Skills?

[Victim]

I'm not so sure that DnD ideas don't support some degree of omnicompetence though. What kind of active adventurer wouldn't pick up some Climb/Jump/Swim type skills as they move around through rough environments? The wizard still might not be good at those skills, but he'd likely improve somewhat - a situation made unlikely with skill points. When the group has to sneak into or inflitrate the stronghold somehow, even the non sneaky types can generally do okay up to a point.

I know our group has been frustrated by a lack of skills at times. What's the point of stealing guard uniforms or whatever when some low no CHA fighter is going to blow the disguise check regardless (often with a result so low you have to wonder if they even put the clothes on)? It just pushes matters towards the common denominator "kill them all" method (combat ability does improve universally).

 

[F4NBOY]

Even making a distinction between Intimidate and Diplomacy is incorrect when talking about SWSE, since the game combines them into Persuasion.

Making the distiction does not invalidate my point. Let's see:

Torduk, the grumpy 10th level dwarf fighter(that never ever considered learning Persuasion, since it's not even a class skill for him) is as diplomatic as Gilberto, the 1st level noble paladin that trained all his life in Persuasion (he has the skill trainning in it).

I don't think Dorkis, the 20th level wizard should get 10 free ranks in Persuasion, and be as much or even more intimidating than Destructor, the 10th level Barbarian. And even if Dorkis wanted to be very intimidating he would not be able to, because he can't take Skill Training nor Skill Focus, since Persuasion is not a class skill for him. OTOH, with the present skill system, Dorkis can have 0 ranks in Diplomacy if he wishes (plus any ability mod) or have a +14 modifier (max ranks for cross class skill plus Skill Focus). In a Saga "world", all Wizards of the same level are always equally intimidating, (not considering any Charisma bonus).

And we've got no idea what is or isn't going into the class skill list for Wizards yet

If Persuasion comes to be a class skill for Wizards, consider my point using another skill that does not come to be a class skill for Wizards.

I don't think Dorkis, the 20th level wizard should get 10 free ranks in Climb, and be as much or even more "climbful" than Monkee, the 10th level Rogue. And even if Dorkis wanted to be very "climbful" he would not be able to, because he can't take Skill Training nor Skill Focus, since Climb is not a class skill for him. OTOH, with the present skill system, Dorkis can have 0 ranks in Climb if he wishes (plus any ability mod) or have a +14 modifier (max ranks for cross class skill plus Skill Focus). In a Saga "world", all Wizards of the same level are always equally Climbful, (not considering any Strenght bonus).

So i really want some changes if they use the Saga skill system in 4E.

 

[Victim]

An easy change would be to introduce weakpoint areas - a character picks a few trained skills with a bonus, and then a few skills he's especially bad at that either don't increase or suffer a penalty. So the dwarf who never liked dealing with other people and didn't even pay attention to the methods his allies used around him might have no Persuade at all.

But a character that's trained all his life probably has skill focus and a good stat, so they'd be better than a 20th level character with a bad stat.

 

[F4NBOY]

Its similar to the BAB we have right now. Even though your mage could have NEVER rolled an attack roll, you're still leagues better than a 1st level fighter.

But BAB is not a skill. Combat plays an important part in D&D games. D&D characters are adventurers, all of them need to be useful in combat, since it's an inevitable consequence of going into a dungeon full of monsters.
Ensuring that every character is somewhat competent in combats makes D&D game better, but making them somewhat competent in every skill, in everything, may or may not make the game less interesting.

 

[Victim]

But BAB is not a skill. Combat plays an important part in D&D games. D&D characters are adventurers, all of them need to be useful in combat, since it's an inevitable consequence of going into a dungeon full of monsters.
Ensuring that every character is somewhat competent in combats makes D&D game better, but making them somewhat competent in every skill, in everything, may or may not make the game less interesting.

The lack of general competence in skills pushes the game towards areas in which characters do have general ability (combat) and away from skill based plans that involve the whole group. Therefore, the lack of ability keeps interesting plans from working (or even from serious consideration), thus making the game less interesting.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Hey Bryon--

Since you started this thread, I don't feel bad pimping an old one here. It's proven to be pretty predictive of some 4e changes so far, and perhaps worth a fresh read to you since you were active in it.

RISE FROM YOUR GR4VE!

To refresh your memory somewhat: Untrained skills, mandatory skill point distribution vs. skill point choice, whether or not a "skill check" is "an appropriate dramatic obstacle," etc.

And lots of other good stuff worth mulling over in a fresh light.


(Err, and some unfortunate snark from yours truly.)

 

[F4NBOY]

The lack of general competence in skills pushes the game towards areas in which characters do have general ability (combat) and away from skill based plans that involve the whole group. Therefore, the lack of ability keeps interesting plans from working (or even from serious consideration), thus making the game less interesting.

As I said, it may or may not make the game less interesting.
You can't affirm that, since there are an almost infinite number of situations that can occur when characters lack the skill needed in the presented situation. I know tons of examples where lacking the skill does not pushes the game towards combat, but actually creates new kinds of interesting challenges.

It IS a matter of taste, so from personal experience, things that depend on the taste of the players should always be left as flexible and open as possible.

 

[AllisterH]

I know our group has been frustrated by a lack of skills at times. What's the point of stealing guard uniforms or whatever when some low no CHA fighter is going to blow the disguise check regardless (often with a result so low you have to wonder if they even put the clothes on)? It just pushes matters towards the common denominator "kill them all" method (combat ability does improve universally).

This might be the reason *WHY* they might use the SAGA system. While it is occasionally fun to try and figure out a problem when nobody in the party has the relevant skill, the default seems to be "smash and kill" since as the above poster noted, you don't actually have to do anything to have a decent skill.

A lot of people complain that D&D just devolves into combat, but if you're skills pretty much suck unless you're a skill monkey class, what else can you do? We might actually see more encounters resolved via non-combat means since players psychologically will feel more confident using skills.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

To have every mage be competent at climbing, swimming and sneaking would get real old and real boring, real fast.

Not only is it a terrible jarring clash with the archetypes, but it also would make it standard fare and therefore unheroic and dull. Things that every PC can do are automatically no big deal.

Saga dealt with this very well. Your opposed checks against an enemy of something approaching your level would be the limiting factor. And EVERYTHING is an opposed check, as far as I remember.

I don't mind the wizard sneaking past the goblin mooks that patrol outside the keep, but the trained guards inside have a REAL good chance of spotting him, and the BBEG and his lieutenants are going to see him coming a mile away.

Meanwhile, the rogue who is trained and talented for it is going to sneak right up and pants the BBEG as before.

Balance maintained, game more entertainingly "heroic" IMO.

Here's my problem with the Saga edition style of skills:

I have a character who in his backstory was involved in a horrible shipwreck at sea. He's spent over 100 years (he's an elf) avoiding ships and water. The very thought of being in the water used to make him break out in a cold sweat, even though he's fought dragons and demons without blinking. Recently, he's finally overcome that fear. At his next level up, I'm planning on putting a few ranks in Swim to demonstrate that he is slowly acclimating himself to the water. Using a Saga-style skill system, though, he's already a competent swimmer, even though he's never received any real training in it and has avoided bodies of water like they're the plague.

Similarly, that same character has dabbled in music, and has 4 ranks or so in Perform (stringed instruments). But he's never done more than that, nor has he shown an interest in being more than a casual player. By the Saga system, though, he'd be able to retire from adventuring and live quite comfortably as a renowned minstrel.

You're assuming DCs are the same as in 3.5, you know, and ignoring the trained/untrained divide. Making decent money as a performer may require a substantially larger modifier what with feats/talents AND training in that skill.

Also, the vast majority of mammals can swim competently at birth, and humans only fail at it when they're nervous. We ARE naturally buoyant. With no training, provided you're confident you can do it, you can swim in all manner of conditions for at least a little while. And certainly are far better at it than the average 3.5 adventurer.

My point was that I don't think that a grumpy dwarf, no matter how high his level is, should get free ranks in diplomacy.

Of course Gilberto would be better in Diplomacy check at his 1st lvl, comparing to the 10th level dwarf, but the problem I see is not with Gilberto having just a few, but with the dwarf having to much.


I don't think Dorkis, the 20th level wizard should get 10 free ranks in Intimidate, and be as much or even more intimidating than Destructor, the 10th level Barbarian. And even if Dorkis wanted to be very intimidating he would not be able to, because he can't take Skill Training nor Skill Focus, since Intimidate is not a class skill for him. OTOH, with the present skill system, Dorkis can have 0 ranks in diplomacy if he wishes (plus any ability mod) or have a +14 modifier (max ranks for cross class skill plus Skill Focus). In a Saga "world", all Wizards of the same level are always equally intimidating (not considering any Charisma bonus).

To simplify my point, they made SAGA skill system this way to make all PC characters jacks-of-all-trades, to better simulate what we see in the movies. D&D characters are note meant to be jack-of-all-trades at all, unless they want too.

The grumpy dwarf is still a 10th level adventurer, who is going to succeed at some amount of diplomacy checks simply because he's almost certainly a wealthy bad-arse. That carries more weight with people than smooth talking in the VAST majority of situations, and I can throw research at you to prove it.

The 20th level wizard SHOULD be more intimidating than anything but the biggest, hairiest, ugliest 10th level barbarian. He's a 20th level wizard who can rearrange your atoms in a split second.

We're so married to D&D archetypes, we're rejecting more REALISTIC social modeling.

 

[BryonD]

I know our group has been frustrated by a lack of skills at times. What's the point of stealing guard uniforms or whatever when some low no CHA fighter is going to blow the disguise check regardless (often with a result so low you have to wonder if they even put the clothes on)? It just pushes matters towards the common denominator "kill them all" method (combat ability does improve universally).

So the rules should be changed so that the low to no CHA fighter stops behaving like a low to no CHA fighter?

I'd prefer the characters overcome their weaknesses than ignore them with a wink and a nod.