Untrained/trained Skills....Noooo!

[Zurai]

Or put it even more simple: A 20th-level wizard can fight better than a 1st- or 2nd-level fighter, can survive similar punishment, has a similar Fortitude save (i.e. resistance against physical attacks), can react faster than that fighter (see Reflex bonus), yet he cannot surpass his climbing skill?

Says who?

The maximum possible Climb ranks for a reasonable 1st level fighter is 4 (ranks) + 4 (strength) + 3 (skill focus) + 2 (athletic) = 13.

The maximum possible Climb ranks for a reasonable 20th level wizard is 11 (ranks) + 3 (skill focus) + 2 (athletic) = 16.

Looks like the wizard surpasses the fighter just fine. It's even more obvious without the feats: 8 vs 11.

 

[WhatGravitas]

Not among someone who has never in his entire life seen open water, and who quite probably assigns religious and/or cultural reverence to water. It'd be very similar to someone who lived underground their entire life suddenly seeing the open sky.

Yeah, right. But that's a very special world - in this case, just note under campaign-specific rules "Swim - trained only".

Says who?

The maximum possible Climb ranks for a reasonable 1st level fighter is 4 (ranks) + 4 (strength) + 3 (skill focus) + 2 (athletic) = 13.

The maximum possible Climb ranks for a reasonable 20th level wizard is 11 (ranks) + 3 (skill focus) + 2 (athletic) = 16.

Looks like the wizard surpasses the fighter just fine. It's even more obvious without the feats: 8 vs 11.

No, my point was: THe wizard is in all physical aspects better, without any special training (since BAB and saves are level dependant), why should he be worse in climbing without any special training? I mean fighting is the fighter's shtick - yet the wizard is better, without every learning how to fight, yet he fights better than the low-level fighter, who trained fighting for years. Apply the same analogy to climbing (trained/untrained).
Cheers, LT.

 

[Nifft]

SAGA-style skills remove player choice. Players are literally unable to play characters that are lacking proficiency in even a single area. They MUST play characters that are jacks-of-all-skills.

Even on its most technical merit, this is only half true at best.

Saga-style skills remove choice at character creation. However, it adds a lot of choices during play.

I know where I'd prefer to spend most of my time.

The rules accomodate that style of play just fine in 3.5 - especially since planar travel and clerics don't assume any skill useage whatsoever. Why should it be changed in a way that removes player choice? That's idiotic.

You ban Clerics and planar travel, you make the world low magic, and you call other people idiots for removing player choices?

Cheers, -- N

 

[Zurai]

and the last time you played/DMed a character like that (in a normal, non-desert world like Dark Sun setting) was...?

It doesn't really matter how frequent it is. The core rules need to support any reasonable campaign setting. "Environment world" (desert world, water world, forest world, ice world, etc etc ad nauseum) is an incredibly common campaign setting; the rules should support one without needing house rules.

 

[Nifft]

It doesn't really matter how frequent it is. The core rules need to support any reasonable campaign setting. "Environment world" (desert world, water world, forest world, ice world, etc etc ad nauseum) is an incredibly common campaign setting; the rules should support one without needing house rules.

I'm not an expert on campaign worlds, but outside of Dark Sun, I can't think of one single 'environment world' campaign setting.

Would you mind naming some?

Thanks, -- N

 

[Zurai]

Even on its most technical merit, this is only half true at best.

Saga-style skills remove choice at character creation. However, it adds a lot of choices during play.

No, it doesn't. You can actually emulate a saga-style skill system reasonably well with the current 3.5E skill system, if you want. If you want your character to be able to do reasonably well in lots of skills, you have the option of putting small amounts of skill points in lots of skills. There's no need for the system to FORCE you to do so.

You ban Clerics and planar travel, you make the world low magic, and you call other people idiots for removing player choices?

Cheers, -- N

You know what I can't stand? People claiming I insult other people when I have done no such thing. Please cite where I said people were idiots, or shut the up. I'm done responding to you until you can be civil.

 

[Mallus]

Not among someone who has never in his entire life seen open water...

So a kid with a natural aptitude for baseball must have grown up in Yankee stadium?

 

[Nifft]

No, it doesn't. You can actually emulate a saga-style skill system reasonably well with the current 3.5E skill system, if you want. If you want your character to be able to do reasonably well in lots of skills, you have the option of putting small amounts of skill points in lots of skills. There's no need for the system to FORCE you to do so.

You misunderstand the nature of the d20 system: specialists win.

You're claiming that the skill system doesn't need to be fixed because PCs can already choose to not specialize, but you're ignoring that "not specialize" is identical to "suck".

Would you claim that a Wizard is free to raise his Strength, Wisdom and Charisma ahead of his Intelligence, Constitution and Dexterity? You'd be right, but in a terribly disingenuous way.

Freedom to suck is no freedom at all.

You know what I can't stand? People claiming I insult other people when I have done no such thing. Please cite where I said people were idiots, or shut the up. I'm done responding to you until you can be civil.

It's in the text I quoted. When you call an action idiotic, you are implying quite strongly that the actor is an idiot.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I never once made that claim. My claim, for the people who cannot be bothered to read it and instead insist on assigning me motivations:

SAGA-style skills remove player choice. Players are literally unable to play characters that are lacking proficiency in even a single area. They MUST play characters that are jacks-of-all-skills.

No. That's wrong. You don't have to play a jack of all trades. Unless it is a reflexive skill roll, you are never ever forced to roll for a skill check. If a character is playing a desert nomad, he could simply decide to not try swimming the next river. It's not like people in real life wouldn't fear trying things they could actually do.

Second, the D&D 4 system just defines "jack of all trades" different than 3rd edition did. In 3rd edition, a Jack of all Trades could roll for any skill and had probably had 5 to 1/2 level as ranks.

In D&D 4, a Jack of all Trades is a character that is trained in every skill, but focused in none.

You have to adjust your baselines assumption. If Shadowrun would suddenly switch to a d20 system, the game wouldn't just become overpowered because ability scores no longer range from 1-6 but from 3-18, and suddenly people could have 10 ranks in Automatics, while previously the lmit was 6-7.

 

[Stalker0]

Right. So how do you re-flavor the desert nomad fighter who's never seen more than a wellful of water in his life taking to water like a fish the first time he sees the ocean?

Character talking to himself: Alright Regar, keep calm, steady, don't panic. This stuff is weird, but think of it like quickstand, just have to pull yourself through it, one arm at a time. Remember that oasis you were at last year, it like that....just a LOT bigger. That's right, one arm at a time. Kicking seems to help, kick harder. Alright, your doing this, just keep going. Go!!

In all seriousness, swimming isn't that hard, even a baby knows instinctively to hold its breath underwater. The reason people have a hard time of it is that they panic, they are afraid of the water for obvious reasons. High level heroes don't just panic, they are cool under pressure, they work through problems instead of running kicking and screaming.

If I met a desert nomad who could control his fear, I could teach him the basics of swimming in 5 minutes. For most people, its getting over the fear that takes the longest. And if the guy had lived in a harsh desert environment, he's likely in GREAT shape. Endurance helps in swimming a lot, but aerobic and musclar endurance. A high level fighter is going to have those, and for wizards you can flavor it the way I mentioned.


However, how about this scenario:

"Hey what happened to Regar?"

"You mean the oath keeper of Valimar, the slayer of Cortees, the greatest champion of the seven kingdoms? Drowned in a pond."

Isn't it a bit better to try and flavor why a high level adventurer can do stuff then say he can't and let him struggle like an incompetent boob?