Untrained/trained Skills....Noooo!

[med stud]

Why do people say that everyone is equally skilled in this iteration? A lvl 20 character with +0 in his ability and no degree of training has +10 on a skill check. A lvl 20 character with 22 in her ability, trained and with skill focus has +26 on the same check.

I also don't see why it is so terrible that a lvl 20 character with no training is as skilled as a lvl 1 Expert with training and skill focus; a lvl 20 wizard could topple nations by himself, what's the big deal if he can make a piece of pottery?

I have played D&D and I have played Exalted and I think D&D around lvl 20 have higher power levels than Exalted. It feels silly that that kind of characters shouldn't be able to climb a tree.

 

[Mallus]

I think too many people are trying to emulate literature and movies in thier games where in the source material, things moved and acted with the power of plot and not with any coherent framework.

You say that like it's a bad thing and not a worthy design goal.

So forgive me for thinking that 'adventurers in capes' are already plenty powerful and that reminders of thier mere mortality like the fact that climbing a knotted rope or jumping a 5' gap while carrying 60 lbs are actually hard won't do them - or thier players - any harm.

You're forgiven, my child.

The SAGA skill system doesn't make characters more powerful. What comparable D&D characters can do with a Batman-style utility belt of minor magical items and buffs from allied casters, SAGA characters do with the flat-bonus to all their untrained skills. The difference is largely aesthetic. One system says 'heroes get better at everything' while the other assumes 'heroes can buy things that make them better at anything'.

 

[Celebrim]

You say that like it's a bad thing and not a worthy design goal.

I am saying that that is a bad thing and not a worthy design goal. The reason it is a bad design goal is that it is unattainable. The only way to obtain it is do away with a rules system completely, but even extemporaneous story telling in rounds is going to produce something noticibly different than what is produced by a single all powerful novelist and it will be experienced in a different way by its participants.

The art being created in an RPG is more different from movies and novels, than movies and novels are for each other. In movies and novels, the protagonist essentially has zero possibility of failure. No matter how bad the odds are, the protagonist is always going to win through because the protagonist can always be made to roll 20 20's in a row or whatever he needs to do the crazily impossible thing that turns around the impossible situation. What people who are desparately trying to emulate novels want is really to have zero possibility of failure without knowing that they have zero possibility of failure, and in the real game world there are hard limits to how much of that sort of illusionism you can actually have. What is really trying to be achieved her is full control over the story while maintaining the illusion that you don't have full control over the story.

The Saga system explicitly is trying to do this:

"At this point, you might be wondering why these changes were made. The simple answer is this: Anyone can do anything in Star Wars if the scene calls for it." - WotC Previews

But of course, if this is a game then most certainly the characters can't do anything because the scene doesn't actually call for anything. Outcomes are never predetermined, and that engineering principle I mentioned earlier is going to force any system with continued skill checks toward a binary, 'Yes.' or 'No.' situation.

The difference is largely aesthetic.

That part of the paragraph at least I agree with. The only thing that is really changing is the distance across the gap.

PS: One last thing. Earlier there was a big stink about how much it sucked in 3e that a Wizard had to pick up a crossbow (at least in the early levels) and use one. The general feeling of the pro-4e crowd was that characters should never have to depart from thier 'thing', whatever that thing was, because for whatever reason that was bad. If you were a Wizard they argued, then you should always be using your magic. In yet another case of not clearly knowing what you want, now we are to believe that every class ought to be able to overcome problems by not doing thier thing. Ok, so you are less effective, but so was the crossbow. Maybe you can conjure up some flavor and pretend this is an at will spell ability enhancing your Wizard's skills, but don't pretend that you are doing niche protection if you do so. If WotC had flavored this as 'Wizards can now do at will skill enhancing spells', there would be howls of protest.

 

[Merlin the Tuna]

I don't think you or the people clamoring for these changes in 4e know what you want. At the same time you are clamoring for a system which encourages 'high fantasy heroic', you are complaining about the high power level of the game at any point after 6th level and after 12th level especially. At the same time you are complaining about the current system being too gritty, you are complaining about how much can be achieved with the awesome magical power that characters wield. I think too many people are trying to emulate literature and movies in thier games where in the source material, things moved and acted with the power of plot and not with any coherent framework.

My my, that's a lot of words to put into a man's mouth. Do you think they can all fit if you push hard enough?

 

[The Little Raven]

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?

You just brought up the perfect example of why professions are a failure.

Profession: Sailor.

WTF does this do? It doesn't teach me how to tie knots properly (Rope Use). It doesn't teach me how to keep my legs when at sea (Balance). It doesn't teach me how to hop from the rail onto the rigging (Jump). It doesn't teach me to survive when I fall overboard (Swim). It doesn't teach me how to repair a rudder (Craft). It doesn't teach me how to navigate in a direction (Intuit Direction/Survival). It doesn't teach me how to command a crew (Diplomacy, Intimidation, Bluff).

Taking Profession: Sailor will do nothing to actually make me a proficient in-game sailor. All it does is allow me a roll to make money each week.

 

[Celebrim]

My my, that's a lot of words to put into a man's mouth. Do you think they can all fit if you push hard enough?

LOL.

So, I have one response of, "Of course that is true, but it's a good thing not a bad thing.", and the other response is, "That's not what is being said. Don't make strawmen!"

Tell you what, if they can fit in my ear, I bet they can fit in someone's mouth without alot of pushing on my part. At least Mallus is making a valid point when he says that ideally you could use something like this to make it more 'the hand is mightier than the sword'. But rather than coming back with the snark, why don't you try explaining to me what someone means by 'high heroic fantasy' if not 'the tropes found in high heroic fantasy stories'. Maybe you'd have a valid point if I knew what it was.

 

[Celebrim]

You just brought up the perfect example of why professions are a failure.

Profession: Sailor.

WTF does this do? It doesn't teach me how to tie knots properly (Rope Use). It doesn't teach me how to keep my legs when at sea (Balance). It doesn't teach me how to hop from the rail onto the rigging (Jump). It doesn't teach me to survive when I fall overboard (Swim). It doesn't teach me how to repair a rudder (Craft). It doesn't teach me how to navigate in a direction (Intuit Direction/Survival). It doesn't teach me how to command a crew (Diplomacy, Intimidation, Bluff).

Taking Profession: Sailor will do nothing to actually make me a proficient in-game sailor. All it does is allow me a roll to make money each week.

Now this on the other hand is an objection that I can get 100% behind.

The problem is every bit as bad as that and worse. Because, while almost everything that a profession skill would seem to be good for seems to default to some other broad skill, there are cases where the profession skill is narrow enough that nothing else seems quite right. For example, 'Profession: Boating' is quite obviously the skill of paddling or rowing a small craft - something IRL I've a bit of experience with. Nothing else quite seems to do that, and 'Survival' is not only stretching the concept but perhaps throwing to much into that tent at random. Do we need a 'Boating' skill to go along with Ride and Handle Animal? You skip over it, but 'Profession: Navigator' isn't quite the same as 'Intuit Direction' either - does this skills concept need broadening to 'Navigation'? What does Profession: Cook default to? Is it the same as 'Craft (food)'? And so forth. Alot of cleaning up needed to be done here, but I get the feeling that the 4e team will handle the problem by dropping the skill and ignoring the holes this creates.

 

[The Little Raven]

If you will forgive me for saying so, I don't think you or the people clamoring for these changes in 4e know what you want.

I know exactly what I want from skills in 4E. Situations in which the trained shine brightest, and the untrained aren't unduly penalized for basic tasks (swimming, climbing, etc).

At the same time you are clamoring for a system which encourages 'high fantasy heroic', you are complaining about the high power level of the game at any point after 6th level and after 12th level especially.

No, I'm not, and I never have complained about a high power level at any point in the game. I like high powered games that make my players feel like they're heroes, and not just some Average Joe with a longsword. The only complaint you might hear from me in this regard is the lack of power at lower levels.

At the same time you are complaining about the current system being too gritty, you are complaining about how much can be achieved with the awesome magical power that characters wield.

My complaint in this regard has nothing to do with the level of power than it has to do with the acquisition of power: primarily through magic items. I want my character to be badass, regardless of whether he has the +5 vorpal longsword of plot device slaying. Hell, I'd rather HE have the plot device slaying ability, rather than depending on finding it in some beholder's treasure stash.

I think too many people are trying to emulate literature and movies in thier games where in the source material, things moved and acted with the power of plot and not with any coherent framework.

Well, as literature and movies are the biggest inspiration for the game itself (remember, the traditional magic system is an attempt to model a magic system from literature), I find it silly not to expect this.

 

[WyzardWhately]

Now this on the other hand is an objection that I can get 100% behind.

The problem is every bit as bad as that and worse. Because, while almost everything that a profession skill would seem to be good for seems to default to some other broad skill, there are cases where the profession skill is narrow enough that nothing else seems quite right. For example, 'Profession: Boating' is quite obviously the skill of paddling or rowing a small craft - something IRL I've a bit of experience with. Nothing else quite seems to do that, and 'Survival' is not only stretching the concept but perhaps throwing to much into that tent at random. Do we need a 'Boating' skill to go along with Ride and Handle Animal? You skip over it, but 'Profession: Navigator' isn't quite the same as 'Intuit Direction' either - does this skills concept need broadening to 'Navigation'? What does Profession: Cook default to? Is it the same as 'Craft (food)'? And so forth. Alot of cleaning up needed to be done here, but I get the feeling that the 4e team will handle the problem by dropping the skill and ignoring the holes this creates.

The best solution I've ever seen was in M&M. You say what your profession is. You pick some skill that you and the GM agree would cover it, and that's the skill you use for any 'profession' roles. Yeah, it may add a touch of utility to the skill. Whatever. I'd say intuit direction would be a great skill for a navigator - all of a sudden you can use a sextant, too, whoop-de-do. I used Knowledge: Civics for my character who was an attorney. Not terribly game breaking if you let everyone do it.

 

[Remathilis]

In the example you site, I'm not sure that even my rogue is going to try the three disks unless I have a feat that lets me take 10 on my jump and balance checks regardless of the situation. I probably wouldn't attempt it with one disk, much less three. The odds of failure for are hypothetical rogue are 19% (roll 4 d20's no 1s) with the results of failure being falling into the lava and dying. I don't think so. I'm going to be looking for alternative solutions, because there are only so many chances of death you can risk before you die.

You know, I could create a scenario with four 5th level Iconic PCs facing a basilisk and you could tell me how the PCs wouldn't fight them since there isn't a 100% chance of them making their DC 13 fort saves (the rogue and wizard esp). I assumed risk:reward ratio would be sufficient, and maybe (since I did change some stuff mid-writing) overestimated the DCs for a 5th level party.

All you've really done is created power inflation. You can set those DC's to whatever you want. My generally strategy for a group challenge is to set them to whatever would be slightly challenging for an ordinary person or athlete. In other words, I'd select DC's more around DC 5 than DC 15. In some cases, I tend to throw out DC 0 challenges where the idea is, 'This should be fairly easy, but if you have some sort of penalty (dump stat, armor check, flaw) you actually have to pay for it in risk.' So, with a slight variant on the encounter you suggested - DC 5 for the jump and the balance check and a 30' spiked pit rather than lava - I can challenge the whole party _as the system exists now_. For the example you suggest, all that you've really done with the SAGA system is increased the size of the numbers.

Increasing the numbers does two things though. It allows challenges to scale with competency levels (since DC 15 is rough for a 5th level cleric, but easy for a 25th) and give the PCs a sense of accomplishment (I just jumped a 15' gap! I never did that before) setting the DCs at 5 or even 0 is not even worthy of a die-roll. Its a formality.

In both cases, pursuit is going to come from those characters where athletics is their thing, and the other characters aren't going to shine (or shine as much) or they are going to use one of their strengths to face the challenge in their fashion (cleric summons a flying create to use as transport, wizard casts fly, fighter resorts to long range missile fire to take down imp, etc.) Or, rogue gets to jump across the rings two at a time (awesome!) and the rest scramble along behind as best as they can while reminding themself what the 'Use Rope' skill is for.

For the example, I stated the idea of the wizard maybe having fly to circumvent the obstacle, but not every caster has the proper spell to counter the obstacle at hand. Sure, missile weapons, summons, or even rope and pitons are all acceptable (and useful) alternatives, but I was specifically speaking of the option of JUMPING across the pit and how SAGA gave the other PCs a bit more of an edge at making the same DC as the rogue who specialized in it (and still allowed the rogue to shine). Heck, I was trying to find a way to make it LESS encumbrant on magical items, spells and goodies (to remove the "Don't worry, I'll teleport us" bypass that PCs love and DMs bemoan.

Except, as I've shown, that's exactly what you've still got. You've run into a famous engineering law: "if the probability of something isn't 0, then its damn close to 1." In this case, if the character's probability of succeeding in each step isn't 95%, then the chance of failure is nearly 100%...

So fighters have a 100% chance to miss AC 15 with a +14 to hit since they always miss on a 1? You seem to be arguing that since a PC isn't guaranteed success, a +14 is the same as a +1.

Listen, I could re-write a scenario which better describes the idea and better handles the math, but it would be a waste of typing. The moral of my story (which seems to have gotten lost in your picking apart my numbers) is that skills in 3.X are binary, you either have them or you don't. Thus, any encounter that relies on a skill (ride, swim, jump, climb, stealth, etc) ends up one guy having LOTS of fun because he invested in X skill and three guys standing around doing nothing. And in an RPG, I HATE standing around doing nothing. Give me a small chance to get in on the fun. SAGA's system gives me that small chance to succeed but doesn't reduce the challenge to that the PCs who invested in it feels cheapened (if the jump DC is only 5 so that the cleric can make it, why did I put 10 ranks in jump and not something else?). If it means I can use more obstacles in my game rather than flat, 10x10 rooms, its fine with me.