Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 3809793" data-attributes="member: 4937">AlisterH @ 3:26, and follows.I hope you mean that in irony.  If I was beaten up by a naked old man who normally destroys country-sides and bends reality, I and probably most observers would assume that the old man in question is not an ordinary old man.There are only minor differences.  They only difference is how the different systems scale with level between different classes.  Most skills are assumed to not scale at all.  This is more realistic and in my opinion makes for a better game than assuming most if not all skills scale with level.  It would be more realistic to assume that defences and attacks also don't automatically scale with level, but I think in D&D's case this makes for a worse game because combat is so integral to the default D&D game.Anyway, I don't particularly see the need for a SAGA like rule set, and I think the SAGA rules set handles skills for multiclassed characters in a much uglier way than D20 rules, and I don't like how it makes high level characters better at everything than low level ones; but, if I had to scale skills with levels I'd add an additional category to the SAGA system - 'unadept'.  If a skill wasn't on your classes skill list and wasn't 'trained only', then you were assumed to be 'unadept' in it.  Thus:Focused: 1/2 Level + Attribute Bonus + 10Trained: 1/2 Level + Attribute Bonus + 5Untrained: 1/2 Level + Attribute BonusUnadept: 1/4 Level (rounded down) + Attribute BonusExperienced characters would still pick up some tricks - maybe the old wizard knows a simple trick for enhancing his jump magically - but they wouldn't be automatically great at everything.  I'd have to play test it a bit but something like that would ease my concerns about niche intrusion and the anti-simulationist vibe a little.</blockquote>

Verification