Skill Rank Limits

[Oni]

One of the things that 3e seems to suffer from is every climbing DC's needed in order to challenge a party. What if you made the max ranks possible in a skill equal to the stat it's based on. For if you had a 14 str. then the most ranks you could have in climb would be 14. Also it might cause a more well rounded skill sets for characters, by forcing them to diversify. Anyway just a garbled thought that came to me just now, very early in the AM.

 

[Stalker0]

hmmm, I think it makes a strange kind of sense. There's only so much that training can get you, but those with natural ability can take their training even farther.

I think the idea has merit, we should talk about it somemore.

 

[haiiro]

hmmm, I think it makes a strange kind of sense. There's only so much that training can get you, but those with natural ability can take their training even farther.

Those with natural ability already do take their training further: they have higher attributes, and thus a greater bonus to the relevant skill check.

 

[Khorod]

Yes, but innate ability does both give you an advantage and place limits on progress. Just look at upper level physics... those aren't dumb people with mad skillz.

I suppose it might be more realistic to have skills become cross class once you spent points = ability score. That would be too complex to add though.

 

[MarauderX]

I don't think I would put a restriction on the skill levels based on the ability scores. Yeah, it kinda makes sense, but I wouldn't limit the number of ranks a rogue had on anything, especially in something he doesn't get bonuses for. I think if you did limit the ranks, players would try to make their characters even more flat in their statistics than they already are. All of the players in my campaign recognize the need not to be bad at anything instead of extremely good at one thing, and limiting the skill ranks in such a way justifies it even more.