-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
Skills?
- Thread starter BryonD
- Start date
UndeadScottsman
First Post
BryonD said:
Sure, if everyone rolls the same and has the same base stat.
BryonD said:
Well, no. Some 20th level fighters cared a lot more about projecting an imposing presense than your gruff dwarf, and became trained in Persuasion. And because they were half-orcs, they had a racial ability to re-roll Persuasion to Intimidate. While other 20th level fighters were elegant Elven nobles and blademasters, who took became trained in persuasion, took skill focus in it, and put a high stat in Charisma to represent their amazing ability to be diplomatic and woo the ladies. Some also didn't care about learning to persuade, but they at least didn't have the charisma penalty your gruff dwarf does.
BryonD
Hero
Yep, and all these specialized chars are gonna go WTF when the gruff dwarf gets a pass.drothgery said:
Seriously, if everyone is "good enough" then great becomes a lot less meaningful.
Also, 3X already has means of specially building any character to be great at whatever skill you want if you go out of your way for it. So that isn't an improvement. It would just be a reason not to bother paying a cost to be great if you get good enough for free.
Jim DelRosso
First Post
UndeadScottsman said:Sure, if everyone rolls the same and has the same base stat.
And lacks any racial or class talents that allow for rerolls, or substitution of another skill, or...
UndeadScottsman
First Post
What exactly is "good enough" though? None of us has looked at the system yet; we do not know what the average save DC is going to be at those levels. For all we know, he wouldn't be able to make a equal level save DC; but he's be able to beat those of levels far earlier than his own. (I.E. the Wizards stealths past the mooks, but gets caught by the higher level guards whereas the rogue totally sneaks his way all the way to the head honcho)BryonD said:
Plus, even if the dwarf gets a pass, doesn't mean other characters can't do it better. (Dwarf is asked to politely stay outside instead of getting his ass kicked for being stubborn and rude; whereas the high charisma, skill focused Elf fighter manages to convince the guards to let the party in to go in with all their weapons.)
Kahuna Burger
First Post
I have two problems with the Saga skill system as I understand it from the book as a direct port to D&D.
1) They still have class skills. You pick the skills you will specialize in from a limited list, with no option I can see for spending two on a cross class skill. I have more than once had multiclassing characters who had "core competency" skills that existed in only one class or the other. My private investigator type, for instance, who maxed gather info as a bard and survival (for tracking) as a ranger. The essence of multiclassing to me is to be able to have a character concept that combines two classes, not be a bard who later picks up many of the ranger traits but can never achieve full competency in a ranger's class skills. Even within a single classed character there are problems - a gladiator style fighter who could never devote skill points to perform is not acceptable for me.
2) There is also no option I see for changing a skill focus later in a character's career. The example up thread about a character who was getting over his fear of swimming was dismissed on practical grounds, but sometimes changing a character's skill investment is important to a change in the character.
So for this system to work in D&D, I think you would have to either eliminate class skills or come up with a mechanic for picking your focused skills between class and non class. (perhaps three levels of compentence with trained cross class being equivelent to untrained class then a higher tier for trained class and the lowest but still progressing for untrained cross class?) And you would need a core rules mechanic for retraining skills later in a characters career.
1) They still have class skills. You pick the skills you will specialize in from a limited list, with no option I can see for spending two on a cross class skill. I have more than once had multiclassing characters who had "core competency" skills that existed in only one class or the other. My private investigator type, for instance, who maxed gather info as a bard and survival (for tracking) as a ranger. The essence of multiclassing to me is to be able to have a character concept that combines two classes, not be a bard who later picks up many of the ranger traits but can never achieve full competency in a ranger's class skills. Even within a single classed character there are problems - a gladiator style fighter who could never devote skill points to perform is not acceptable for me.
2) There is also no option I see for changing a skill focus later in a character's career. The example up thread about a character who was getting over his fear of swimming was dismissed on practical grounds, but sometimes changing a character's skill investment is important to a change in the character.
So for this system to work in D&D, I think you would have to either eliminate class skills or come up with a mechanic for picking your focused skills between class and non class. (perhaps three levels of compentence with trained cross class being equivelent to untrained class then a higher tier for trained class and the lowest but still progressing for untrained cross class?) And you would need a core rules mechanic for retraining skills later in a characters career.
Jim DelRosso
First Post
Kahuna Burger said:
In SWSE, if you multiclass, your class skill list expands to include all the new class's skills, as well. You can then snag the Skill Training feat for the new skill you want, and you get all the benefits you get from the Trained skills you select at character creation. So, your bard/ranger PI would easily work: with Skill Training, he can get full competency in the ranger's class skills.
(EDIT: on the subject of cross-class skills, SWSE doesn't really need the distinction, since all skills get a bonus as you level. In 3.5, cross-class skills get capped at half the level of class skills. Untrained skills are kind of the equivalent of cross-class skills, without the frustration of dropping "half-ranks" into them.)
As I said, you can take the Skill Training feat at any time to bump a skill from Untrained to Trained. You can also add the Skill Focus feat to any skill you're trained in, not just at character creation.
Last edited:
Green Knight
First Post
F4NBOY said:
I take it you never got the Star Wars Sage Edition?
The 10th-level Dwarf Fighter would have a +5 bonus to Diplomacy (or Persuasion). The 1st-level Paladin who took Persuasion would have a +5 bonus starting right out of the gate (Untrained Skills get a bonus equal to half your level. Trained Skills get a bonus equal to half your level, plus five). And if he has Skill Training, as you say, then that's another +5 for a total +10 bonus! Torduk would have to be 20th-level before he could be as good in diplomacy as the 1st-level Gilberto.
On top of which, you're ignoring the effects of stat modifiers. Let's take the standard array of 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, and 15. Torduk's stats would likely be as follows:
STR: 15, DEX: 13, CON: 16, INT: 10, WIS: 12, CHA: 6
And it's likely that neither of his stat increases would've gone into Charisma, so his final Persuasion bonus would be +3.
Gilberto, on the other hand, would have the following statline:
STR: 14, DEX: 8, CON: 12, INT: 10, WIS: 13, CHA: 15
So he'd have a Persuasion bonus of +12.
So what's the problem? The character optimized for Persuasion blows away the character who isn't by a factor of four, even though he's 9 levels lower. Torduk wouldn't even be able to equal Gilberto until he reached Level 28.
Considering the above, I don't think you have to worry about it.
