Untrained/trained Skills....Noooo!

[Stalker0]

Then why can every max level character do it for all of his skills related to his primary attribute (and quite possibly his secondary one, too) simply by taking 10?

Because max level characters are defacto gods. And I'm not kidding, that's really the level of power they possess. They can truly remake the world, undo nigh any obstacle. One of the reasons high level dnd typically takes place in planar adventures is because your standard world just can't handle them.

As for the "I want to play a character who can't swim argument" I just don't understand it. Am I the only one who has ever taken a penalty on a character for rp purposes? Penalties are easy, and dms don't usually say no to players taking voluntary penalties, aka you don't need the system to handle it. You do however have to adjucate what bonuses the player's get to prevent abuse. So if you want to be a crappy swimmer, you go ahead and be crappy, we will all applaud your willingness to rp your character well.

I think the superhero examples provided undermine your argument. As was mentioned in the rebuttal arguments posted by others, superheroes really can do everything. Batman is probably the best example of a high level dnd character. Amazing at everything, with "magic items" to help him out.

The thing: Low level with big racial adjustments based on his altered race.
Batman: High level human.

Now, take a moment to look at it from our side of the fence. The people who really like the new skill idea often want to play skillfull heroes that can do a wide variety of stuff. Further, this helps them fulfill many novel and movie archetypes, for the majority of heroes in movies and books can do a tremendous number of things well, far more than dnd currently allows. We understand the issue your having, but to us this can be easily solved by dm or player fiat, while to fix our problem requires mechanical tweaks on the system.

 

[Daztur]

I like the Saga system a lot. Right now in 3ed a 20th level fighter knows significantly less about how to identify monsters than a 1st level wizard, despite the hundreds of monsters he's seen. This is just silly.

All that's needed to make the system work is a big enough penalty on untrained skills to make characters suck at things that can't realistically be done untrained (banjo playing etc.).

 

[Nifft]

And I've used it three times in the last three sessions of one of my campaigns. DMs around here are pretty good about making use of all of the skills available to us.

Ooo, thanks for the quote.

Yes - they're in the DMG. Those guidelines are for DMs to make new items to allow their players to craft/find, not for players to willfully pump their skill levels to obscene heights.

Are you bolding those three letters because you think other magic items come from somewhere else? I'm genuinely confused by your thinking here.

I have never once run into a psionic item as a player or given out a psionic item as a DM. Psionics are rarely used around here.

Here, watch: "And I've used them three times in the last three sessions of one of my campaigns. DMs around here are pretty good about making use of all of the SRD." Note: the subtle implication here is that I'm a better DM than you.

Aren't you glad you gave me that?

How does the fact that maximum DCs can be lower contradict the fact that minimum DCs must be higher to challenge a higher-level party?

The only way you get to keep your lower minimum is to discard spells and magic item rules. With spells and magic items in the picture, you either get direct skill boosters (e.g. ring of jumping) or spells & items which totally obviate skills (e.g. tongues and slippers of spider climbing).

Not really. My position is that, past the early levels, DCs will need to be higher in 4th edition than in 3.5. Parties in 3.5 generally do not spread their skill points out, choosing instead to concentrate on comparatively fewer areas. This means that the average party skill level in most skills (except skills such as Spot and Listen that every character that has a chance to maxes out) will be higher in 4E than 3E. Higher average party skill levels require higher average DCs to provide the same average challenge.

Right, they instead invest in magic items to totally bypass skills. The party needs to fly because the Fighter and Cleric never bother to learn to Climb, Jump or Swim.

Please quote where I said "all skill DCs will go up". I never once made such a claim.

No, instead I'll repeat my request: show me your sample data. You can't make claims about average skill DCs and keep a secret which components go into that average!

No, not really. I wouldn't say a skill check is challenging if taking 10 handily passes the check. This is personal preference, but the minimum failure chance for a "challenging" (note: not the DC definition of "challenging" but rather the dictionary one) skill check is 35-40%.

You contradict yourself here. Obviously, any failure chance up to 45% is passable via "take 10".

For individual tasks? It isn't. For every single such task in existance? That's a big problem to me. It strains credibility and, IMO, robs the player of personal choice in how to develop his character. There is literally no way in SAGA to play a level 10+ character who cannot swim, for example - and I have, in the past, played characters who never learned to swim.

You can't do everything unless you're Trained. There are still Trained-only uses of skills. I know someone has pointed this out long, long ago in a post far, far back in this thread...

Then why can every max level character do it for all of his skills related to his primary attribute (and quite possibly his secondary one, too) simply by taking 10?

For example, you can't "take 10" unless you are Trained.

Cheers, -- N

 

[BryonD]

I like the Saga system a lot. Right now in 3ed a 20th level fighter knows significantly less about how to identify monsters than a 1st level wizard, despite the hundreds of monsters he's seen. This is just silly.

Which of course leads one to conclude that obviously all wizards should be capable of climbing, jumping ands swimming....

 

[Nifft]

Which of course leads one to conclude that obviously all wizards should be capable of climbing, jumping ands swimming....

Yes, they should. All human beings should be capable of climbing, jumping and swimming. (At least by the time they're demi-gods.)

Cheers, -- N

 

[BryonD]

Yes, they should. All human beings should be capable of climbing, jumping and swimming. (At least by the time they're demi-gods.)

Cheers, -- N

No they shouldn't.

 

[Nifft]

No they shouldn't.

Put them in armor?

-- N

 

[FireLance]

You can't do everything unless you're Trained. There are still Trained-only uses of skills. I know someone has pointed this out long, long ago in a post far, far back in this thread...

I think this needs further emphasizing. The SWSE system is not a system that allows high-level characters to do "everything" well. Because there are trained-only uses for skills, the real philosophy behind the SWSE system is:

Anything that an untrained person can do, a high-level character can do better.

In other words, if it requires a trained person to do it, all the levels in the world aren't going to do the character any good if he isn't also trained.

Of course, the quirk of the d20 system is that some tasks are impossible for an ordinary man not because he needs to be trained to do it, but because the DCs are just too high. The SWSE system allows high-level characters to have a (probably small, unless he's trained) chance of accomplishing them. And as I previously mentioned, whether you like that or not is a matter of how heroic (in a larger-than-life sense) you prefer your high-level characters to be.

 

[WhatGravitas]

And? Your point is? The Thing isn't going to decipher the Rosetta Stone.

Sidenote: That's even true under SAGA-style rules. It's most probably a "trained-only" skill. If you don't invest in it - auto-fail.

No they shouldn't.

Why? Let's look at the hp (20d4 ~ 51 hp, including 1st level). A 100 ft. fall deals 10d6 damage (~35 dmg). If they can survive an average 100 ft. fall, why should they not be able to climb a 1/10th of that (i.e. 10 ft.) distance down?

Cheers, LT.

 

[Mallus]

No they shouldn't.

Are you talking about the handicapped?