Untrained/trained Skills....Noooo!

[Zurai]

I actually addressed this point back in post #80. Relevant part quoted:

You did, but you misunderstood what I meant.

I wasn't saying that the CHARACTER can't help but get better at BAB, saves, and so on (although that's certainly true). I was saying that the PLAYER can't help but have their character get better in such a manner.

 

[FourthBear]

You did, but you misunderstood what I meant.

I wasn't saying that the CHARACTER can't help but get better at BAB, saves, and so on (although that's certainly true). I was saying that the PLAYER can't help but have their character get better in such a manner.

Actually, I would guess that it would be pretty easy for a player to help having his character to get better in such a manner. Just tell the DM "I'd like to forfeit my BAB, hps and Fort and Reflex save bonuses. My character concept is such that they don't become any tougher physically". Or he could tell the DM that he automatically fails all checks he deems inappropriate. I would think that most DMs have a problem with adding on extra abilities, not sacrificing them for a character concept. I would imagine such character concepts will be rare enough that the core system doesn't need to represent such characters as the default case. They can be handled by the individual DM and player.

Now, if the character wants to get something in exchange, then things may need to be negotiated. I'll also note that the probability may be high that you end up with an "eggshell with a hammer" character. But this issue of combat ability increases for mages has existed with every edition of D&D. It's there for the same reason as the Saga skill half-level bonuses, to control the range of numbers between character concepts.

 

[Falling Icicle]

Because not all characters will be equally skilled. Might as well ask why have a saving throw system since all characters have a chance to save, or why make a differentiation between Fortitude, Reflex and Will since everybody's saving throws will increase in the long run.

In the same way that a rogue could expect to succeed on a Reflex save 75% of the time when everyone else in the party expects to fail 75% of the time, we can have a skill check that a rogue expects to succeed at 75% of the time while everyone else expects to fail 75% of the time. But - and this is what makes the die roll interesting for all the players - the rogue could still fail, and everyone else could still succeed.

Apples and oranges, imo. Every character has a will, an immune system and reflexes, to some degree. However, not every person is proficient at every trade, sport, craft or knowledge. Saving Throws represent your character's innate ability to shrug off or avoid certain hardships, whereas skills represent areas of training and expertise. And yes, your saves improve as your character increases in level, but that makes perfect sense to me, because every adventurer is exposed to danger and hardship. But not every adventurer is going to learn how to swim, tumble, forge a sword or be able to recite the geneology of a royal family. And in a system like SWSE, not only do *all* adventurers learn these things, they do so simply because he's run around killing alot of monsters. :\

 

[jasin]

If this kind of choice is inherently a good thing, would it be even better if the wizard could choose to not become better at combat? To not advance BAB but advance something else instead: swimming, or Reflex, or spellcraft?

Absolutely.

Ah, then it makes sense you'd be opposed to Saga-like skill.

But then we disagree on a pretty fundamental design issue, since it seems to me that this lack of choice, and resulting lack of option to make unbalanced, overspecialized characters can be very much a good thing, in moderation.

 

[FireLance]

You did, but you misunderstood what I meant.

I wasn't saying that the CHARACTER can't help but get better at BAB, saves, and so on (although that's certainly true). I was saying that the PLAYER can't help but have their character get better in such a manner.

Distinction noted, although in my experience, players seldom complain that their characters improve, although they may quibble over the manner of the improvement. In D&D's class-based system, player influence over most character variables (such as BAB, hit points, and base saving throw bonuses) is expressed through the choice of which class to pursue. The player does not get the option to trade off an increase in Fortitude saves for an increase in Will, for example, except by choosing to take a level in a class with a good Will save progression. Hence, the flexibility of the 3e skill system, while not a bad thing in itself, was already effectively a separate sub-system compared to the other character variables.

I've always thought that a skill system more in keeping with D&D's class-based progression would be one that provided separate rate of advancement for each skill depending on whether it was a "good"/class skill, or a "poor"/cross-class skill. However, this would require quite a bit of tracking and adding, especially for multi-classed characters.

The SWSE system, which provides a base rate of progression for all skills, plus an option for a character to specialize in a small number of skills which are favored by his class (or classes) is a pretty good compromise, in my view.

 

[jasin]

The 'running away from danger case' is particularly the case I had in mind where you could force a group challenge. But there are only so many collapsing castles or the like you can do in a campaign before it becomes silly. In any event, as I said, I can already do this, it just involves using a lower DC than you'd use if you were running SAGA.

A DC lower to the point where it's conceptually silly. To give a 10th-level fighter a chance to traverse a narrow walkway, it cannot be narrow at all, since even a DC 10 check will present problems to him, while a 10th-level rogue might easily have +20 to balance.

Under either rule set, if you set the DC such that the guy with the best balance is even challenged, then if you force a group skill check it is almost certain that someone will fail.

Less certain in Saga, where the difference between the best and the worst will be somewhere around 15 (at all levels!), than in high level D&D where the difference between the best and the worst can be 30+.

b) Disguise (or hide) the party as something believable and then use the party spokesperson to bluff his way in. This turns a group challenge into an individual challenge.

Why is this desirable, other than to make it work better under the existing rules?

As a general rule, aren't group challenges better? Because they challenge the whole group, rather than having three out of four people just sitting there hoping that the one guy does his job?

The 'spot' situation is exactly what we have now. The only difference is that the Bandits have to be significantly stealthier in order to have a meaningful ambush. And its not in and of itself a group skill challenge (you don't give out XP for avoiding surprise in addition to winning the combat).

The thing is, under current rules, spot checks are utterly unexciting for my 15th-level wizard. If there's a doubt the group (including the 14th-level scout) will see it, he cannot succeed, ever. If he has even a chance to see it, the scout will certainly see it anyway.

If the difference between our modifiers was 10 or 15 instead of 25, the scout would still be a great spotter and my wizard a crappy spotter, but I'd be interested when a spot check was called for.

I feel that might be an improvement.

Of course, you could reduce the gap without auto-advancing skills. But auto-advancing skills also follow the conceit that high-level characters are better than low-level ones, which is followed by a good part of D&D anyway. As I've said, it remains to be seen how it will be implemented, but I don't see it as unreasonable to look at skills and say "hey, this should work just like everything else".

And it might be argued that it produces unreasonable results to do otherwise. Isn't it strange that a 20th-level guy will almost always beat a 1st-level guy at a dagger-throwing contest or a drinking contest, but the 1st-level guy might easily wipe him out in a balancing on logs contest?

The 'everyone has to talk to the noble' situation is another one I'd already thought of. Again, only so often you can do this before it starts feeling contrived.

It seems to me that three people always having the same one speak for all of them on all subjects is much more contrived.

Very few characters are going to deliberately play the action movie bumbling side kick that gets everyone in trouble by sticking thier nose in where it doesn't belong, and few parties are going to forgive the player for 'ruining everything' if it is a habit.

With less of a gap, and your skills advanced to a certain level just by the virtue of being a hero, you aren't certain to ruin everything the when you go outside of your specialty.

That is rather the point.

 

[jasin]

Apples and oranges, imo. Every character has a will, an immune system and reflexes, to some degree. However, not every person is proficient at every trade, sport, craft or knowledge.

Just like every character has a will and reflexes and the ability to shoot bows, every character has the ability to sneak or lie or swim. This is true even under the current system.

What's being considered here is which of those abilities should automatically advance so that greater heroes are automatically better at them than lesser heroes. 3E says just reflexes, will, and bow-shooting, but not lying or sneaking. Saga says everything.

It's not immediately clear to me that 3E is the more natural and intuitive way.

And yes, your saves improve as your character increases in level, but that makes perfect sense to me, because every adventurer is exposed to danger and hardship. But not every adventurer is

... exposed to spotting ambushes?

Long before Saga, I've seen people suggest changing spot and listen into a Perception save, so it would advance automatically.

Now, Saga does it for all skills, and one might well wonder if getting better at engineering by adventuring makes as much sense as getting better at spotting ambushed by adventuring. But this is where the details of the implementation come in: how much can you do with your untrained +10 to knowledge (engineering and architecture) at 20th level, compared to a trained +10? Or a trained +5? Or perhaps knowledges don't auto-advance?

But it's not immediately clear that skills shouldn't auto-advance while saves and attack values should, because when you look at it outside of the rules framework, it's not immediately obvious what should be a skill and what should be a save and what should be an attack value.

 

[FireLance]

Apples and oranges, imo. Every character has a will, an immune system and reflexes, to some degree. However, not every person is proficient at every trade, sport, craft or knowledge. Saving Throws represent your character's innate ability to shrug off or avoid certain hardships, whereas skills represent areas of training and expertise. And yes, your saves improve as your character increases in level, but that makes perfect sense to me, because every adventurer is exposed to danger and hardship. But not every adventurer is going to learn how to swim, tumble, forge a sword or be able to recite the geneology of a royal family. And in a system like SWSE, not only do *all* adventurers learn these things, they do so simply because he's run around killing alot of monsters. :\

I'm of the view that skills do not necessarily represent areas that require training and expertise, but they have come to do so because that is how they have been treated by the rules in 3e. Because players could choose not to improve specific skills, skills have come to represent aspects of a character that need specific effort to improve. That seems like circular reasoning to me.

For some skills, the need to make a specific effort to improve them seems odd to some people. Why should a character, who might have made 100 Spot checks by the time he reaches 20th level, be no better at Spotting danger than the day that he started adventuring? On the other hand, even if he never makes a single attack roll between 1st and 20th level (say, he's a sorcerer without any spells that require attack rolls), his BAB would have improved.

I suppose it is possible to make a list of skills that general adventuring can improve, and a list of skills that general adventuring would not, but that seems unnecessarily complicated to me. I'm quite happy to assume that a character will be exercising, picking up general knowledge and the occasional bit of esoteric lore, and acquiring practical skills that might be useful to him someday during his downtime. In game terms, this means he gets a bonus on skill checks equal to half his level.

 

[pawsplay]

Just as its a gamiest illogical assumption that a 15th level wizard can pick up a crossbow (or any other weapon with a penalty) and have a much better chance of getting a lucky strike against the knight than a 1st level wizard can (even with the penalty!); is it not be acceptable that a 15th level wizard has a better chance of jumping across a pit than a 1st level wizard?

Sorry, still don't see it. Using a crossbow (at least until 4e) is a part of a wizard's repertoire. But really amazing jumping is part of a lifestyle. You can't just fault twice your height or more by "trying real hard." The success of a crossbow's bolt depends on aim, not physical ability, and aim can come from luck as easily as skill, or practice as easily as training. Hitting with a particular shot says nothing about one's overall attributes as a crossbow user.

Jumping 15' is comparable to a fighter tossing a fireball by trying real hard. "Oh, yeah, I've seen this done many times."

 

[DandD]

a fighter tossing a fireball by trying real hard. "Oh, yeah, I've seen this done many times."

That's how wizards are currently doing it now in the current rules-system.