Skills?

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

They'd rather go down fighting than blunder their way through a problem. I suspect I'm not alone in having experienced that.

You're not.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

It would be trivially easy to satisfy all sides on this issue. Start with SW Saga, and then modify it something like this. (For sake of example, I'll assume that there are about 30 viable D&D skills, including variations on Knowledge skills):

Characters have a skill bonus equal to 1/2 their level, rounded down. This bonus applies to all trained skills. In addition, each character has a number of qualified skills. The skill bonus also applies to these skills. A character starts with 4 qualified skills (chosen from any skill in the skill list), and gains an additional qualified skill every even level.

Option A: Omnicompetence - All untrained skills are considered qualified at 1st level.

Option B: Learning on the Road - Qualified skills need not be selected immediately upon gaining access. Instead, the player can mark a skill as qualified at any time, as long as he has qualified selections remaining, and the DM and players agree that the character could have picked up qualified level of training.



Option A is Saga. The base produces characters that still have a few holes at upper levels, but less as they grow. Option B has all kinds of room for variation, depending on what the group wants. It softens the blow for those groups that want some weaknesses, but also appreciate the Saga aspect of everyone being able to ride or sneak, if it matters.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

Because not everyone is Leonardo da Vinci.

The SAGA system makes everyone a universal polymath. Everyone is handsome, smart, and a world-class athlete by 10th level. It's not only that this is unrealistic, it also does a lousy job of emulating even the most heroic and cinematic of genres.

See.... that's the core misrepresentation, right there. Barring the pure physical skills, skill checks are almost universally opposed checks. You are NOT a polymath, you are simply maintaining parity and achieving the ability to outperform the cannon fodder.

The 10th level fighter will actually get to be as intimidating as he ought to be as the guy who has slain a dragon or two, countless orcs and other nasties, and is wandering around with the bestest, shiniest armor and weapons on the block.

If we assume similar DCs and a Saga-like treatment of trained and untrained, the low level wizard will be able to take 10 on a check to climb a bloody rope and succeed (like your average "90 pound weakling" in gym class manages all the bloody time). He will, however, need someone who has training to do the free climbing first so that the rope is there for him. How does that make him unreasonably capable? If I've been riding horses around and camping outside dungeons and clambering around inside these undead/orc/kobold infested tombs and caves, I should have picked up enough general physical competence to handle that level of exertion when "taking 10" with no distractions or tight time limits.

I will never understand the desire to make your fantasy heroes LESS competent at mundane tasks than the average person on the street.

 

[AllisterH]

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.

Actually, that is part of the equation for rebalancing. Remember, they (WOTC) also mentioned having a better definition of encounter so that non-combat situations would be considered an encounter. It was Mearls that mentioned having an actual "method/template" for how non-combat/diplomatic encounters could be run.

Here's the thing for me personally. In previous editions, it didn't really matter what your skills/secondary skills/NWPs were. They had no effect on your character where it mattered since even if you weren't "skilled", the situation you were in would rarely adversely affect your character.

In such a system, the 3.5 skill system where a 20th level paladin can know nothing at knowledge religion or Diplomacy isn't a big deal since the DM isn't going to make or break you on the single roll.

Once however, skills actually become important to the character's livelihood, I'm more partial to the Saga system.

 

[Stalker0]

The other reason SAGA's skill system is useful is that its dependable. When the system can rely on skills, it can utilize them more. This makes adventure creation easier. Modules can expect 10th level characters to have sneak, even if its just a routine amount. They can expect that a dechiper script check can be attempted, even if no one is a master of it.

 

[breschau]

Bonner's new blog lists his chaos gnome as having 16 Bluff, here.

And before people freak about skill ranks or Saga skills. We don't know exactly what that means. Besides, this is a converted character instead of a start fresh, 1st level character, so there's no telling what level he is.

 

[JustinA]

See.... that's the core misrepresentation, right there. Barring the pure physical skills, skill checks are almost universally opposed checks. You are NOT a polymath, you are simply maintaining parity and achieving the ability to outperform the cannon fodder.

You're basically claiming that Kasparov isn't skilled at chess, because chess is resolved using an opposed check. This makes no sense.

Or, in other words, the phrase "you are NOT a polymath, you are simply achieving the ability to outperform the cannon fodder [in every skill]" doesn't make the slightest bit of sense. That's what being a polymath means.

Justin Alexander
http://www.thealexandrian.net

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Actually, "polymath" means "a person of encyclopedic learning."

I looked it up. Seems to me that a polymath would be the guy with all the knowledge skills trained (because untrained knowledge skills don't get you anything higher than DC 10).

And, he's not claiming that Kasparov isn't skilled at chess. He's saying that Kasparov is skilled at chess and will beat the "polymath" PCs in any Chess skill-off. The PCs, however, will be better at chess than Joe Nobody-Startingout.

 

[FreeXenon]

*BTW: I have not read the whole thread*

I do not know if anyone has mentioned this but the Trained/Untrained thing, if I remember correctly, hearkens back to the Alternity days, and in some ways so does the condition track.

Alternity..... MMMMMmmmmmm!

 

[BryonD]

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.

A) 4 out of 5 times it is not in a round by round encounter. It is still important because it uses up time (if not precise rounds) and resources.

B) On the 5th time, when it is in combat, the comparison is apples to oranges. If the mage spends a round climbing it is because he NEEDS to be at the top of <whatever>. Swinging a sword on the other hand is simply an inferior option for harming a monster.