Skills?

[Grog]

I think you're confusing granualarity with flexibility. Individual skill points give you a lot of room to fiddle, in theory. In practice, you can't take advantage of this (at least, not in 3.x) because in any skill you're actually going to use when it's important, you've got to have things maxed out or nearly so or you won't be able to beat DCs in level-approriate challenges. And if you do that, you don't have any skill points left to fiddle with.

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.

 

[Felon]

Maybe it will be an adapted version of SWSE and maybe it will be completely different. But clearly SWSE is way past in the can and 4E is still in early development, so the assumption of a straight port is pretty well out the window.

I'm not thrilled about the way trained skills are handed out in SWSE, so I hope that's not ported. But for the most part we're discussing the 1/2 level bonus on checks, and that could easily be adopted.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

Um, no.
The saga rules would have allowed Chewbacca to gain a fiat bonus to his disguise skill and very possibly made it on through the challenge despite a total lack of reason in that outcome.

As was being slammed just a few posts ago, once the low cha fighter was forced to make a check he failed and things turned to combat. And yes, this was quite interesting. Though perhaps if Han or Luke had been BETTER at disguise they could have covered for Chewy longer and the scene could have played out differently.

But under no analysis of what happened does it make sense to claim that things worked out because Chewy had an omincompetent bonus to his disguise skill helping out. Exactly to the contrary, the plan worked for exactly as long as they were able to work around his complete lack of ranks.

I was talking about the fact that it's incredibly easy to fail that check against a competent NPC within spitting distance of your level regardless of the bonus, but that the bonus is sufficient to get you past mooks. That is all. I didn't bring the rest of your baggage to the argument.

You keep arguing from a position that everyone is making DCs because of this bonus. That is simply NOT true in Saga. All the meaningful checks are OPPOSED checks, and you WILL fail those against non-mook NPCs. Omnicompetence is a MEANINGLESS BUZZ WORD that in context means nothing more than "I'm awesome against the low level guards."

Also, the cliff example is old and busted seeing as the new definition for encounter is intended to INCLUDE things like climbing cliffs, so if you still want cliffs to be cockblocks for your players, you can make them that way. It will just take more effort than setting a DC20.

 

[Zimri]

So I slogged through the thread and having never seen SWSE, I have to say I would be in favor of what was described.

Regarding some of the posited scenarios

1) The gruff dwarf with no diplomacy / persuasion. There are many ways to be persuasive. You can be diplomatic about it, you can be intimidating about it, you can be sneaky about it, you can lie about it. While I can certainly see the player of the gruff dwarf having an issue breaking out into flowery speech I really fail to see an issue with a glare and a growl (espescially when backed up with reputation) getting you as far as a lvl 1 diplomat.

2) The " I am scared of water" person. Well this one I can see the posters point on ... kinda except as it has been described there really isn't a "swimming" skill perse, rather athletics, running, climbing, jumping, etcetera. After 20 levels life would have taught you the basics of how to do those things. And thats what we're talking about basics. Sure you hate water... Work with your DM and ZOMG ROLE play it. I think I know the scary part behind that proposition but I'll get to that.

I usually play the skill monkey class (rogue, monk, ascetic rogue/ beguiling dancer) And EVERY session we've run into situations that could have been solved via stealth, diplomacy, subterfuge or Kick in the door and kill the witnesses. With one skill monkey and 3 "other" you can guess how often we choose to "be the bear" over "being the snake".

The scary part behind the "roleplay your weaknesses" scenario in my mind is it then changes from "daves character didn't have the skill points to swim and still be able to have high spot search or whatever, so we'll have to build a raft, a bridge or go around the lake" to "Dave is slowing us down because he is being a jerk and insisting that his character hates the water when we all know he can swim a little" . Luckily in my group option 2 is just as valid as option 1, but we would have some fun game time with the rest of the party trying to convince dave, maybe even some opposed rolls or will power saves to see how it played out.

 

[Jim DelRosso]

I know, but technically speaking, if they use the SAGA skill system, but make some changes to make it fit D&D concepts better, it's not SAGA skill system anymore.

The whole "straight port" thing was a straw man, anyway.

 

[Jhaelen]

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.

Woot! Someone's actually read and remembered the stuff I wrote!

But back to the current discussion:
I think it's perfectly fine for every player character to be somewhat proficient in every skill that is important for adventuring. It doesn't really add to the game if it is slowed down because the (low level) wizard has trouble climbing a knotted rope.
If the characters are supposed to be heroic right from the start they shouldn't be troubled by 'standard' situations.

'Skill monkeys' will still be important and get their chance to shine because they're the only ones who can pull off the truly crazy stunts we know and love from cinematic action. The Iron Heroes system and the skill tricks from Complete Scoundrel have been steps in that direction. We'll see more of that in 4th.ed.

 

[BryonD]

I was talking about the fact that it's incredibly easy to fail that check against a competent NPC within spitting distance of your level regardless of the bonus, but that the bonus is sufficient to get you past mooks. That is all. I didn't bring the rest of your baggage to the argument.

You keep arguing from a position that everyone is making DCs because of this bonus. That is simply NOT true in Saga. All the meaningful checks are OPPOSED checks, and you WILL fail those against non-mook NPCs. Omnicompetence is a MEANINGLESS BUZZ WORD that in context means nothing more than "I'm awesome against the low level guards."

Also, the cliff example is old and busted seeing as the new definition for encounter is intended to INCLUDE things like climbing cliffs, so if you still want cliffs to be cockblocks for your players, you can make them that way. It will just take more effort than setting a DC20.

No, you are missing the point.
A +5 or +10 is a good deal more LIKELY to make the check than a +0. All the system being discussed would do is add some frequency of extra successes for characters who aren't otherwise built in a way to succed at the given task. Of course there would still be failures. But sometimes the character will succeed simply only because they get a free bonus. I'm talking about those times. In the times the character failed anyway, it is no different than the type system I want, so there is no point is focusing on them.

If you don't like the buzz words, I'd suggest you advise those on your side not to use them.
But just declaring it meaningless and then forcing a misleading definition on it does not accomplish anything.

 

[BryonD]

The whole "straight port" thing was a straw man, anyway.

It was you personally who brought up an advocation of "as-is" SWSE in post 10 of this thread. It doesn't meet the defintion of a straw man when someone else takes issue with the EXACT point that YOU made.

 

[BryonD]

I'm not thrilled about the way trained skills are handed out in SWSE, so I hope that's not ported. But for the most part we're discussing the 1/2 level bonus on checks, and that could easily be adopted.

Yeah, if they make some clear changes to reign things in, the concept could work perfectly well.

 

[Jim DelRosso]

It was you personally who brought up an advocation of "as-is" SWSE in post 10 of this thread. It doesn't meet the defintion of a straw man when someone else takes issue with the EXACT point that YOU made.

I said "pretty much as-is" in post #10, because -- as is clear from everything else I've said -- 4e =! SWSE, and naturally some adjustments would need to be made. The concepts behind SWSE are sound, and could (and should, in my opinion) be applied in 4e. This is not the same as the mythical "straight port" that you and F4NBOY are decrying, and against which you are now holding up an oddly-interpreted quote from Mearls' blog in order to declare victory.

If you're going to ignore my posts, as promised, please ignore them in their entirety, as opposed to just the words which you don't find conducive to your screeds.