We went from 5 saving throws to...64!

[Vigilance]

I'm not particularly in favor of skilled based everything, but to add a counterpoint, tying character concept to class restricts versatility of the classes and limits player creativity.

What I think makes this not the case in 3rd edition is the ease of multiclassing.

If we were back in 1e or 2e, where only certain races could multiclass, and then only in certain combinations, Id be in complete agreement.

But in 3e, since you can multiclass at will, a class just becomes a package of abilities.

If you want a stealthy fighter, you can mix levels of Fighter, Rogue and maybe even Barbarian or Ranger to get just the feel you want.

So I think 3e has the best of both worlds. The player who likes archetypes has stick with a class, while the player who wants something custom can go to town.

I think 3e is as versatile as a point based system, once you get to 5th level or so.

Which is really the key, and something about the system either you like or you dont (I like it): Low level characters are still tied to their archetype. But, they're really the only characters who are.

 

[Vigilance]

In looking at this whole issue, I wonder if the skill system for D&D isn't still in its infancy regarding system evolution. Attacks and saves have evolved. Skills haven't really since being introduced in the DUngeoneers survival guide. THere are still too many (redundancy) and are a pain in the butt during leveling.

jh

Now this I agree with. I like what True 20 did skill wise, combining Hide and Move Silently into Stealth, combining Spot and Listen into Notice, making Repair a function of the Craft skill.

That system really streamlined skills in a nice way.

 

[QuaziquestGM]

Quote:
But in 3e, since you can multiclass at will, a class just becomes a package of abilities.

If you want a stealthy fighter, you can mix levels of Fighter, Rogue and maybe even Barbarian or Ranger to get just the feel you want.

So I think 3e has the best of both worlds. The player who likes archetypes has stick with a class, while the player who wants something custom can go to town.

I think 3e is as versatile as a point based system, once you get to 5th level or so.

Which is really the key, and something about the system either you like or you dont (I like it): Low level characters are still tied to their archetype. But, they're really the only characters who are. End Quote

I agree with parts of this, but it is really a question of play style. Sometimes i will pick a archtype or, more likely, personaility type, and play that reguardless of and occationally in spite of class or class mix.

If I want to play a sneaky type character, then I have him act sneaky reguardless of his ranks in hide. With the untrained skills, you have a good shot of making even opposed checks. "I have no ranks in (skill x)" really doesn't justify not trying. Getting caught can be played as a dramatic instance of a rare occation when the attemp failed.

For fun, I rolled my most recent PC at random. GM was allowing most monsters as races as well as the standards, and nearly all classes. I stacked every book we had at the table, counted, and rolled dice for race, class, abilites, starting feat, and alignment. From 20 different books, I ended up with NE Gnome Aristocrate with point blank Shot. Wow, 3'2, proficent in all martial weapons, all armors, and tower shields, social skill monkey, illusionist with an Enlightened Self Interest philosophy... or a sneaky little sob with 6 hp who has to be tactical to survive in combat.

So far I've leveled him up twice, at random, and will continue to do so. The new class levels haven't changed him a bit. Swashbuckler. Fire Segenja. Still the same guy. Now he just uses the "Detect elements" ability while listening at every door. Hasn't even used a spell yet. He now has the option of buring things with magic if diplomacy fails, but he carried Alchemist fire for that at level one. I can't see any reason that gaining a level in any class will change the personaility of the character or how I play him.

Barberian: Knows how to channel his rage when things go badly. Can survive leaving town in a hurry and spending the night in the wild.
Beguiler: Even better at diplomacy
Dread necromancer: Carnal touch after failed negotiations
Ceric: Death touch after failed negotiations
Ranger: Favor enemy Humans. Better bluff checks on dominate race.
Rogue:...Hmm what could I possibly do with a rogue level for a sneaky little gnome?

With skills, it doesn't really matter if I max out an old skill or pick new ones to suit the new classes. The skill points are additive. He will still be just as good at the skill, if not better than, as he was at last level. You can't loose skill points. +8 to diplomacy will probably do ya anyway.

Reguardless of classmix or skill ranks, my Sneaky little gnome diplomat/asymetical warfare specialist will still act at level 20 as he acted at level 1. (helms of opposed alignment not withstanding)

Of course, I can see the other side of the coin if you want to play an artificer or other craft specialist.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

OK, nobody's seeing the redundancy of having both a skill and a saving throw mechanic?

We do. And we see why they did it.

Saving throws really represent "nothing."

There's a fireball coming at you and there's "nothing" you can do.

Why the seperate mechanic? Why not just make them part of skills?

Of course, let's. And attack, too, since we're at it. Now we just have to give every class 4 extra skill points, and everyone will just max out fort, ref, will, attack. Why? Because noone would survive without enough ranks in those: They wouldn't hit anything, and each spell would hit for full force. Plus, it would be quite easy, with some simple multiclassing, to get them all as class skills and max them out at full ranks. You'd have to put in arbitrary rules to stop the game from doing that, so why force the round saves into the square skill system?

In 1E there were 5 saving throws. Then we went to 3 saving throws and 61 skills (see the latest character sheet on wotc.com.

I don't know about 1e, but 2e had 5 saves and lots of non-weapon proficiencies. And thief skills. What about those?

It would be like having hit points and dodge points.

Call them wound points and vitality points, and you have something that's already out there.

 

[Jolly Giant]

Heh. When I read the first post, where OP gripes about there being 64 saves, I thought I knew what he meant. Turned out I was wrong, though. But he got me thinking about something about the saves system that has frustrated me occasionally:

I thought the OP was referring to the many different saves a creature can have special modifiers or even immunity against. I've never counted them, but I thought maybe the OP had and had arrived at 64. Now, 64 was a lot higher than I had expected, but there is an awful lot of save modifiers out there:

Elves have +2 vs ench and are immune to sleep.
Dwarves have +2 vs spells in general.
Gnomes have +2 vs illusions.
Etc, etc.

There's a huge number of critters with special bonuses on certain saves (against poison, cold, death effects, disease, fear, traps, etc, etc), or that are immune against certain effects. And there's also PrCs that grant special bonuses and immunties.

When DMing combats with multiple NPCs and creatures, remembering all their different saves bonuses and immunities can be difficult. This is especially true in high level campaigns. I know I've forgotten save bonuses that could have changed the outcome of more than one encounter. I've even seen players forget to factor in such bonuses when making saves for their own character.

Still, I don't really mind this multitude of different save modifiers. I feel they add depth and flavor to the game, even if they can be a bit frustrating at times. Saying that there is only 3 different saves in 3.x certainly isn't telling the whole truth, though!

Anyway, if this had been what the OP was referring to, as I first thought, then I could perhaps have seen his point. Turns out he was making an entirely different point, which I don't agree with at all.

Please forgive me if I've been rambling!

 

[Herobizkit]

Now this I agree with. I like what True 20 did skill wise, combining Hide and Move Silently into Stealth, combining Spot and Listen into Notice, making Repair a function of the Craft skill.

That system really streamlined skills in a nice way.

Plus they combined combat into a "saving throw" of sorts as well. I like True20's take on just about everything game mechanic-y.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

We could just add skills ala Rolemaster, of course. There's be the stick things with pointy stick skill, the shoot things with arrow skill, the bash things with axe skill, the dodge fireballs skill, th eescape traps skill, the eat poison skill, the resist fear skill, the resist charm skill, the dodge other people with pointy sticks skill ...

If we wanted, we could have infinite skills -- every spell, weapon, or item added to the game could add its own skill to use! Now wouldn't that be fun & realistic!

 

[Kae'Yoss]

We could just add skills ala Rolemaster, of course. There's be the stick things with pointy stick skill, the shoot things with arrow skill, the bash things with axe skill, the dodge fireballs skill, th eescape traps skill, the eat poison skill, the resist fear skill, the resist charm skill, the dodge other people with pointy sticks skill ...

If we wanted, we could have infinite skills -- every spell, weapon, or item added to the game could add its own skill to use! Now wouldn't that be fun & realistic!

I agree. That wouldn't be fun & realistic!

Like so often, D&D works best if you don't do everying the same way. What's the point of a "skill" everyone will take, anyway? A choice that really isn't one, because it's practically a must.

It would work with attacks better than with saves, since you could introduce one skill for every weapon category. There's no "attack" skill, but a "ray spell" skill, a "bows" skill, a "swords" skill, and so on.

 

[Numion]

Indeed, why are they?

Because combat is very important in D&D. In an efficient system (not games system, but any system) each component should have resources allocated to it according to its importance. Thus attack rolls and saving throws, two very important parts of the game (the first let's you kill, the second keeps you from getting killed) are justified in having separate rules for them.

Skills usually do neither of these things (even though a failed disable device or climb skill can kill you, it's usually active on the PCs part i.e. they could just choose not to do it if they absolutely want to stay alive. Saving throws usually are reactive.), so while elegant, it's not really worth it to stick attacks and saves there too.

Only reason I would advocate making attacks skill would be to shut up the ages old argument why high-level characters are always good at hitting.

Check out rolemaster for a game where HP's, attacks, learning of spells and of course skills are, well, skills. The system is more complicated since the prices have to be different, but it's remarkably similar to D&D.

 

[Nellisir]

It would be like having hit points and dodge points.

Yeah, one mechanic for determining how hard you can take a hit, and another for whether you -get- hit is just silly. Stupid 3e Armor Class.

Skills are relatively narrow fields, whereas saves are broad. If you turned saves into skills, you'd have to break them apart to keep any semblance of balance - save vs poison, save vs paralyzation, save vs fireball/lightning bolt, save vs illusions..I don't think it'd be easier in the end.

On the other hand, if you want to simplify skills to more closely resemble saves, that takes some of the versimilitude out of the game. Got an 18th level, full plate wearing, two-handed sword carrying tank fighter? Congrats, he's still mysteriously got a (base) +11 to his Tumble. And Knowledge (nature).

I don't think you can get much simpler than True20 or Mutants & Masterminds and still have a very functional game that doesn't require a huge amount of DM "judgements" and handwaving. Both of those games have seen fit to keep saves and skills more or less intact, but they're examples of alternative systems you might want to look at.

And finally...how does Survival help against disintegrate or baleful polymorph?