Untrained/trained Skills....Noooo!

[FadedC]

We seem to be getting a little too hung up on the crippled wizard example. D&D doesn't really have rules for being crippled (in part because it's assumed most injuries are cured by magical healing), and PCs are not generally playing ancient withered old men, crippled or otherwise. Any inclusion of this would require house rules no matter what system they were included in.

If the goal is to discuss rules, using wizard PCs is a better frame of reference......those being what the rules are designed to cover.

 

[Zurai]

We seem to be getting a little too hung up on the crippled wizard example. D&D doesn't really have rules for being crippled (in part because it's assumed most injuries are cured by magical healing), and PCs are not generally playing ancient withered old men, crippled or otherwise. Any inclusion of this would require house rules no matter what system they were included in.

Not true. The PHB has rules for playing venerable characters. Venerable gives a -6 penalty to physical stats and a +3 bonus to mental stats.

 

[DandD]

I and the others never said that the wizard was naked, although being defeated in hand-to-hand-combat by a naked old man who normaly slings spells that destroy country-sides and bend reality would truely be the ultimate humiliation.

However, as you said, the entire combat system isn't realistic. So, if the non-realistic combat system that makes high-level characters more capable in combat than low-level character is still going to apply somehow in D&D in the new edition, although tweaked, then so should the skill system.

It's always poor rules design if combat and non-combat rules function entirely in a different way so that you have to memorize two distinctive rule sets instead of only one. If there were only minor differences, it would be okay.

 

[BryonD]

You know, the old crippled wizard is going to have a +6 Base REF save and a +10 BAB.
If he is old and crippled then I'm going to assume a -3 minimum DEX and STR mods. So I'd say that he pretty much isn't going to hit the fighter or avoid the fireball.

And that is before you slap on some circumstance bonuses to account for the absurdity of the "old crippled" example.

As to wanting to be able to do everything, I simply reject that notion. I mean, I'm certain there are some players out there that can get off on being handed everything and then slap themselves on the back for their "accomplishment". But, lets be honest, you don't need a book for that. I've played in many many games where the whole point was that the party is facing REAL challenges. And, quite frequently, they flat out can not overcome the challenge by the direct route. If I'm not afraid to throw a giant at the party knowing full well that they pretty much can not beat him in a fight, then I'm not going to be afraid to throw a wall the wizard can't climb in their path. And if you really think that games don't work that way then I'm forced to assume that you haven't the faintest clue what you are really missing out on. Coming up with solutions that are more thoughtful than "roll to hit" and make three skill checks is the source of the real fun, achievement and sense of connection to a character.

If you want all powerful characters then you can have that now. Just take your 3X characters and rule that they have 1/2 level ranks in every skill that they don't already have more than that in. Or just freaking declare that any roll over a 6 is a success in all cases. Adjust to your own taste.

But if 4E came out with an assumption of every wizard everywhere knows how to climb and hide and swim, then everything that follows will have to be built with that assumption ingrained. It is a hell of a lot easier to turn up your PCs than it is to turn down the rest of the campaign setting. So gamers who want to experience actual challenges will pretty much have to turn elsewhere.

So, I'm fairly hopefully optimistic that WotC is well aware of this thinking and won't go alienating a significant portion of their base just to give a separate group something they can have with a simple house rule.

 

[pawsplay]

Personally would be terrified of facing an old geezer with a quarterstaff who had been through level x 13 appropriate CR encounters. Honestly, if a first level character can be proficient in all martial weapons, you don't think someone who adventures for years with Regdar is going to pick up a trick or two? Wussy wizards are pretty unrealistic, not to mention rare in fiction.

 

[Zurai]

I and the others never said that the wizard was naked, although being defeated in hand-to-hand-combat by a naked old man who normaly slings spells that destroy country-sides and bend reality would truely be the ultimate humiliation.

And my example didn't assume he was naked. Wizards generally don't use armor, and using magic items defeats the purpose of the example. You DID say "unarmed" and implied "without magic", though, which is the ruleset I used.

However, as you said, the entire combat system isn't realistic. So, if the non-realistic combat system that makes high-level characters more capable in combat than low-level character is still going to apply somehow in D&D in the new edition, although tweaked, then so should the skill system.

I don't see how you can possibly reason that the level 20 magicless wizard is more capable in combat than the level 1 fully geared knight, except that the wizard can withstand ever so slightly more punishment.

On top of that, with the same example characters, the Knight won't be any worse than the wizard at any skills you should expect him to be reasonable at.

Climb? He's got a -3 check from armor, but a +3 strength and as many as 4 skill points in it; the wizard has a --4 strength and at most 11 skill points in it - but most probably 0. The knight would reasonably have a +4, but the wizard would likely have a -4 (I've seen even fewer wizards put points in Climb, cross-class, than I've seen devote points to strength).

Ride? Not even a contest. The knight has a +1 dex bonus and almost certainly 4 ranks in the skill, while the wizard has a -2 to -4 dex penalty and, again, few if any cross-class ranks.

Tumble? Neither character's likely to put any points there.

Spellcraft? Of course the level 20 wizard is going to be more proficient at that than the knight! It's his job!

It's always poor rules design if combat and non-combat rules function entirely in a different way so that you have to memorize two distinctive rule sets instead of only one. If there were only minor differences, it would be okay.

But combat checks and non-combat checks DON'T operate differently at all in 3rd edition. That's the entire POINT of the d20 ruleset. All checks are the same - roll a d20 and check against a set DC. The only difference between attack rolls and skill checks is that a 20 isn't an auto-success on a skill check.

 

[Celebrim]

I and the others never said that the wizard was naked...

AlisterH @ 3:26, and follows.

although being defeated in hand-to-hand-combat by a naked old man who normaly flings spells that destroy country-sides and bend reality would truely be the ultimate humiliation.

I hope you mean that in irony. If I was beaten up by a naked old man who normally destroys country-sides and bends reality, I and probably most observers would assume that the old man in question is not an ordinary old man.

It's always poor rules design if combat and non-combat rules function entirely in a different way so that you have to memorize two distinctive rule sets instead of only one. If there were only minor differences, it would be okay.

There are only minor differences. They only difference is how the different systems scale with level between different classes. Most skills are assumed to not scale at all. This is more realistic and in my opinion makes for a better game than assuming most if not all skills scale with level. It would be more realistic to assume that defences and attacks also don't automatically scale with level, but I think in D&D's case this makes for a worse game because combat is so integral to the default D&D game.

Anyway, I don't particularly see the need for a SAGA like rule set, and I think the SAGA rules set handles skills for multiclassed characters in a much uglier way than D20 rules, and I don't like how it makes high level characters better at everything than low level ones; but, if I had to scale skills with levels I'd add an additional category to the SAGA system - 'unadept'. If a skill wasn't on your classes skill list and wasn't 'trained only', then you were assumed to be 'unadept' in it.

Thus:

Focused: 1/2 Level + Attribute Bonus + 10
Trained: 1/2 Level + Attribute Bonus + 5
Untrained: 1/2 Level + Attribute Bonus
Unadept: 1/4 Level (rounded down) + Attribute Bonus

Experienced characters would still pick up some tricks - maybe the old wizard knows a simple trick for enhancing his jump magically - but they wouldn't be automatically great at everything. I'd have to play test it a bit but something like that would ease my concerns about niche intrusion and the anti-simulationist vibe a little.

 

[Merlin the Tuna]

Said Knight in full plate with tower shield has an AC of 23 (8 armor, 1 dex, 4 shield).

Full plate is well beyond the wealth of 1st level character; a 1st level Fighter gets, on average, 150 gp -- full plate costs 10 times that. Scale mail is more like it, putting him at AC 19 (4 Armor, 1 Dex, 4 shield).

Also, it doesn't look like you took into consideration that the Wizard gets two attacks per round, one of which the Fighter/Knight whatever probably isn't getting an AoO for.

The Wizard could alternatively grapple the warrior and most likely win.

 

[Zurai]

Full plate is well beyond the wealth of 1st level character; a 1st level Fighter gets, on average, 150 gp -- full plate costs 10 times that. Scale mail is more like it, putting him at AC 19 (4 Armor, 1 Dex, 4 shield).

Didn't read the example, did you? The example was a level 1 knight with full plate and tower shield.

Also, it doesn't look like you took into consideration that the Wizard gets two attacks per round, one of which the Fighter/Knight whatever probably isn't getting an AoO for.

True. So it only takes 26 rounds, not 52. The Knight still only takes 4 to subdue the crazy old man.

The Wizard could alternatively grapple the warrior and most likely win.

The Wizard could never establish a grapple in the first place. Grappling provokes AoO's, and a hit on the AoO disrupts the grapple attempt. Not to mention that the wizard only has a +6 grapple vs the knight's +4.

 

[FadedC]

Not true. The PHB has rules for playing venerable characters. Venerable gives a -6 penalty to physical stats and a +3 bonus to mental stats.

Note I never said there were no rules for being venerable, just that there were no rules for being crippled. There are also no rules for playing a venerable PC, and I doubt the rules are focused around maintaining any kind of realism or common sense for them.

I may have been the first one to mention the wizard vs. the squad of lvl 1 soldiers, but I should mention that it was not my point to say he would kill them all with his staff, simply that he would survive for a surprisingly long time with them trying to kill him. Your standard high level PC wizard with say 8 strength, 14 con and 12 dex would probably be up for several rounds against them. Perhaps it's just me, but I'm imagining some fancy maneuvering to survive that long, which seems consistant with having some basic jumping and balacing ability.