Untrained/trained Skills....Noooo!

[FadedC]

For me, the rogue gets his chance to shine by being first across. The wizard uses his fly spell to ferry others across, or he (or the cleric, depending) creates a bridge from the wall of ice or wall of stone spell ( i think wall of stone can still do that, but I know wall of ice can) for the others, or he whips out his jump potion, or the cleric air walks them across. In other words, the Rogue doesn't have his thunder stolen by the others using action points to succeed at the same thing he just did without one.

The ironic thing about this example is that it actually proves the point of how useless many skills tend to be in the current system. The rogue "shines" by being the first one across, only to realize his skills are completely useless because the spell casters could have gotten everyone across with magic without the need for his skill. In fact by running across first all he did was needlessly endanger himself. No action points were required for a fly or wall of stone spell, and the spell needs to be cast with or without the rogue.

 

[Jhulae]

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.

Whoa! Hey now!

10 ranks in Profession: Sailor lets you take Dread Pirate! Don't tell me it doesn't allow you to do anything except roll for money...

But seriously, I completely agree. I will *not* mourn the loss of profession skills. As far as I'm concerned, all PCs have ranks in "Profession: Adventurer" equal to their level..

 

[Zurai]

The ironic thing about this example is that it actually proves the point of how useless many skills tend to be in the current system. The rogue "shines" by being the first one across, only to realize his skills are completely useless because the spell casters could have gotten everyone across with magic without the need for his skill. In fact by running across first all he did was needlessly endanger himself. No action points were required for a fly or wall of stone spell, and the spell needs to be cast with or without the rogue.

How does that change when everyone can make that check? The skills continue to be useless, except now they're useless to the whole party rather than all but one of the party.

 

[FadedC]

How does that change when everyone can make that check? The skills continue to be useless, except now they're useless to the whole party rather than all but one of the party.

They change when everyone has a chance to make the check. Then the DM can design obstacles that the other players will eventually be able to cross, possibly taking damage in the process, but with the skilled player getting over with no problem. When only one player can make the check, the DM has to ensure that the players have a magical means to cross before he puts the obstacle in the way, thus ensuring the players skills are useless.

 

[Zurai]

They change when everyone has a chance to make the check. Then the DM can design obstacles that the other players will eventually be able to cross, possibly taking damage in the process, but with the skilled player getting over with no problem. When only one player can make the check, the DM has to ensure that the players have a magical means to cross before he puts the obstacle in the way, thus ensuring the players skills are useless.

No, he doesn't.

In the example of a sheer cliff-face that only one character has the ranks in Climb to actually make it, that character can drive in pitons, lower a rope, buddy-climb, etc etc to help his friends up. Similarly in a difficult river crossing with swimming. Alternately, another character with ranks in K: Geography or Survival can try to find an easier passage.

Having everyone be proficient in everything is a crutch and nothing else.

 

[FadedC]

No, he doesn't.

In the example of a sheer cliff-face that only one character has the ranks in Climb to actually make it, that character can drive in pitons, lower a rope, buddy-climb, etc etc to help his friends up. Similarly in a difficult river crossing with swimming. Alternately, another character with ranks in K: Geography or Survival can try to find an easier passage.

Having everyone be proficient in everything is a crutch and nothing else.

Actually the new system is more conductive to what you describe then the old. Under the old system the rogue climbs up and lowers the rope and everyone still can't climb up because of their -7 climb checks in armor. Under the new system the rogue is still much better at climbing, but everyone else is is not horribly incompetent at it and can at least get up a rope.

Keep in mind that under this system there is still going to be a large difference between the climb skills of the rogue and that of the cleric. Assuming the rogue does not take skill focus I'd estimate at least a 12 point different in their bonuses. It's just no longer a 25 point difference. This is what allows you to create challenges for the whole party.

 

[Terraism]

Obviously I'm sneaking in here late, but I'm more inclined towards Celebrim & Henry's arguments than the contrary - I am, in fact, one of those freaks who hates the Saga skill system.

And I think the disconnect lies in one place. People who like the Saga system want people to be able to do things, even if it's tetchy. Then, there are those of us - like myself - who don't mind telling their players "no. Your character cannot do that. You fail. Period. Your old, crippled wizard who's never worked out or jumped more than a few inches in his life can't cross. Not gonna happen. Sucks to be you - but that's a person. They have limitations."

I know it's not cinematic. That's fine by me - I'm not playing for high-action cinema. I actually find my cinema more engaging when the protagonist runs into something he can't do without aid or going about it a different way. That pulls me in far more than heroes having the cajones to manage it if they just push.

Personally, I don't think either side is wrong. I know what I prefer. And, yes, I know that D&D has always been a high-action game. So I don't terribly begrudge the fact that 4E is probably going to be using the Saga system, even though I don't like it, personally. I'm comfortable house ruling, and I'll do so. (If there weren't other things I do like about 4E, I'd just stay with 3E. As is, I'll probably end up with some Lovecraftian, half-fiend lovechild of the two systems. I'll just grumble a little bit 'cause it's extra work, but...)

 

[Terraism]

Actually the new system is more conductive to what you describe then the old. Under the old system the rogue climbs up and lowers the rope and everyone still can't climb up because of their -7 climb checks in armor. Under the new system the rogue is still much better at climbing, but everyone else is is not horribly incompetent at it and can at least get up a rope.

Obviously it's just an example, but I disagree with this assertion. The rogue climbs up the cliff (DC25) and drops down a knotted rope for the rest. Climbing up a knotted rope along a bracing surface - such as a cliff - is a DC0 check. So everyone else can get up the rope, unless for some reason they've both got a -7 armor check penalty, don't have a Strength bonus to offset it (and in that case, why're they wearing such heavy armor?!), and roll a 2. But the rogue shined like crazy - for all intents and purposes, he just gave everyone else a +25. I know in that case, I'd feel pretty good about it.

 

[Klaus]

Obviously I'm sneaking in here late, but I'm more inclined towards Celebrim & Henry's arguments than the contrary - I am, in fact, one of those freaks who hates the Saga skill system.

And I think the disconnect lies in one place. People who like the Saga system want people to be able to do things, even if it's tetchy. Then, there are those of us - like myself - who don't mind telling their players "no. Your character cannot do that. You fail. Period. Your old, crippled wizard who's never worked out or jumped more than a few inches in his life can't cross. Not gonna happen. Sucks to be you - but that's a person. They have limitations."

I know it's not cinematic. That's fine by me - I'm not playing for high-action cinema. I actually find my cinema more engaging when the protagonist runs into something he can't do without aid or going about it a different way. That pulls me in far more than heroes having the cajones to manage it if they just push.

Personally, I don't think either side is wrong. I know what I prefer. And, yes, I know that D&D has always been a high-action game. So I don't terribly begrudge the fact that 4E is probably going to be using the Saga system, even though I don't like it, personally. I'm comfortable house ruling, and I'll do so. (If there weren't other things I do like about 4E, I'd just stay with 3E. As is, I'll probably end up with some Lovecraftian, half-fiend lovechild of the two systems. I'll just grumble a little bit 'cause it's extra work, but...)

I used to say "no, you can't do that" to my players a lot during 1e and 2e. 3e taught me to say "yes". It makes for a more fun game.

Thank you, 3e, for teaching me "yes".

 

[FadedC]

Obviously it's just an example, but I disagree with this assertion. The rogue climbs up the cliff (DC25) and drops down a knotted rope for the rest. Climbing up a knotted rope along a bracing surface - such as a cliff - is a DC0 check. So everyone else can get up the rope, unless for some reason they've both got a -7 armor check penalty, don't have a Strength bonus to offset it (and in that case, why're they wearing such heavy armor?!), and roll a 2. But the rogue shined like crazy - for all intents and purposes, he just gave everyone else a +25. I know in that case, I'd feel pretty good about it.

Well as you said just an example, but it's worth noting that unless it's a knotted rope up against a perfectly vertical wall, it's not DC 0. A regular rope is DC 5, and a rope hanging from a cliff which is unlikely to be perfectly flush with the jagged cliff face would be DC 15 and impossible for the rest of the party to climb, rope or no rope. But we could replace the cliff with the wall of a tower and your argument would work better (assuming he carries enough rope to knot the whole thing and still make it reach).

As for the wizard not being able to jump a few inches, I think it's important to note that a high level wizard is such a skilled combatant that even if he is unarmored and defenceless he can stand up against a squad of soldiers just by rolling with the hits and minimizing the damage (HP). He also has spent the last few years of his adventuring career dodging fireballs and dragonbreath, and engaging in other feats of super human skill. I don't have a problem believing he can jump a couple of feet across a pit.