Skills?

[BryonD]

IanArgent, it's interesting to read your arguments here, but I have a thought. It seems like your arguments are always based on artificially raising the DCs for an encounter so that the best characters have an X% chance. But why is it not OK if the Rogue can auto-succeed at the low DC check? I don't think there's a problem at all if the DC 15 challenge is an automatic success for the skill monkey and a risky chance for everyone else. In D&D, you can have fun with a DC 15 Balance check on a shaky ship for a variety of levels--you don't need an arbitrarily shakier ship that constantly ramps up its DC to be equal to 10 + 5 + 1/2 level. That may keep the target number the same, but it eliminates all accomplishments for the skill monkey player because the challenge aribtrarily scales to meet her.

It's the same problem as one might encounter in battle--in some games, every time the PCs level up, suddenly every NPC they ever encounter is also one level higher, so the PCs never get a chance to feel like they've grown because the game environment keeps everything in stasis.

Absolutely correct.
This is the other end of the spectrum and it also provides highly satisfactory results and should come into play on a regular basis.

 

[Psion]

Ehn? I didn't say anything about how the bard and rogue can't manage unless they preplan

Oops, that was Canis... my bad.

I don't want the rogue to get more skill points at any rate, it's a bandaid solution to a systemic problem.

Okay, the rogue really doesn't need more points, but that's not the vital point. The real point is that by making the skills arena a more viable area for resolving conflict, you are implicitly keeping the rogue import without changing their skill points at all.

Once the delta between skilled and unskilled goes over about +15, the system breaks down, even more obviously when it is an opposed test.

No, it really doesn't. You are assuming here that all players have to have some capability at all rolls. That's ludicrous. That's about like saying that the system breaks down unless all characters can take on the fighter in hand-to-hand combat.

that's a 50% chance of making a DC25 check with a cumulative modifier of -10 to his roll; a check that an untrained party member can't hope to make before adding the flourishes.

Why would the untrained characters have to do the job of the skill monkey? D&D is a team oriented game. Not all characters have to do everything.

At that point you might as well just make the fancy uses of the skill trained-only

Skilled only uses are a burden because they add more uses you have to memorize or look up about skills. That's a poor solution, even if I was interested in making all characters into jacks-of-all-trades.

 

[Zimri]

I never said that. You said it can't be done and I said it can. Your statement is not factual and mine is.
I never said that the claim that you don't experience it is untrue.
So that is two unfactual claims you have now made.

I'm not going to play this game further.
If you have a comment on the actual topic, please express it.

Lets see I was one of several that claimed that the people with skills were hampered by those without and that the saga system would help alleviate that.

That was the claim that you then said was untrue in post 223

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.

It in fact is true. I and others see it happen frequently. I assure you we are NOT lying as we have nothing to gain from doing so. I have not once claimed that there are circumstances where your experience can not play out and yet twice now you have claimed that what I have experienced is not factual, is untrue, and can not have happened. At least in my lexicon untrue, unfactual, false scenarios don't happen yours may differ.

 

[IanArgent]

IanArgent, it's interesting to read your arguments here, but I have a thought. It seems like your arguments are always based on artificially raising the DCs for an encounter so that the best characters have an X% chance. But why is it not OK if the Rogue can auto-succeed at the low DC check? I don't think there's a problem at all if the DC 15 challenge is an automatic success for the skill monkey and a risky chance for everyone else. In D&D, you can have fun with a DC 15 Balance check on a shaky ship for a variety of levels--you don't need an arbitrarily shakier ship that constantly ramps up its DC to be equal to 10 + 5 + 1/2 level. That may keep the target number the same, but it eliminates all accomplishments for the skill monkey player because the challenge aribtrarily scales to meet her.

I don't have a problem with low-level PCs being challenged by a DC 15 skill check (nor really with the thought that the rogue can auto-pass that skill check). I have a problem with mid-level PCs not being able to pass a DC 25 skill check that the skillmonkey still autopasses. I have a HUGE problem with a D20-based game that requires DCs in the 40's at the high end to deal with the maxed skillmonkey. Heck, when you require a DC35 to make the skillmonkey have a 50% chance of failing at what is nominally within the sweet-spot of 3.5 play (12th level), that's a problem too. You don't need a DC 35 to lock out untrained characters, a DC higher than 20 will do that more or less. (That is addressed to ByronD). Speaking of which:

Here is the impass. Just as I was replying to Zimri, Saying that you have not made it work does not remotely mean that the system breaks. If the system was broken then no one else could do make it work. This is not the case. Not remotely.

I'm not saying you can't make the system work; just stay away from the extreme skillmonkey. But the system starts creaking once the skillmonkey has a skill check +15 higher than the rest of the party, and is breaks once the skillmonkey is at +20 over the rest of his party. Or is a DC35 skill check a remotely appropriate challenge at 12th level, and a DC40 check an easy challenge at 20th level for the same character? Does the answer change depending on if he is with the rest of the party or not? I'm not being facetious here - this is a real question that has to be answered by game design; what is an appropriate DC for a challenge to a skilled character vs. an unskilled character at each level. Should the system be set up to encourage deep, focused characters, or broadly-skilled generalists, or someplace between?

I haven't been arguing from this line earlier because it took writing up my previous posts to realize WHY the 3.5 skill system falls short when compared to SWSE. There's much too large a range of possible skill levels. And you have to take into account all of them in adventure design. You have to account for the skillmonkey that has been maxing 8+int skills, focusing on any of them; plus you have to account for the skillmonkey who decided to go for half-max in 16+2xInt skills, with no feats spent on the skills. That means there's a difference in the skill check for a [i[skilled[/i] character of up to 5+1/2 level. IOW, the jack of all trades has a skill check of 10 worse than the focused skillmonkey at 12th level.

As I posted earlier, it could be dealt with by simply halving max ranks per level; but that's rather more than halfway to SWSE already. Plus, it's just wonky in that you get x skill points but can only advance x/2 skills when you level if you're maxing them all. I already use fractional accounting for saves and BAB, do I need to start using fractional skills as well? And if you go for the half-max option, the trained skill user still doesn't get to be +5 better than the untrained user until he's 8th level anyway (barring feats and assuming the same control stat). If he goes for the feat option, he has to blow 2 feats to get +5 to a skill (and +2 to another) under 3.5. Or you can go to Saga which has a +5 for skill focus for one feat, and a relatively larger # of feats anyway.

It's the same problem as one might encounter in battle--in some games, every time the PCs level up, suddenly every NPC they ever encounter is also one level higher, so the PCs never get a chance to feel like they've grown because the game environment keeps everything in stasis.

But you can deal with the PCs advancing their combat abilities either by advancing the skills of the opponents, or by increasing the number of opponents. Also, to a certain extent, the D20 system DOES advance the skills of opponents, by advancing the CR of the expected opponents.

I'm not trying to be argumentative for it's own sake. I don't think the SWSE system is the best possible answer to the question of skills in a D20 system. For all I know, WotC will go with reducing the max skill ranks per level cap, or something like that. I feel that the SWSE skill system is a better answer than what we have now, that's all.

 

[IanArgent]

Once the delta between skilled and unskilled goes over about +15, the system breaks down, even more obviously when it is an opposed test.

No, it really doesn't. You are assuming here that all players have to have some capability at all rolls. That's ludicrous. That's about like saying that the system breaks down unless all characters can take on the fighter in hand-to-hand combat.

the Fighter, at 20thlevel, has a +10 delta over the wizard in BAB. Well inside the +15 delta that I am claiming as the point at which the system starts to break down.

Why would the untrained characters have to do the job of the skill monkey? D&D is a team oriented game. Not all characters have to do everything.

A character never gets more than +10 "better" than any other at attacking. A character never gets more than +6 "better" than any other when making saving throws. It's only in skill checks that you see a delta of +15 or more. But somehow we don't worry about the wizard overshadowing the fighter in attacking in melee. (I'm not touching the overshadowing the fighter in general; that's not an area where the skill system has a big impact right now; both classes have 2 skill points per level, and the wizard has what I would consider a more restrictive skill list)

Skilled only uses are a burden because they add more uses you have to memorize or look up about skills. That's a poor solution, even if I was interested in making all characters into jacks-of-all-trades.

It's not the best solution, it's just a better solution. I would love to see a better one, and rather hope we do see one in 4th ed. I don't want to see a rehash of the 3.5 skill system, though, because that's wor

 

[BryonD]

Lets see I was one of several that claimed that the people with skills were hampered by those without and that the saga system would help alleviate that.

That was the claim that you then said was untrue in post 223



It in fact is true. I and others see it happen frequently. I assure you we are NOT lying as we have nothing to gain from doing so. I have not once claimed that there are circumstances where your experience can not play out and yet twice now you have claimed that what I have experienced is not factual, is untrue, and can not have happened. At least in my lexicon untrue, unfactual, false scenarios don't happen yours may differ.

Are you really incapable of following the logic here?
No one is saying you are lying.
But I am saying you are wrong when you claim that because something happens to you it is
a fundamental truth of the game.


It is a false scenario to suggest that one key skill is always (or even often) the only way to avoid fights.

That is a true statement.

It can also be a true statement that no one in any game you have ever played in has thought of one. I completely accept this as truth as you claim it. But failure to come up with a solution does not remotely evidence that the other solutions do not exist. And the equally true fact that alternate solutions ARE reached on a regular basis in many other people's games is proof that the solutions do exist. Denying them is simply and flatly wrong.

 

[Victim]

A character never gets more than +10 "better" than any other at attacking. A character never gets more than +6 "better" than any other when making saving throws. It's only in skill checks that you see a delta of +15 or more. But somehow we don't worry about the wizard overshadowing the fighter in attacking in melee. (I'm not touching the overshadowing the fighter in general; that's not an area where the skill system has a big impact right now; both classes have 2 skill points per level, and the wizard has what I would consider a more restrictive skill list)

I disagree. Sure, the difference in Base attack or save is smaller. But that's only part of the story. By the time you include different ability score selections, feats, magic items, etc, the difference grows significantly. A cleric only has +6 in base Will save over the rogue, but his emphasis on WIS can provide another 10 points of difference - and if he PrCs into a few classes with good Will, then the gap grows. Sure, a wizard is 10 Bab behind the fighter. But the 20th level fighter is probably pumping his attack bonus through STR, feats, different items that the wizard won't have, buffs that boost his melee will be applied by the group. He could be pushing +40 attack while the wizard is lucky to get +5 in misc mods for a total of +15.

Of course, the wizard likely has combat options that render his deficiency in melee bonus moot.

 

[Rystil Arden]

Basically, to explain what BryonD is saying without throwing out charged terms like 'lying', he is trying to explain that it is much much harder to prove a 'cannot' than it is to prove a 'can'. To wit, you can say something like "It is impossible to..." or "You cannot balance...", but it is very hard to prove, requiring one of several complex proof techniques. On the other hand, you can prove "It is possible to..." or "You can..." by providing a single example.

 

[BryonD]

I'm not saying you can't make the system work; just stay away from the extreme skillmonkey. But the system starts creaking once the skillmonkey has a skill check +15 higher than the rest of the party, and is breaks once the skillmonkey is at +20 over the rest of his party. Or is a DC35 skill check a remotely appropriate challenge at 12th level, and a DC40 check an easy challenge at 20th level for the same character? Does the answer change depending on if he is with the rest of the party or not? I'm not being facetious here - this is a real question that has to be answered by game design; what is an appropriate DC for a challenge to a skilled character vs. an unskilled character at each level. Should the system be set up to encourage deep, focused characters, or broadly-skilled generalists, or someplace between?

So everyone should be denied acces to the extreme skill monkey to suite you?

You keep claiming the system breaks, but you keep not addressing the point that many people play quite fine with the game as is.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with certain characters having the skill to easily do a task that someone else can not do at all. Being a superstar at something is awesome. Overcoming a challenge that required thinking outside the box is awesome.

The game does a great job as is at allowing deep focused, broadly skilled and some place inbetween, all at the same time. In a good adventure there will be a wide range of task DCs. Some will be easy to everyone. Some will be a bit of a challenge to the best of the best. Most will span the difference. If you are specialized you will find that you shine brightly when on and will need help more often. Because most DCs are in the middle somewhere, the broad based character will find that they can handle almost everything except the really tough ones, but will almost always be able to overcome. These are both good options.

I'm not trying to be argumentative for it's own sake. I don't think the SWSE system is the best possible answer to the question of skills in a D20 system. For all I know, WotC will go with reducing the max skill ranks per level cap, or something like that. I feel that the SWSE skill system is a better answer than what we have now, that's all.

Neither am I.
But again, I haven't even read this as an issue that WotC has expressed concern about. So I really doubt they are even planning to let other classes start elbowing in on the rogue's specialties.
I feel that SWSE for D&D would be vastly worse than what we have now. But I don't expect to see the elements that concern me in 4E.

 

[BryonD]

Basically, to explain what BryonD is saying without throwing out charged terms like 'lying',

To be clear, I'm not accusing anyone of "lying".

he is trying to explain that it is much much harder to prove a 'cannot' than it is to prove a 'can'. To wit, you can say something like "It is impossible to..." or "You cannot balance...", but it is very hard to prove, requiring one of several complex proof techniques. On the other hand, you can prove "It is possible to..." or "You can..." by providing a single example.

It is a little more than that. If you say "can not" and someone does it, then "can not" was incorrect.

If you say "can" and someone else doesn't, well "can" is still true as long as someone did it.

Can not is a much stronger statement than can.
I can't run a 5 min mile. (not even close). It would be very wrong for me to claim that a 5 minute mile can not be run.