Skills?

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

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.

No, he should start behaving like a low CHA hero.

The problem with the current rules is that in most cases (barring the extensive use of magic) that fighter's low Charisma means he can NOT overcome in-game weaknesses, and it automatically invalidates any approach the party can take besides "kick the door in, take names, burn the place after we collect the loot."

 

[F4NBOY]

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.

From a pratical point of view I agree with you. But if I ever want to play a Wizard that can't intimidate a cockroach, is completelly floopy and unaware of his surroundings, like Presto from D&D Cartoon, I can't. (I don't know if all of that can be attributed to poor Presto though )

 

[drothgery]

From a pratical point of view I agree with you. But if I ever want to play a Wizard that can't intimidate a cockroach, is completelly floopy and unaware of his surroundings, like Presto from D&D Cartoon, I can't. (I don't know if all of that can be attributed to poor Presto though )

Well, I think the 'I want to play a character who's really bad at this one skill' (usually one that his little direct bearing on his adventuring path, hence unintimidating wizards or fighters that can't swim) is something of a red herring. That doesn't explain why your unintimidating 20th level wizard shouldn't be able to swim fairly well, or sneak around well enough that it's not pointless for the rogue to even try to be sneaky, even though the skill he's really dedicated to is the study of arcane lore.

The 'really bad at one skill' thing seems like something more cut out for a flaws/disadvantages mechanic. And core D&D hasn't ever had one of those because they're notoriously hard to balance correctly.

 

[Victim]

From a pratical point of view I agree with you. But if I ever want to play a Wizard that can't intimidate a cockroach, is completelly floopy and unaware of his surroundings, like Presto from D&D Cartoon, I can't. (I don't know if all of that can be attributed to poor Presto though )

It's easy if you don't attempt those tests, voluntarily fail or otherwise reduce the bonus you use when you don't want the character to succeed. Besides, there might be some times when circumstances seem to favor your wizard and you can unleash your hidden potential .

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

From a pratical point of view I agree with you. But if I ever want to play a Wizard that can't intimidate a cockroach, is completelly floopy and unaware of his surroundings, like Presto from D&D Cartoon, I can't. (I don't know if all of that can be attributed to poor Presto though )

Why not?

If you never attempt the Persuade skill to intimidate anything, then you've never managed to intimidate anything.

However, when the chips are down, and your wizard finally decides he's going to stand up to the badguy and throw defiance in his face ... well, you've got a small heroic bonus backing you up.

 

[F4NBOY]

That doesn't explain why your unintimidating 20th level wizard shouldn't be able to swim fairly well

It does. If the wizards also happens to put no pts in Swim, he also can't swim very well. One thing is independent of the other. I can't see your point, sorry.

The 'really bad at one skill' thing seems like something more cut out for a flaws/disadvantages mechanic. And core D&D hasn't ever had one of those because they're notoriously hard to balance correctly.

I'm sorry, but a 10th level dwarven fighter with 0 ranks in Diplomacy CAN be considered "really bad at that skill".
I don't want anything new, just that they keep the kind of skill flexibility we have in 3E.

 

[Aust Diamondew]

Hopefully it'll be easy to houserule back to the old skill points system.

 

[F4NBOY]

Why not?

If you never attempt the Persuade skill to intimidate anything, then you've never managed to intimidate anything.

However, when the chips are down, and your wizard finally decides he's going to stand up to the badguy and throw defiance in his face ... well, you've got a small heroic bonus backing you up.

Your idea is valid, but does not appeal to my taste. I stay with the current skil, system, even if I consider it crumblesome. Actually, I stay with Iron Heroes skill system.

Heroic Bonus? nah, i think "heroism" is a consequence of characters actions, not the cause for them. "Heroism" should come after the action, not before. But that's just my very personal understanding. I know that the whole design concept behind SWSE is the exact opposite of that, and I respect it, but don't buy it.

 

[drothgery]

I'm sorry, but a 10th level dwarven fighter with 0 ranks in Diplomacy CAN be considered "really bad at that skill".
I don't want anything new, just that they keep the kind of skill flexibility we have in 3E.

The problem with that is if you want high level characters to be competent at most things (and I think this is a worthy design goal) you need some sort of mechanic where characters automatically get better at most skills. I don't think my fighter that's spent twenty levels in the company of the mighty wizard Wazoo is incapable of recognizing a magic missile when he sees one. I don't think my rogue that's spent twenty levels in the company of the devoted cleric Cuthbert is incapable of recognizing the basic tenants of the True Faith. And I don't think my wizard's ordinary hawk familiar should be better at noticing bad guys than any of the PCs in a tenth level party (actually happened in my current D&D game about 6 levels ago; said wizard is now dead, and the only one in the party with good spot & listen is the Cleric's cohort).

And the other problem is that if you want to get rid of the annoying accounting that's building skills for a high-level character (again, I think this is a worthy design goal) then the skill-point based setup is just awful. Even trying to simplify things by maxing out all skills breaks down once you start trying to figure in multiclassing and intelligence modifier adjustments over the life of the character.

The current system is not skill flexibility. The current system is 'nobody but high-int human Rogues has enough skill points to max out what's important and stay fairly competent at other things'.

 

[F4NBOY]

The current system is not skill flexibility. The current system is 'nobody but high-int human Rogues has enough skill points to max out what's important and stay fairly competent at other things'.

The curent system brings more flexibility than SAGA's. I didn't say one is better than the other, or vice-versa. I didn't say keeping the skills system as it is would be a good thing, I just think turning it 100% to Saga's is a bad thing for D&D.

If you want all of that, SAGA is the skill system for you. They designed it with "jack-of-all-trades" character in mind, like the ones we see in the movies. It's not my cup of tea though.