mach1.9pants said:Share your 2p...
There have been several threads here about the SWSE skill system that have discussed its merits in detail. Most recently here, less than three weeks ago.
mach1.9pants said:Share your 2p...
mach1.9pants said:Hi All,
I was reading through the 'star wars' stuff that 'might' be relevent to 4E. And I was appalled to see that skills are either trained or untrained. I hope that this will not apply to 4E, please someone put my worries to rest 'cos I am excited about another edition. If not, your roll would be:
"1/2 character level + relevant ability modifier + 5 (if trained) + 5 (if Skill Focus)"
I have two MAJOR problems with this:
1. It stops any characters having any flavour through their skill choices, you can do anything you want (fine if your a Jedi, not so if you are a Ftr/Pal etc).
2. A 20th level (or so) adventurer -often with very high abilities- who has never picked up a sculpters tools in his life will be able to make things like an old master, who, lets face it, is unlikely to advance beyond 5th level cos he won't get any XP doing sculpture!
Adventurer: 10+4[ish] vs 2+2[ish]+5+5
Hopefully it is not happening......
Share your 2p...
M1.9P
WyzardWhately said:The way you limit this is with trained/untrained uses. An adventurer can't perform brain surgery, no matter what kind of bonus he'd theoretically get to the heal roll, if he isn't trained. Similar with craft. You can cobble together an awesome raft out of barrels and detritus, in order to escape a desert island, using your big-ass bonus. However, you cannot carve David out of marble, because you're not trained.
Simple.
Sorry about that but I cannot find where the search forum bit is d'oh, I did lookdrothgery said:There have been several threads here about the SWSE skill system that have discussed its merits in detail. Most recently here, less than three weeks ago.
maggot said:I disagree that being a blacksmith has zero effect on the game. I can see it come up every so often. Pick a more useful profession for an adventurer like sailor and it can come up a lot. Having "just put it in your background" can lead to min-maxers writing long backgrounds that touch on every profession needed (I was a blacksmith, then a tailor, then a sailor). Why not have the rules help out here a bit?
mach1.9pants said:Hi All,
I was reading through the 'star wars' stuff that 'might' be relevent to 4E. And I was appalled to see that skills are either trained or untrained. I hope that this will not apply to 4E, please someone put my worries to rest 'cos I am excited about another edition. If not, your roll would be:
"1/2 character level + relevant ability modifier + 5 (if trained) + 5 (if Skill Focus)"
I have two MAJOR problems with this:
1. It stops any characters having any flavour through their skill choices, you can do anything you want (fine if your a Jedi, not so if you are a Ftr/Pal etc).
2. A 20th level (or so) adventurer -often with very high abilities- who has never picked up a sculpters tools in his life will be able to make things like an old master, who, lets face it, is unlikely to advance beyond 5th level cos he won't get any XP doing sculpture!
Adventurer: 10+4[ish] vs 2+2[ish]+5+5
Hopefully it is not happening......
Share your 2p...
M1.9P
Remember who is working on 4eThey really needed to incorporate some of the concepts behind skill challenges from Iron Heroes
I don't understand what you mean, there. Skills are usualy opposed roll. untrained VS untrained -> chances of success. Untrained VS trained -> very little chance of success. Just set the DC right for common, easy task (climbing a rope etc...) so that you don't need a trained skill to do it.Tharen the Damned said:1) No/ not enough base knowledge. Sure you can use skills untrained but the only bonus you get is your ability bonus. That is not enough. If you get a base knowledge (say 5 ranks or so) in your untrained skills you might actually use them and succeed. This does not include skills that have to be trained.
Unless you use skill points and XP à la Ars Magica, this is not possible without cumbersome tables. And I think D&D4 will be simpler than that.2) linear progression. In the real world if you lear a new skill, lets say a new language, at first you progress very fast but after a while the progress slows down. You have absorbed the basics and now tackle the more complicated things. You still get better but at a slower rate. If D&D would use a skill system with diminishing returns the DCs would not have to be so ridiculous high for some tasks. A 1st level rogue can barely disable a simple trap but a high level rogue disables a magical Deathtrap with his feet while his hands are bound. Some might find this heroic. I think it is absurd.
When do you choose to specialize ? D&D is not skill-centric, I doubt they will use that. Maybe you can have a special feat "total dedication" that gives you another +5 in a skill, but -3 in every other skills...3) Specialisation. There is no real Specialisation in D&D. Sure you can max out and add Skill Focus. But that does not simulate the total dedication for one skill enough. I would say, get rid of the x skill ranks per level per skill. Let every Player decide if he wants to specialize or stay generalist. The changes from 2) will cap the linear progression. So a Specialist will be much better than a generalist but with diminishing returns.