etc (they get the tough jobs) but everyone is expected to be able to handle the easy to moderate difficulties. It actually makes for a better team, since everyone is able to handle themselves to a certain extent.
LOL
