Skills?

[MerricB]

I just realized -- if they get rid of skill points, Skill Tricks (from Complete Adventurer) will go away. Sure, they can make them class features or parts of feats -- but your number of feats are still very limited, and I wouldn't spend a feat on most skill tricks, or even "pick 2 or 3 skill tricks".

Skill tricks are effectively part of SWSE: they're called feats, talents or racial abilities. There's nothing intrinsically special about skill tricks - just "weak" feats.

Cheers!

 

[Jim DelRosso]

The question that really needs to be answered is this: Why does Raistlin need to climb a tree?

Well, he was made with, what, 1e? 2e? He probably ran out of spells for the day, and then Tasslehoff threw the Staff of Magius up there.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

5) Put in 1 rank on a trained-only skill.

(Just for completeness. Count me in for liking the general idea of re-thinking this system, even if I can't say that I'm certain I'll like the actual end result ...)

6) put half max ranks in it because it's a skill you want your character to have for concept purposes but not important enough mechanically to invest max skills in it.

To tangent, what I never liked about skills was the whole "plus intelligence modifier" bit. It would be all well and good if skills just covered knowledge, profession and crafting type things, but I hate the mental image of Og the Barbarian going "Og would like to swim across lake, but Og was not smart enough to be as good at swimming, climbing and jumping as some other lads...." While it would be nixed as more complicated, I'd love to see separate skill points for educated skills vs physical skills and have the physical skill points add your Con bonus....

 

[F4NBOY]

Well, I've participated in this thread, which I think brings a very important discussion to the 4E boards.

I've read all posts and all opinions and the ideas here are well put and relevant. I can also see much personal taste regarding the skill system and for these kinds of issues I believe the designers should let the mechanics involved as flexible as possible, to support all kinds of tastes.

Being very objective now, what I want for 4E is a skill system in which:

-Characters can be masters in some skills, good enough in others and suckers in others.

-Characters can be masters in a few skills, good enough in most skills, and suckers in a few others.

What I don't want is a system in which:

-Characters can be masters in some skills and suckers in every other skill.(3.5)

-Characters can be masters in a few skills and good enough in every other skill.(SAGA)

Iron heroes skills system does the job quite well, but it's a little too cumbersome yet.
If the designers can come up with something in the lines of Iron Heroes with the simplicity of SAGA, I'm all for it!

 

[RFisher]

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.

Is this really so different from complaining that the cleric's choice of patron deity would be better for the party? Or any number of other things? If a group has this problem, I think they have a much bigger problem than skill mechanics.

I'd sooner be happy with some kind of trade-off mechanic, than a character who is competent in something 'just because,' and then not use it. Even something like, "you get one trade-off skill, if you take no extra ranks in this skill due to level, you get a +2 to another skill of your choice that is based off of the same ability," or something similar.

The problem I have with this is that all skills aren't equal. & even if you carefully devised a variable cost system to compensate (as some games have) the value of a skill depends as much on the group's style as the rules, so that doesn't really make it much better either.

5) Put in 1 rank on a trained-only skill.

I was going to mention that one too.

To tangent, what I never liked about skills was the whole "plus intelligence modifier" bit.

Completely agree. (In fact, I managed to convince someone to drop a similar rule from their homebrew system.)

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

What I don't want is a system in which:

-Characters can be masters in some skills and suckers in every other skill.(3.5)

-Characters can be masters in a few skills and good enough in every other skill.(SAGA)

Define "good enough." That's essentially what this entire argument has been about, regardless of what bad examples and strawmen both sides have brought up.

In Saga, "good enough" means "I will fail ~90% of checks when there are enemies near my level in the mix."

However, it is being portrayed as "I am good at everything" by those who oppose the system.

Speaking of bad examples....

Chewie didn't bluff anyone. It was Han and Luke who did the disguising and bluffing. Incidentally, if we MUST be dogmatic about it, they made their disguise checks and any bluff checks that might have happened off-screen, but failed the only bluff check we saw them make against the commander in the cell block. Again, if we were going to apply Saga rules, if that commander was 2 levels lower than them or higher, he would almost certainly have won the opposed check, which he did.

What I have yet to see anyone explain cogently.... why is this a problem? If I'm a level 10 character, using a skill I've been exposed to and perhaps coached in by my adventuring buddies, is it entirely beyond reason that I would win opposed checks against level 1-5 or so characters who are also not trained in the skill? Is it also entirely beyond reason that being a seasoned adventurer might have taught me enough tricks to have an even chance of parity at mundane tasks with a trained neophyte (level 1 person)? This trained neophyte is STILL going to mop the floor with me in complicated tasks, since I can't even attempt them untrained.

Seriously. One attempt at telling me why that makes no sense would be nice.

 

[F4NBOY]

Define "good enough."

In D&D:
You are master in a skill in which you have max ranks and maybe skill focus.
You are good enough in a skill in which you have half of your max ranks, or max ranks in a cross class skill.
You are a sucker in a skill in which you have no ranks or just 1.

In Saga
You are a master in a trained skill with Skill Focus.
You are good enough in the trained only skills.
You are a sucker in the skills... Well, now comes the part that intirely concearns personal taste. in which you are untrained.

Why do Wizards get 1/2 lvl bonus to their BAB?
Because knowing how to fight is part of being an adventurer. All of them need at least some kind of combat training. It's an important "skill" in the game.
If you give the same bonus to all skills, you are considering that all of them are important to the game.
You are considering that all the skills are somehow important to the adventurous life. So every character learns a bit of everything through his career, the same way the wizards learn a bit of combat, granting him the 1/2 BAB.
That's Ok, I could leave with that....

Ok, i've just changed my mind while writing this post.
If Dorkis the 20th wizard can get +10 to his BAB without ever fighting anyone, I don't see why Destructor the 20th barbarian can't get +10 to Spellcraft without ever casting a spell.
I just hope they keep a keen eye on the "this skill can't be used untrained".

 

[Henry]

Ok, i've just changed my mind while writing this post.
If Dorkis the 20th wizard can get +10 to his BAB without ever fighting anyone, I don't see why Destructor the 20th barbarian can't get +10 to Spellcraft without ever casting a spell.
I just hope they keep a keen eye on the "this skill can't be used untrained".

Neither do I - But I'd like to see an option (in the DMG if nothing else) that allows for a player to be more discerning with his skills than to slap one huge bonus on them or leave them alone entirely.

It seems like some debaters are seeing this like 4E will be SAGA with no changes, and the opposing debaters seem to think that the former group wants 3E's skill system with no changes whatsoever. I'd rather have Star Wars saga as a base, but with an option that doesn't make it mandatory for a character to have a bonus in every single skill across the board.

I have no problem with BAB going up , and hit points going up, because those are the bread and butter to every adventurer. But Climbing is not the bread and butter of every character, neither is forgery, or magic device use, etc. Some characters might go their whole careers with having to climb a cliff once, or never forging a single document; but I don't think I've ever seen a wizard who hasn't made several attack rolls, or took damage (especially since 3.5, because those orb spells are really darned good!)

 

[F4NBOY]

I have no problem with BAB going up , and hit points going up, because those are the bread and butter to every adventurer. But Climbing is not the bread and butter of every character, neither is forgery, or magic device use, etc. Some characters might go their whole careers with having to climb a cliff once, or never forging a single document; but I don't think I've ever seen a wizard who hasn't made several attack rolls, or took damage (especially since 3.5, because those orb spells are really darned good!)

I changed my mind but I'm still divided because of that issue.

Maybe a character should gain 1/2 of his class level as a bonus to the class skills for that specific class, so a wizard 4/rogue 4 gets 2 ranks in Spot, 2 ranks in spellcraft and 4 ranks in Decipher script. He gets +5 in the trained skills and +5 in the focused skills. Of course he can only be trained in any of his class skills.
Too complicated?

Of course, on the top of all that, I still stand with Iron Heroes skill system.

 

[pemerton]

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.

Just adding a voice in favour of Victim's response to F4nboy.

I really think there is a coherence problem with D&D 3.x. The BAB and HP rules are heroic in flavour, in the sense that every mid-to-high level character is a warrior of some skill when measured against the typical soldier (a 1st or 2nd level NPC Warrior).

Or looking at it another way: by 14th level the average wizard has BAB and hp comparable to a lion; at 10th level the typical fighter will probably beat that lion in unarmed combat (assume DEX 16 and ST 18, giving AC 12 and 1d3+4 unarmed damge: the fighter delivers a bit over 10 hits per round (ignoring power attack) while taking 15 - the lion is unconscious in 3 rounds and the fighter is still standing).

For a human to beat a lion unarmed is a feat of supreme phyiscal heroism! It seems slightly absurd, to me at least, that such a character is at risk of drowning in a small lake on a perfectly still summer's day. But the D&D skill system makes this possible, because it is gritty in flavour, like Runequest or Rolemaster or classic Traveller.

From what I've heard about 4E it will try to eliminate much of this sort of incoherence. As far as skills are concerned, I'd imagine that gritty will bite the dust.

by the time a wizard gets a +3 BAB the opportunity cost of a simple melee attack in combat is so high that in practically never happens in my games. (Never at all that I can recall). But I can think of times that weaknesses in physical skills such as climb or swim has played a role in the challenges faced by the party. So I'm not going to accept that a disconnect that comes up periodically is ok simply because it is comparable to another disconnect that technically exists but virtually never comes up.

If climbing or swimming comes up in an encounter then the same opportunity cost will be there, as 4E encounters will be designed so that the wizard's role is to cast a spell (perhaps a levitate spell, or one that stills the ocean waves or parts the waters), not to piddle around with half-baked skill attempts.

On the other hand, if you are envisaging climing or swimming in non-encounter contexts - eg the party comes to a cliff that it must scale, or a lake that it must cross, before it can get to the next dungeon/room/monster/whatever, then I don't think 4E will support that sort of play. The exploration/expedition aspects of D&D are, I think, being relegated to past editions. (This issue was discussed, among other things, on this now-closed thread and on this thread also.)