-
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
The Grackle
First Post
I'm all for the SAGA system (from what I understand of it) modified a bit for D&D.
I actually see this development as very D&Dish-- a class/level based system and not a point a buy. It gives you options, but also forces you to advance in a certain way at a certain rate. You don't pick which saves to boost each level, for example. Skills are the one point-buy part of 3e, and they show the flaw of point-buys, i.e. sucking hard at everything but that one thing you're totally awesome at. Changing that a little doesn't seem bad to me.
Honestly, I'm all for a character with an interesting weak point, but I'm all against all characters of a class having (the same) dozen or so weak points. That doesn't define your character, it makes him exactly like all the other amazing fighters who can't tie their shoes or powerful wizards that can't do a pull up. For interesting weak points, you need Flaw/Disadvantage rules.
***
Also, this system (like many of the changes) seems to be for the benefit of adventure-designers. Balance checks on a heaving boat are not fun if everyone but the rogue will certainly fail. If the rogue will likely succeed and the others all have a chance, that's an exciting event that still showcases the rogues skills.
I actually see this development as very D&Dish-- a class/level based system and not a point a buy. It gives you options, but also forces you to advance in a certain way at a certain rate. You don't pick which saves to boost each level, for example. Skills are the one point-buy part of 3e, and they show the flaw of point-buys, i.e. sucking hard at everything but that one thing you're totally awesome at. Changing that a little doesn't seem bad to me.
Honestly, I'm all for a character with an interesting weak point, but I'm all against all characters of a class having (the same) dozen or so weak points. That doesn't define your character, it makes him exactly like all the other amazing fighters who can't tie their shoes or powerful wizards that can't do a pull up. For interesting weak points, you need Flaw/Disadvantage rules.
***
Also, this system (like many of the changes) seems to be for the benefit of adventure-designers. Balance checks on a heaving boat are not fun if everyone but the rogue will certainly fail. If the rogue will likely succeed and the others all have a chance, that's an exciting event that still showcases the rogues skills.
IanArgent
First Post
I would love to see a saga-type system where skills scale with level. I could set an encounter on difficult ground that requires, say, a balance check every round (such as, I dunno, the deck of a tossing ship, or an slick/icy surface, etc) beyond first level and both challenge the fighter/wizard/cleric without making them suck, and at the same time not make it trivial for the skill monkey who has spent his time maxing his balance. I can't do this right now. There's an encounter in the "Shadows of the Last War" which takes place on a sheet of glass that requires anyone who moves to take a DC 15 or so balance check (I don't have the module handy). This is fine for a 2nd level encounter, the rogue who has been maxing Balance is +5 skill relative to the rest of the party (who hasn't) before stat and equipment adjustments. The rogue has an easier time of it, but the rest of the party isn't rendered ineffective.
I could not run this encounter at higher levels; either the skill monkey isn't challenged at all, or the rest of the party is non-functional. There's a bunch of skills that this applies to, incidentally. And concentrating on the Wizards ability to use arcane magic to bypass environmental hazards doesn't help the Cleric, the mounted fighter who's been maxing ride instead of swim, or even the rogue who has been dumping skill points into social rather than environmental skills.
From the behind-the-screen point of view; I have a lot more freedom in encounter design if I can assume there is a 10-point spread at most between the untrained and skill monkey characters (before stat adjustments). Beyond that, Saga gives re-rolls (either pick the best or pick the last, depending) to increase the likelihood of the skill monkey making a check, without decreasing the probability that the non-skilled will make the check. Essentially, right now; no-one takes Balance or Swim, because outside of a few specialized situations, there's no way I'm going to set up an encounter for the party that uses those skills because it would hose the players who didn't take balance/swim. That's not fun. Really not fun, especially if the consequence of failing a check is DEATH. (Which shouldn't be a consequence of failing a single check ever, but that's a consequence of encounter design. No, I don't like save or die spells, either, why do you ask?![:]](http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/devious.png "Devious :]")
)
I could not run this encounter at higher levels; either the skill monkey isn't challenged at all, or the rest of the party is non-functional. There's a bunch of skills that this applies to, incidentally. And concentrating on the Wizards ability to use arcane magic to bypass environmental hazards doesn't help the Cleric, the mounted fighter who's been maxing ride instead of swim, or even the rogue who has been dumping skill points into social rather than environmental skills.
From the behind-the-screen point of view; I have a lot more freedom in encounter design if I can assume there is a 10-point spread at most between the untrained and skill monkey characters (before stat adjustments). Beyond that, Saga gives re-rolls (either pick the best or pick the last, depending) to increase the likelihood of the skill monkey making a check, without decreasing the probability that the non-skilled will make the check. Essentially, right now; no-one takes Balance or Swim, because outside of a few specialized situations, there's no way I'm going to set up an encounter for the party that uses those skills because it would hose the players who didn't take balance/swim. That's not fun. Really not fun, especially if the consequence of failing a check is DEATH. (Which shouldn't be a consequence of failing a single check ever, but that's a consequence of encounter design. No, I don't like save or die spells, either, why do you ask?
)The Grackle said:
With a maximum 10 pt spread, this is my main liking of the Saga system. I can use skills in adventures and not have to worry "ok, this is an auto-succeed for the rogue but everyone else looks like they're boned".
Monsters/Spells are designed with the idea that "this will be an appropriate challenge for this level" but the current system of skills means that one can't use skills at all because of the HUGE divergence between characters.
Ankh-Morpork Guard
First Post
The only problem I have with the Saga system is the lack of Crafting rules...instead its just handwaved. I can understand why its done, I just don't like that part of it.
And if that still carries over to 4e with the rest of the skill system staying roughly the same as it is in Saga...I'll live. Its a small thing, in the end, and the skill system is nice and easy to use.
And if that still carries over to 4e with the rest of the skill system staying roughly the same as it is in Saga...I'll live. Its a small thing, in the end, and the skill system is nice and easy to use.
BryonD
Hero
The rogue makes the balance checks, the mage and cleric use magic to either overcome or avoid the checks. The fighter either makes the checks, or climbs, or uses some kind of magic. Or perhaps this is that time that the rogue gets to save the fighter's butt. After all, everyone should shine some of the time.IanArgent said:
But "non-functional" is just way off from how I have every found the current system to work. Way way off.
On the other hand, if the mage can make the balance checks of the rogue, then the rogue is getting screwed out of his role. You may as well let the rogue start tossing fireballs.
