Skills?

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

I never thought of Raistlin working on cliff climbing during his off time, or swimming.
Or Conan working on forgery.

So, during all of his adventures, he never had to scramble up a steep cliff? Never had to climb a tree?

And Conan hasn't stolen enough royal seals (and pricesses' virtues), letters of marque, and royal orders to know what one looks like should he ever need to rough one up?

If a specific character should have three ranks in a specific skill, then why not put three ranks in the specific skill.

Because, in D&D at least, that gets you a +1 bonus and costs all of your skill points for a given level. And that's to cover 1 skill. Heaven forbid you want to cover Climb, Swim, Jump, and Forgery.

In the D&D rulesystem, as is, it's inpractical, and leads to almost incompetently focused characters.

That one character may work that way is no reason to give every character a +5 in every skill. If they have a bonus is EVERY skill, then it ends up being "just because".

Again, you're missing the important difference between Trained-Only and Untrained uses.

Despite your bonuses, a character can never succeed at a Knowledge (XXX) check with a DC higher than 10 unless he's trained. So your well-traveled, experienced, but otherwise unfocused warrior (+6 total bonus to Knowledge (Nature)) stands a good chance to know most of the basics: "Watch out for Poison Ivy, which looks like this." "Don't eat elderberries, which look like that." "Here's how to tell the flood stage of a river." Etc.

He won't know anything of any higher DC, however: where a particular rare beast is known to live, etc.

 

[Rel]

I would take it as a personal kindness if the folks in this thread would address the topic and not their fellow posters. And if you don't feel like you owe me a personal kindness, do it because I said so.

 

[MerricB]

Note that there's a big difference between a skill in Saga that is trained, and skill that isn't trained.

And I'm not just talking about the +5 bonus.

Take "Use Computer". Under Saga, "Conan the Librarian" might not be trained in Use Computer, but he can do some tasks...
...he can access information stored on the computer
...he can't astrogate (trained only)
...he can't disable or erase program (trained only)
...he can't improve access (trained only)
...he can issue routine command
...he can't reprogram a droid (trained only).

Just because Conan the Barbarian (20th level Barbarian) has Spellcraft +10 doesn't mean he can do *everything* Spellcrafty!

Cheers!

 

[BryonD]

So, during all of his adventures, he never had to scramble up a steep cliff? Never had to climb a tree?

That is correct. If he did he either got help or used magic. He certainly never did it with remotely the frequency to become even a little bit skilled.

And Conan hasn't stolen enough royal seals (and pricesses' virtues), letters of marque, and royal orders to know what one looks like should he ever need to rough one up?

That is correct.

Because, in D&D at least, that gets you a +1 bonus and costs all of your skill points for a given level. And that's to cover 1 skill. Heaven forbid you want to cover Climb, Swim, Jump, and Forgery.

In the D&D rulesystem, as is, it's inpractical, and leads to almost incompetently focused characters.

If that is your problem then adding skill points is a far more elegant solution. But I've been playing 3X since it came out and I've never considered the characters to be remotely incompetent. Yeah, the Raistlin wizard can not climb. But that is because he is the Raistlin wizard and that is how is he supposed to be.

Again, you're missing the important difference between Trained-Only and Untrained uses.

No. I'm really not. In the Chewy example as brought up by me but detailed by you, Chewy would be able to bluff pasta row of STs all by himself. I find that absurd and completely contrary to what I want in a game. Even Untrained Chewy can do vastly more than he should be able to.

Despite your bonuses, a character can never succeed at a Knowledge (XXX) check with a DC higher than 10 unless he's trained. So your well-traveled, experienced, but otherwise unfocused warrior (+6 total bonus to Knowledge (Nature)) stands a good chance to know most of the basics: "Watch out for Poison Ivy, which looks like this." "Don't eat elderberries, which look like that." "Here's how to tell the flood stage of a river." Etc.

He won't know anything of any higher DC, however: where a particular rare beast is known to live, etc.

Yeah and that is good. But Chewy can still bluff STs and Raistlin can still climb on his own.

And I am very confident that 4E will extend this type of thing. I'm fairly optimistic (hopeful) that class skills will still exist in some form. With all the talk of simplification I expect that skill points will be gone or reduced. But, on the other hand, there has been talk to clearly deflect claims of "dumbing down" and also there has been talk that the difference between infrequent PCs write ups compared to the constant npc write ups. So maybe classes will get automatic "ranks" in a custom selected list of skills and then have freedom to splash extra ranks in a few others to taste. Or something complete different but along those lines in concept.

 

[BryonD]

Note that there's a big difference between a skill in Saga that is trained, and skill that isn't trained.

...

Just because Conan the Barbarian (20th level Barbarian) has Spellcraft +10 doesn't mean he can do *everything* Spellcrafty!

I understand. And I also think that the system works much better for SW. As was described in one of the developmnet articles, in the movies the characters seem to be able to do whatever they need to when the time comes. So it makes sense within the genre. But it doesn't fit D&D the same.

And even with all that, would it not sit odd with you if a player running Chewbacca in your SW game annouced that he was going to bluff his way past a bunch of STs and by the rules he had a very good chance of success? I would find that very unsatisfactory. And that type scenario is a lot less common in SW.

 

[MerricB]

Bluff is a really, really bad example to use with Chewie, because...
...he couldn't. Stormtroopers don't understand what he's saying.
...or he's got a big penalty because it's going to be an incredible bluff. One doesn't believe that a Wookie is the guest of honor at a party for the Grand Moff!

I really believe that Skill Points are on their way out for D&D. They're just too confusing for making up NPCs, and not particularly easy for many PCs.

Consider this, do you consider it unlikely that Raistlin...
...gets more HP as he gains levels
...gets better at swinging a sword as he gains levels?

They're both part of how D&D works at present.

Cheers!

 

[BryonD]

Bluff is a really, really bad example to use with Chewie, because...
...he couldn't. Stormtroopers don't understand what he's saying.
...or he's got a big penalty because it's going to be an incredible bluff. One doesn't believe that a Wookie is the guest of honor at a party for the Grand Moff!

Well, now you are running against the arguement that everyone else on a pro SWSE style approach has taken. But I'd just say that hand-waving past a rule would be a bad sign.

I really believe that Skill Points are on their way out for D&D. They're just too confusing for making up NPCs, and not particularly easy for many PCs.

I think you are right. As I said, I hope they come up with a mixed solution that balances simple with detailed. And I'm also hopeful that whatever the end product is, the concept of class skills and archetypes will be strongly preserved. Skill points are not mandatory for that.

Consider this, do you consider it unlikely that Raistlin...
...gets more HP as he gains levels

With the abstract concept of HP, I have no problem with this and do not see it as a meaningful contrast.

...gets better at swinging a sword as he gains levels?

I've always thought that the wizards 1/2 BAB was way to high. I'd be perfectly happy with a 1/5 or whatever rate in 4E. To hit spells can simply add a CL based magical bonus on attack roles, or numerous other alternatives.

That said, by the time a wizard gets a +3 BAB the opportunity cost of a simple melee attack in combat is so high that in practically never happens in my games. (Never at all that I can recall). But I can think of times that weaknesses in physical skills such as climb or swim has played a role in the challenges faced by the party. So I'm not going to accept that a disconnect that comes up periodically is ok simply because it is comparable to another disconnect that technically exists but virtually never comes up.

 

[MerricB]

Well, now you are running against the arguement that everyone else on a pro SWSE style approach has taken. But I'd just say that hand-waving past a rule would be a bad sign.

No, it's a sign that you've chosen a bad example. You need to choose one that *does* illustrate the problem and doesn't have it's own problems. Bluff (or Persuade) has always had a large deal of GM-judgement in it. "Is this believable? What modifier does it get?"

Raistlin climbing a tree is quantifiable.

However, Raistlin could very happily swing a sword against orcs (the stormtroopers of your Chewbacca example) and deal with them handily...

The question that really needs to be answered is this: Why does Raistlin need to climb a tree?

Cheers!

 

[coyote6]

I just realized -- if they get rid of skill points, Skill Tricks (from Complete Adventurer) will go away. Sure, they can make them class features or parts of feats -- but your number of feats are still very limited, and I wouldn't spend a feat on most skill tricks, or even "pick 2 or 3 skill tricks".

 

[Christian]

Good point. Someone in another thread (I can't remember who, sorry) made the point that the supposed flexibility of the 3E skill point system is really just an illusion, because in practice, there are only four things that people ever do with a skill:

1) Ignore it completely
2) Max it out
3) Put in 5 ranks for a synergy bonus to another skill, then never touch it again
4) Put in exactly as many ranks as are required for the prestige class they want, then never touch it again

And IME, that's always been the case in 3E. There's just no incentive to do anything else.

5) Put in 1 rank on a trained-only skill.

(Just for completeness. Count me in for liking the general idea of re-thinking this system, even if I can't say that I'm certain I'll like the actual end result ...)