Suggestion: Fixing skills for 4 E

[MerricB]

Could someone give me a quick overview of how the Saga edition skills work or point me in the right direction so I can understand this thread better? I don't own the SW RPG, but I am interested to know how the skills work in the system.

You have a base bonus of 1/2 your level + ability modifier in *every* skill.

You choose a number of skills depending on class & intelligence modifier to become Trained. This unlocks certain uses and gives a +5 to your bonus.

You may take Skill Focus in a skill to give an additional +5.

There are no other ways of gaining bonuses to skills, however talents and racial abilities may give you the ability to reroll various skills.

The skill list has also been collapsed a bit more.

Cheers!

 

[KarinsDad]

I prefer a system of get a weakness, do not get a strength.

Flaws should not be a reason to gain a talent or a feat, otherwise, nearly every PC will get one.

Flaws should be just that. A flaw.

Just because the desert dweller cannot Swim does not mean that he suddenly can see in the dark.

Flaws should be a Roleplaying tool, not a games mechanic tool.

And that way, if a player wanted 5 Flaws, good for him. Knock himself out because there are no game mechanics advantages for doing so.

 

[Doc_Klueless]

You have a base bonus of 1/2 your level + ability modifier in *every* skill.

You choose a number of skills depending on class & intelligence modifier to become Trained. This unlocks certain uses and gives a +5 to your bonus.

You may take Skill Focus in a skill to give an additional +5.

There are no other ways of gaining bonuses to skills, however talents and racial abilities may give you the ability to reroll various skills.

The skill list has also been collapsed a bit more.

That would really releave the players from having to muck about with skill points (one of the complaints of my former players) who didn't enjoy that sort of thing. Oh, *I* did and still do, but I wouldn't miss it all that much. Might make it much, much quicker to make up NPCs, too.

 

[erf_beto]

I never played SWSE, but I think the rule of "1 flaw = 1 talent/feat" is just too much! As some already noticed, you can take a flaw in something you'll never use (because it's not your area of expertise or another party member already has it), and get an unrelated feat to 'balance it'. It's not balance: buffing yourself to fight a horde of orcs is always better than cursing just a single one of them. My suggestion: flaws/feats that can only be taken at 1st level and look like these:

Book Worm
You spent so much time studying indoors that your body is not accostumed to physical stress.
Flaw: you are considered Inept in Athletics and Acrobatics (you dont get + 1/2 level while using these skills).
Benefit: you gain +2 at any two Knowledge skills.
Special: you can become Adept in said skills while retaining these benefits, by spending one feat slot.

Deset Dweller
All your life, you lived in an arid environment.
Flaw: you are considered Inept in any skill that relates to water, like swimming or maneuvering a boat (you dont get + 1/2 level while using these skills).
Benefit: you gain +2 at Survival skill checks whenever you are in an arid or deserted environment.
Special: you can overcome this flaw while retaining these benefits by spending one feat slot.

It's a small (but convincing) bonus, to a greater threat. I'm not sure how balanced this would be in SWSE, though.

As far as granularity, I never liked it. Character creation takes way too much time IMHO whenever you have to assign skill points. For those who like it, why not make every skill 'granular' (much like 3E), and each skill feat grants 5 skill points to spend on your class skills. As I said, I never played SWSE so I dont know if the math is right but if done correctly, you could even use both approaches in the same game: Players would use D&D 3E skill points, for maximum customization, and NPCs use SWSE skill feats, for faster gameplay.

 

[Crashy75]

I like the direction erf_beto is going in but I'd prefer that every character get a trait at first level (optional, but doesn't charge a feat or talent). I like the idea of a marginal bonus with a substantial penalty. I'm not sure of the balance of such things as well, but I'll leave that to the numbers guys.

Brute
You rely on your menacing stare and brutish appearance to communicate.
Flaw: you are considered Inept on Persuasion: Diplomacy checks (you don’t get + 1/2 level nor any bonuses for being trained or focused while making these skill checks)
Benefit: you gain +2 at any Persuasion: Intimidate checks.

Dandy
Your natural charm and demeanor lightens the hart but doesn't scare your enemies one bit.
Flaw: you are considered Inept on Persuasion: Intimidate checks (you don’t get + 1/2 level nor any bonuses for being trained or focused while using these checks)
Benefit: you gain +2 to Persuasion: Diplomacy checks.

EDIT: nor any bonuses for being trained or focused...

 

[Roman]

I never played SWSE, but I think the rule of "1 flaw = 1 talent/feat" is just too much!

Well, I only mentioned a feat as an example of a mechanical benefit, because it is a generic 1 rule and because we do not know the exact mechanics in 4E to be able to suggest something in much more detail. I too think getting a feat for each Inept Skill would be a bit too much, hence the proposal to either cap the number or introduce diminishing returns (more than one Inept Skill needed to get a feat beyond the first). A good way to go instead of getting a feat may be just to add another skill to the character's list of class skills, as I suggested in one of my above posts, since this would require further investment of resources by the character to gain any benefit from.

As some already noticed, you can take a flaw in something you'll never use (because it's not your area of expertise or another party member already has it), and get an unrelated feat to 'balance it'. It's not balance: buffing yourself to fight a horde of orcs is always better than cursing just a single one of them. My suggestion: flaws/feats that can only be taken at 1st level and look like these:

Book Worm
You spent so much time studying indoors that your body is not accostumed to physical stress.
Flaw: you are considered Inept in Athletics and Acrobatics (you dont get + 1/2 level while using these skills).
Benefit: you gain +2 at any two Knowledge skills.
Special: you can become Adept in said skills while retaining these benefits, by spending one feat slot.

Deset Dweller
All your life, you lived in an arid environment.
Flaw: you are considered Inept in any skill that relates to water, like swimming or maneuvering a boat (you dont get + 1/2 level while using these skills).
Benefit: you gain +2 at Survival skill checks whenever you are in an arid or deserted environment.
Special: you can overcome this flaw while retaining these benefits by spending one feat slot.

It's a small (but convincing) bonus, to a greater threat.

Yes, this would indeed be better than giving a straight feat. I did mention that I would prefer to see targeted benefits related to each Inept skill, such as slightly improved resistance to dehydration if one is Inept in the Swim skill. The problem is that it would require the creation of a separate flavorful benefit for each skill, which may prove difficult. Your idea, however, of making the flaws not only thematic, but resulting in multiple Inept skills all related to the theme would alleviate that problem somewhat, as fewer separate flaws would need to be created and it is flavorful. I certainly like it!

 

[jimgoings]

You have a base bonus of 1/2 your level + ability modifier in *every* skill.

You choose a number of skills depending on class & intelligence modifier to become Trained. This unlocks certain uses and gives a +5 to your bonus.

You may take Skill Focus in a skill to give an additional +5.

Interesting. It certainly simplifies things, but doesn't that mean that all characters are at least somewhat good in everything. So a 10th level character would have at least +5 in every skill, no matter how obscure? I like it and I don't.

How does it work in play? Do you think it will apply well to D&D?

 

[Victim]

Interesting. It certainly simplifies things, but doesn't that mean that all characters are at least somewhat good in everything. So a 10th level character would have at least +5 in every skill, no matter how obscure? I like it and I don't.

How does it work in play? Do you think it will apply well to D&D?

Except for attribute penalties. While characters have bonuses to every skill, they aren't trained in each skill so many uses are out of bounds. For example, like in 3.x, knowledge checks are trained only (except DC 10 common knowledge). So really obscure things are probably trained only applications.

 

[Roman]

Interesting. It certainly simplifies things, but doesn't that mean that all characters are at least somewhat good in everything. So a 10th level character would have at least +5 in every skill, no matter how obscure?

That's more or less correct (though some uses require "Trained" status with the skill) and it is precisely why I would like there to be a possibility for "Inept" status on a skill that could be acquired with flaws (compensated by some minor mechanical benefit).

 

[Roman]

I prefer a system of get a weakness, do not get a strength.

Flaws should not be a reason to gain a talent or a feat, otherwise, nearly every PC will get one.

Flaws should be just that. A flaw.

Just because the desert dweller cannot Swim does not mean that he suddenly can see in the dark.

Flaws should be a Roleplaying tool, not a games mechanic tool.

Mechanics, however, are there to support the roleplaying. I would not rest if one of my players got a flaw without an offset in another area and would be forced to come up with something to give him myself. It is far better, if it is covered in the rules and thus balanced, plus the rules calculate with that possibility.