Skills?

[Falling Icicle]

Another thing, I have no problem seeing people become more and more specialized as they gain levels. If I'm a mighty wizard, why would I waste time dabbling in "useless" skills? Why would I bother to learn to climb when I can cast levitate? Why would I learn to swim when I can polymorph into a fish? Why do I care to learn the arts of diplomacy when I can bend people's minds to my will?

You didn't read about Raistlin climbing up castle walls or doing somersaults, even at the height of his power. And why would he? He was rightly more interested in improving his skills in magic.

Of course, I'm not trying to put down people who do chose to have their characters learn such skills, I'm simply making the point that every single high level character wouldn't and shouldn't learn to do *everything.* Being someone with such a broad array of talents is an achievement into and of itself, and as the old saying goes, such a person is a "jack of all trades, but master of none."

 

[ptolemy18]

I can understand the desire to simplify skill points. It certainly is one of the most number-crunchy and time-consuming aspects of D&D. Although I do hope that skills will remain really something that is player-customizable, i.e., you CAN play a 20th level fighter without any Spellcraft if you want to. (To quote from everyone's Conan example.) If skills are merely hardwired into your character's class and level without any choice element, that's lame and boring. I'd frankly rather have skills vanish and become feats if this is the case. ("Hmm... I'm 3rd level... shall I take the Athletics feat or the Perception feat?")

And speaking of customized skills... I'd like to wave a lighter for the much-maligned Knowledge and Profession (and even Craft) skills! Even though Profession and Craft hardly ever have any actual play effect, I hope the core rulebook includes at least an offhanded comment about how, if you choose, you CAN spend skill points to make your character an expert in Cooking, Gambling, Astrology, Tailoring, Flower Arranging, Blacksmithing, Swordsmithing, Boat Piloting, etc. etc. yadda yadda. (I'm thinking now of 2nd edition's lengthy and silly skill list...) Why, I've played plenty of characters who had an extra couple of skill points spent on some bizarre-ass made-up skill.

The inclusion of these useless-in-combat skills is good for the following reasons:

(1) The core rulebook is gonna be read by a lot of newbies, and even a brief mention that your character can spend points on (relatively) useless skills of your own invention sets a good example that role-playing can be about ROLE-playing, not roll-playing.
(2) These kinds of Profession, Craft and Knowledge skills are good general categories which lend themselves to lots of applications in 3rd party supplements, i.e, in "Skull and Bones" there's a lot of applications for the made-up "Knowledge (sea lore)". It opens up the game for customization.

So, fight the good fight, Profession, Craft and Knowledge. And if you're not in that D&D4E Player's Handbook in some form -- all I ask is the slightest mention "you are welcome to invent new skills if you think they will be useful in your campaign or if you feel like using them to customize your character" -- then I will be sorely annoyed.

 

[ptolemy18]

And to be honest, I don't particularly like the huge emphasis on levels either. Why not give the character's attributes a greater role instead? If I'm a very dextrous person, then it is reasonable to assume that I should be able to tumble, balance, etc fairly well, even without training. Having that based on levels makes broad experience and dabbling much more significant than natural ability, and I don't like that at all. A 20 Dexterity ends up meaning less than 20 levels in a class that has no emphasis on such skills whatsoever. I'm not comfortable with that.

Preach on, Brother Falling Icicle!

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Comparing skills to BAB and HP is a false analogy, I think.

BAB is only a part of the combat equation, and a 10th level Wizard's +5 BAB expresses itself primarily in his ability to target magical rays at his opponents. For a Wizard, BAB is expressed primarily as hand-eye coordination. Should the Wizard start feeling froggy and whip out his staff for a little hand-to-hand, a simple non-magical breastplate negates all the Wizard's "combat prowess" that he has learned over 10 levels. Should he manage to land a solid blow, he's probably dealing somewhere in the range of 4-6 points of damage.

If you have a problem with a 10th level Wizard hitting a typical bandit-in-breastplate about 50% of the time and even then, in all likelihood, only wounding and not killing him, you're pretty far gone.

A 5th level warrior also has a +5 BAB, but he'll also have a STR bonus to damage; Feat bonuses; and he is far more likely to have invested in a magic weapon.

Though they have the same BAB, the 5th level warrior is head and shoulders above the Wizard in standard combat.

With regards to HP, they are already such an abstraction that it is hard to even justify arguing about. Suffice to say that hit points are a better abstraction of Heroism than they are of Physical Toughness.

Sometimes I think Hit Points would be better off being renamed Fate Points.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I never defended the BAB rules in 3.5 edition, so don't put those words in my mouth.

That said, it isn't quite the same thing. D&D focuses heavily on combat, so it is fairly safe to assume that even wizards spend at least some of their time training in this area. It is quite another stretch to assume that the wizard has also spent time trianing in climbing, swimming, jumping, diplomacy, intimidating, sneaking, etc etc etc.

But, consider this: Maybe D&D 4 edition will not force you to focus in combat. You can do everything, and no character will feel left out just because it is not his character's focus (but if it happens to be the character's focus, you can rest assured he is good at it and will be able to use his strengths...) I like that idea very much.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

But, consider this: Maybe D&D 4 edition will not force you to focus in combat. You can do everything, and no character will feel left out just because it is not his character's focus (but if it happens to be the character's focus, you can rest assured he is good at it and will be able to use his strengths...) I like that idea very much.

The game is being redesigned and rebalanced around the combat encounter.

"You will be able to contribute in combat!" pretty much seems like a core design philosophy.

That's not to say the game is going to be all combat, all the time-- just saying I wouldn't expect a de-emphasis on combat.

 

[Stalker0]

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!)

On the other hand, that wizard has probably heard about his fighter buddies talk about that nasty mountain climb, or seen a hoard of crazy monsters climbing around and picked up a few things.

We have to remember, 20th level characters are darn near diety status but most traditional fantasy standards (there's a good thread somewhere talking about how Gandalf is 6th level).

Take swim for example. The 20th level wizard is in raging water, and has never swam a day in his life. But he knows how to control his fear, and he's learned some nymerian breathing techniques from a yogi he met a few years back, and he remembers a small magic charm spell that helps him out underwater, and the god of water owes him a favor. There are so many reasons why a high level character could have general competence.

And from a dm perspective, just assign background bonuses and penalties if its really important for a character to be truly sucky.

Also, some people are complaining that if everyone has general competance then their mastery will mean nothing. I think its exactly the opposite. Let's say your rogue is a master thief. Currently, he would be the only one to sneak into the castle. With a general bonus, the party might be able to sneak into the castle, but only you can sneak past the elite guards. That way if you get into trouble, your party is not halfway around the world.

Or disguise. The party might be able to sneak into a party, but only the rogue can actually talk to the head guy, who knows his guest well. The party can interact, but the rogue gets the spotlight. That makes it more fun for everyone in my opinion, and on that basis alone, I think general competance is the way to go.

 

[Felon]

Just because someone has gained power and experience and journeyed around the world doesn't mean they should gain skill at everything. It's all a matter of training.

Not so in many cases. Demonstrably not so.

Trained-only uses of a skill are all about training, granted. But untrained uses are allowed for most skills exactly because there are other factors beyond training. Not all amateurs are on equal footing. Self-confidence, determination, and resourcefulness are the cornerstones of general capability. When the hero attempts a Climb check, he doesn't fall because he needs to succeed. He remains calm when others would grope desperately and slip. He thinks quickly when others would panic and fail to catch themselves.

The same applies to just about any untrained check, be it Disguise, Survival, or Stealth. The seasoned adventurer thinks of ways to succeed that the other guy doesn't. He doesn't stumble as often, and when he does he recovers more quickly.

And let's not forget good ol' luck. We accept that heroes are favored by fate when it comes to saving throws; I don't think heroes get some special training to withstand poison, for instance. So, why's it hard to accept with skills checks?

Bottom line: heroes are about getting the job done.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

The game is being redesigned and rebalanced around the combat encounter.

"You will be able to contribute in combat!" pretty much seems like a core design philosophy.

That's not to say the game is going to be all combat, all the time-- just saying I wouldn't expect a de-emphasis on combat.

Yes, but this doesn't need to mean that they will also keep "non-combat" de-emphasized as it is in D&D.

Of course, I'm not trying to put down people who do chose to have their characters learn such skills, I'm simply making the point that every single high level character wouldn't and shouldn't learn to do *everything.* Being someone with such a broad array of talents is an achievement into and of itself, and as the old saying goes, such a person is a "jack of all trades, but master of none."

A Jack of all trade in a Saga-based skill system is someone who has skill training in every skill, but never bothered to learn skill focus or get a reroll ability for his skills. He can do these skills fairly competent, but against a real specialist, he still isn't all that great. he also spent a lot of his resources on getting this skill training, so this means he also won't be a master of anything outside of skills.

 

[Felon]

Take swim for example. The 20th level wizard is in raging water, and has never swam a day in his life. But he knows how to control his fear, and he's learned some nymerian breathing techniques from a yogi he met a few years back, and he remembers a small magic charm spell that helps him out underwater, and the god of water owes him a favor. There are so many reasons why a high level character could have general competence.

Well-said. When it comes right down to it, decisiveness and good instincts can get you through a lot.

Also, some people are complaining that if everyone has general competance then their mastery will mean nothing. I think its exactly the opposite. Let's say your rogue is a master thief. Currently, he would be the only one to sneak into the castle. With a general bonus, the party might be able to sneak into the castle, but only you can sneak past the elite guards. That way if you get into trouble, your party is not halfway around the world.

Or disguise. The party might be able to sneak into a party, but only the rogue can actually talk to the head guy, who knows his guest well. The party can interact, but the rogue gets the spotlight. That makes it more fun for everyone in my opinion, and on that basis alone, I think general competance is the way to go.

This is really the point that folks need to get. Stop arguing abstractions and look at the bottom line. I have seen one party after another abandon any thought of trying to finesse their way through an encounter because the unskilled characters were not equipped to pull it off. Either the party has some spells or potions on hand for the situation, or they'll just say "screw it" and apply brute force. They'd rather go down fighting than blunder their way through a problem. I suspect I'm not alone in having experienced that.