Skill Tricks; good or bad?

[Baby Samurai]

I would say you could spend a feat to get three skill tricks, so long as it is not a starting feat. If you feel very ambitious, you could restrict what tricks you could take with that feat (until you are 9th level for tricks that required 12 ranks of skills in the old system).

Right on – thanks for the tip.

 

[Nonlethal Force]

I don't understand that attitude at all. Neither reserve feats nor skill tricks are that complicated. Isn't it easier to introduce a coherent system into a game, than a whole bunch of new feats and spells, each of which have different mechanics?

If you don't like the way the system was implemented, that's one thing. But to dislike it just because it's a new system, that I don't get.

When a game becomes too complex that the bookkeeping no longer makes it fun for the DM, that is a valid reason to no longer add.I can't speak for Twowolves, but that is how I feel about most of the late WotC publishings. If they were making already used aspects of the game larger (simply adding more feats, spells, etc) I would probably be buying up products right and left.

But, their latest span of books have really been more like "We're leaving the core game alone and producing several expansion packs that make the game bigger." Now, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that approach. It lets people pick and choose which "expansion pack" they want. They can add Incarnum, or maneuvers, or skill tricks, or reserve feats, or alternate class abilities, etc. [For the record, many of those and more I have allowed into the game!]

But I have reached my saturation point as a DM. Between my 40+ hour per week job, my marriage, and my duties around the house I only have enough time and space for a certain complexity of a game. I don't have much extra time to sit around and remember the rules. And I hate as a DM not being familiar with a mechanic that a player is using. I hate forgetting what something does when someone has written it on their character sheet. As a DM, I try to minimize the number of times I say, "Wait, I need to look that up.' [Trust me, our group doesn't grapple/turn undead much at all because we all hate having to look up those rules every time!]

So, as a group we've decided the group has gotten complex enough. Not that there is anything bad with the systems of skill tricks, Incarnum, or skill tricks - Just that we don't have time to know all the rules for an additional system and the enjoyment of the game would tank because of all the page flipping required.

Besides. Now that we have become static in our game and aren't going to be purchasing any products that have a considerable stock in adding a subsystem (like Incarnum or Skill Tricks) it means that our game is much more stable. And, it means I can focus my monetary resources in another direction! And, [This is not meant to be a hijack] it means I could care less about 4e because we have reached a stable game that everyone at my table is happy with. We have enough complexity to make it interesting for a long time!

Having said that, you are certainy welcome to enjoy the added complexity. And, stuff like reserve feats and skill tricks are not really broken (except a few loopholes, but every system has a few loopholes. Pun-pun anyone? ) Enjoy your complexity, by all means!

 

[Baby Samurai]

Trust me, our group doesn't turn undead much at all because we all hate having to look up those rules every time!

I suggest using the Turning variant in CD.

The standard turning rules reek of a 2nd edition holdover – ptui!

 

[Yair]

I have a new player who has introduced me to "skill tricks". I don't own any of the splat books, so this was my first reading of them. Has anyone used them in a game?

Do they add much flavor, and are they balanced? Are there more tricks available in other books? Are there any classes/races where they become abusive?

I'm not against adding them to my game, but I want to know what to avoid or where to nerf problems early.

I had one player that seems to enjoy them very much. They add fun, IMO, as they allow him to do neat stuff he wouldn't have without them. I suppose they are a little bit of a power boost, but I've yet to run into a really broken instance and we play with so many splat-books and so on that this is hardly a problem. [My problem power-wiswe, right now, is the psion...]

In short, i'd recommend them. Do tell the player you'll be ready with your nerhammer if any crazily-powerful stunt comes along, and you'll be all set.

 

[Piratecat]

I love skill tricks. I think they're cool.

That being said, I sympathize with Nonlethal Force's lament about game complexity. I'm in about the same state; I'm not implementing most splatbook material unless asked by a player because I don't have mastery of it.

 

[Pagan priest]

It was was of the reasons I ended up not buying Complete Scoundrel.

Having said that, I should say that the decision was not a balance based one but a mechanics based one. Like others have said, it adds a whole mechanics to an already complex game. And in my opinion, it is a mechanic that isn't needed.

If you think skill-based characters are weak, give them something else that already exists in game. Adding another mechanic to support them isn't really going to make them stronger.

As for flavor, there were some that seemed neat. However, I didn't end up buying Bo9S because I didn't like how it seemed to make the game more hollywood cinematic with characters being able to do physical things that just shouldn't be possible without the use of magic. I got the same flavor feel from a bunch (but not all) of the skill tricks. I don't mind people be able to break the laws of physics with magic assistance, but when it comes to skills I do want a fair bit of realism in my game.

I got both of those books precisely because of that cinematic feel that they add, CS and the skill tricks give that swashbuckler/Errol Flynn feel and Bo9S adds the wuxia feel of wire fu, a la Crouching Tiger.

I really don't see the mechanics as being all that complex, nor is it a great deal of bookkeeping.

 

[Tonguez]

I've been rolling some of 'em into standard skill uses, with various prereqs, and ignoring others.

Yup convert them to a standard skill use with highish DC (which can be reached with use of Action Points)

 

[Mistwell]

I would say you could spend a feat to get three skill tricks, so long as it is not a starting feat. If you feel very ambitious, you could restrict what tricks you could take with that feat (until you are 9th level for tricks that required 12 ranks of skills in the old system).

In fact...I believe there is a feat in the book that grants more skill tricks.

 

[Mistwell]

They look cool in concept, I have yet to have the chance to use them in a game.

They are mini-feats, or maxi-skills, depending on how you look at them. I do not see why people think they add complexity. Once you spend the skill points to pick them up, they work no more or less complicated than any ability or feat or skill application.

 

[Imp]

It adds bookkeeping. "Wait, shouldn't I have 4 more skill points? Oh yeah, right, that." So in particular it makes NPC generation that much slower, if you're giving skill tricks to NPCs.

Adding skill uses, or using stunts or skill challenges to make skills cooler, doesn't pile on the overhead that way, though you still have to look them up in whatever house rule document you've created.