• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

Skills?

Psion said:
I would hope so.

Amidst all the nice things about SWSE, I loathed the skill system. I'm honestly baffled why anyone thinks the current 3.5 system is inadequate. I could see combining some skills, but the SWSE "chucking skill ranks" thing is just batty to me.
heh,

I wouldn't say I loathed it. For a simple, quick start, everything in one book, SW-theme focused game, it is quite adequate. However, not a single one of those qualifiers meets what I am looking for in D&D.

I can understand the desire to simplify building. I don't mind it as is, but I can understand the desire. But the SWSE system as D&D core would be a really bad move.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Oh, and BTW it is not a hand wave to say that characters should be expected to face challenges outside their normal abiltities. That is a feature, not a bug. To the contrary, to assume that characters should be able to handle anything that comes their way every time would be a terrible bug.
 

Canis said:
Sure, but as previously stated in this thread, unless multiple people have the right skills, the only available alternative is usually, "Kick in the door, kill everything in sight."
That has been claimed. But that doesn't make it true.
It is a false scenario to suggest that one key skill is always (or even often) the only way to avoid fights.
 

Canis said:
Sure, but as previously stated in this thread, unless multiple people have the right skills, the only available alternative is usually, "Kick in the door, kill everything in sight."

Did you read the post you just quoted? I'll re-emphasize "multiple paths to success". Which means that there are a variety of skills that could be applied to a given situation to improve the odds/ease of success. It's not difficult to write adventures this way, and more skill based systems have done so for a long time.
 
Last edited:

BryonD said:
I wouldn't say I loathed it. For a simple, quick start, everything in one book, SW-theme focused game, it is quite adequate. However, not a single one of those qualifiers meets what I am looking for in D&D.

Fair enough. For my purposes (which is, I don't expect to run any campaign games with deep character development, just an occasional one of or short campaigns), SWSE's skill system might serve the purpose.

For a longer campaign of the nature I often get involved with for D&D, I consider the SWSE skill system inadequate.
 

In my opinion, skill points are only a hassle when the DM is statting up encounters. Since we already know that monsters <> PCs, there is no reason to think that the skill system for PCs must be designed away from the current method.

It's never been a hassle for me, as a player, to keep track of my skill points and assign them where I want them. Doesn't matter if I happen to follow the "Five Big Rules of Skill Allocation;" it still seems like an empowering choice.

I wouldn't take away PC empowerment simply to fix DM headache on the monster/NPC side. That is definitely a "baby with bathwater" solution.
 

The Grackle said:
Isn't that the case now? maybe not w/rogues, but wizards an fighters? I'll bet if we compared a lot of PCs, they would be remarkably similar.

Well my wizard/fighter (2/1) has ranks in 4 different Craft skills (Alchemy, Painting, Armorsmithing, Weaponsmith), 3 different Knowledge skills (Arcana, History, Local-Sharn), and ranks in Heal, Perform (Dance), Concentration, Decpher Script, Spellcraft, and Swim.
 

Wulf Ratbane said:
In my opinion, skill points are only a hassle when the DM is statting up encounters.
(...)
It's never been a hassle for me, as a player, to keep track of my skill points and assign them where I want them. Doesn't matter if I happen to follow the "Five Big Rules of Skill Allocation;" it still seems like an empowering choice.

I wouldn't take away PC empowerment simply to fix DM headache on the monster/NPC side. That is definitely a "baby with bathwater" solution.

That's pretty much where I'm coming from.

Cept I have no clue what the "Five Rules" are.
 

Psion said:
That's pretty much where I'm coming from.

Cept I have no clue what the "Five Rules" are.

Farther up this thread:

1) Max the skill.
2) Ignore the skill.
3) Put in 5 ranks for synergy.
4) Put in 1 rank so it is "trained."
5) Put in exactly how many ranks you need for your PrC and no more.
 

BryonD said:
Oh, and BTW it is not a hand wave to say that characters should be expected to face challenges outside their normal abiltities. That is a feature, not a bug. To the contrary, to assume that characters should be able to handle anything that comes their way every time would be a terrible bug.

The handwave was "Depending on magic items". Sure, anyone can handle a challenge if they get to have a specific magic item for the job (skill-boosters are the easiest one here). I will point out, that using the SWSE system, if the DC is set to be a challenge someone trained in the skill, the chances of an unskilled person making the test are much lower (roughly 25%, depending on the specific DC). If it's one that a trained person can make under no stress virtually all the time (a Take-10 allows passing), the untrained person can make it that 25% (has to roll a 15). So it's clearly NOT impossible to set up a challenge such that the skilled person shines. Furthermore, if it is a "trained use" of the skill, there's no way the untrained person can even test. I don't want a system where characters can handle anything. I do want a system where I can set up challenges that untrained heroes can deal with challenges that mooks would find challenging (without making it too easy for the specialist), but when it's important the specialist has to step up, because no-one else can do it. I very much want trained-only skills or skill uses. But in the end, I want the entire party to have a chance to sneak past the 1-st level guards when they are 5th level, but still have the 5-th level guard commander spot them on his rounds, say. Or have the 15-level thief who hasn't decided to be an intimidating thug can still intimidate a 5-th level fence.

Psion said:
Did you read the post you just quoted? I'll re-emphasize "multiple paths to success". Which means that there are a variety of skills that could be applied to a given situation to improve the odds/ease of success. It's not difficult to write adventures this way, and more skill based systems have done so for a long time.

Most skill-based systems can safely assume that each PC has a few spare skill points. To pick some examples of PHB core classes that don't: Fighters, clerics, and Sorcerers. All 2 skill points per level, and all have a fairly restrictive class skill list. The heavy armor types also have the additional disadvantage of either having to give up their armor or eat the penalties associated with the armor in relation to stealth skills. At least one of those "multiple paths to success" has to allow an untrained person to be able to make the test. Most paths to success require that everyone be able to pass the same check at some point. So you either have to set a rather low DC, or figure out how the fighter with no stealth skills and only intimidate in social skills can get through.

You can design around your specific party, of course. But generic adventure writers can't do that. When you target an unknown party, you have to target the "iconic" party, who only has the one character capable of sneaking, bluffing, balancing, or swimming.
 

Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top