What about skills ?

[Plane Sailing]

To finally conclude I'd want to comment on a part of Plane sailing post where is say that the SAGA system allow for more interesting situations because everyone will have all the skills to overcome them, let me disagree with an example, during an adventure the GM put in front of the pc a cliff as an obstacle, with the saga system, with every pc having automatically ranks in the climb skill, what will happen will be just that every pc roll to climb the cliff, if they fail they take damage or not, rol again but eventually they will have passed the ostacle.
Booo-ring.
Let's see with standard D&D, now. Someone have ranks in climb, someone not, in this situation the players have the occasion to do what is (IMHO) one of the funniest thing you can do in a RPG, and that is, use their brain and imagination to find a solution to a problem, Things like:

- someone with ranks in climb go up, tie a rope and drop it down, for a bonus to the climb check
- the strong barbarian climb the cliff bringing another PC hung on his back.
- with hammer and chisel(sp someone dig hand- and foothold on the cliff
- the wizard use a spell to climb, fly or teleport up the clif (or down, Raistlin in the first dragonlance book, anyone?)
- etc.

Thanks for the post, you make some interesting comments.

Regarding the one above - I think that the 'using your brains' solutions would still come into play using the saga system. If it was a 10th level party faced with the Cliffs Of Insanity, the fact that the wizard has +5 (level) -1 (Str penalty) for a total modifier of +4 means that he will be quite keen for the Barbarian (+5 level, +5 trained +4 Str for a total of +14) to climb up first and drop him a rope, or better yet carry him up!

So there is still variability there, but there is a big difference between giving someone a fighting chance (half level as base ranks) and providing a decent automatic chance of success.


The idea of skills getting more expensive at upper ranks is an interesting concept, but do you think it would reduce the effect of people maxing out skills? I think more expensive skill points would basically end up with most characters becoming more tightly focussed than ever, just in order to keep Spot, Tumble, Concentration or whatever is their most key skill(s) as high as possible.

One of the problems that 3e faces (I've no idea whether it will be resolved in 4e or not) is that on the one hand there are very low DCs (as you point out DC10 or DC15 isn't even a speedbump in short order), while on the other hand there are opposed checks where the opposing roll could scale indefinitely, which means you need to pump up the skill modifier as much as you can. The fact that 3e allowed synergy bonuses and other ways of pumping up the skill roll exacerbated both of those problems...

Cheers

 

[small pumpkin man]

Freely admit its a pet peeve. But here goes, no craft skill apparently. OK, its not really adventurer material skills, it wastes effective skill points etc on fluff not combat etc. Sure fine lets say I buy that, then what the heck are History, nature, religion and basically all the knowledge skills doing on the list. There the same kind of useful as craft skills are, not generally useful for Joe Adventurer but hey sometimes situations come up where knowing X or being able to build Y comes in handy but generally not in a fight.

Just because there's no craft skill, doesn't necessarily mean there's no crafting. Not to say that I know there is crafting, but with the whole "siloing" aspect, I do think putting craft into a different "silo" to adventuring skills, but still having it there would be a good thing.

 

[small pumpkin man]

To finally conclude I'd want to comment on a part of Plane sailing post where is say that the SAGA system allow for more interesting situations because everyone will have all the skills to overcome them, let me disagree with an example, during an adventure the GM put in front of the pc a cliff as an obstacle, with the saga system, with every pc having automatically ranks in the climb skill, what will happen will be just that every pc roll to climb the cliff, if they fail they take damage or not, rol again but eventually they will have passed the ostacle.
Booo-ring.
Let's see with standard D&D, now. Someone have ranks in climb, someone not, in this situation the players have the occasion to do what is (IMHO) one of the funniest thing you can do in a RPG, and that is, use their brain and imagination to find a solution to a problem, Things like:

- someone with ranks in climb go up, tie a rope and drop it down, for a bonus to the climb check
- the strong barbarian climb the cliff bringing another PC hung on his back.
- with hammer and chisel(sp someone dig hand- and foothold on the cliff
- the wizard use a spell to climb, fly or teleport up the clif (or down, Raistlin in the first dragonlance book, anyone?)
- etc.
Now certainly someone will come out with a dozen examples where 3.x system suck and saga rules, just remember that is not an absolute truth, and some of us like even for our high level character to still sucks at something.
The SAGA system is a perfectly good system... for star wars, and I love to see it in D&D... as an optional system, but star wars is a pulp setting and having everyone be good at everything is one of the tropes of pulp, but while D&D can be played as pulp, one should not be forced to play it that way
Thanks for the attention and sorry if I bored you.

Now you can wake up and read the rest of the thread.

You're both exagerating the bonus, and ignoring how powerful high level characters are, 9th level characters get +4 to all skills, only enough to get the wizard to +3 which isn't enough to scale any real cliff, yet in the 3.5 game previous to the current one, our 9th level (or was it 8th?) level Wizard had mass fly, allowing us to stage an ongoing flying battle against a green Dragon and then simply fly up a 500 ft well with no troubles the next day. Even without such 3.5 splatbook shenanigans, the idea that an 8th or 12th level party requires "imagination" to get up a normal cliff with no extenuating circumstances isn't worth considering.

I mean, if they were in a rush, or being shot at, or say, the cliff was on fire (because everything's better with fire), or all three, then yes, sure, but then you're at the situation where you even though you might just be able to "tough it out" (maybe) obviously there's still a lot of room for imagination and tactics to help you.

I guess my point is that while I do realize it breaks certain peoples feeling of realism, the system just doesn't effect low level play that much, by the time you're at the level where it really starts to make a difference (at least 12th) you're getting to the level where grim, gritty characters with flaws don't really fit with the power characters have (with the exception of flaws that are essentially character defining, like Raistlin's sickliness, or Moonglum's unlikableness, which can still be simulated with low stats), so having pretty much any 22nd level Balor killing, Tyrannosaurus Rex wrestling, Hero of the Land, Pelor's right hand man, the one and only Paladin not be able to climb a tree, or swim a river, (unless a lack of athletic ability is a specific character point) is a bad thing for actually simulating the kinds of stories where characters can do those thing. And the problem is with the 3.x system, this is not only possible, but the default, which requires going out of your way to change, that breaks my feeling of verisimilitude, enough that it reduces my involvement in the chraracter and the campaign.

 

[Greg K]

Fantasy characters tend to have fewer opponents who need to be reasoned with and certainly roll fewer checks to deal with technology.

Depends on how one is running the game. The games that I have been playing since 2e have many opponents that need to be reasoned with.

 

[Evilhalfling]

Im running a 3.75 game, using a reduced skill list similar to the one posted above
I have a problem that might be solved by logic, or based on SWSE rules.

a human fighter has the following class skills
Athletics (swim/climb/jump) and Ride (including handle animal)

a human with a 12 int has 4 trained skills, I assumed cross classing wasn't possible without a feat.

What can be done with his other 2 trained skill choices?

 

[Just Another User]

Thanks for the post, you make some interesting comments.

Thank you

Regarding the one above - I think that the 'using your brains' solutions would still come into play using the saga system. If it was a 10th level party faced with the Cliffs Of Insanity, the fact that the wizard has +5 (level) -1 (Str penalty) for a total modifier of +4 means that he will be quite keen for the Barbarian (+5 level, +5 trained +4 Str for a total of +14) to climb up first and drop him a rope, or better yet carry him up!

yes, but you see, that is part of the problem, you need The Cliffs of Insanity with an high climb check to challenge a 10th level party, a run-of-the-mill cliff just don't cut it, and it is boring because apparently the only thing that make those cliff "of insanity" is that have an harder climb check, Booo-ring. cliffs of insanity should have jagged rocks that cuts your hands when you climb them and strong winds that try to pull you off the cliff wall you off the and nests of stirges that wait nothing but that you are in the middle of the climb to suck you dry, with those cliffs the fact you don't have enough ranks in climb is the last of your problems.
And that is just before you reach the top.

So there is still variability there, but there is a big difference between giving someone a fighting chance (half level as base ranks) and providing a decent automatic chance of success.

But I really don't like the "you get good at everything", even with all the corrections, like uses limited to trained skills only and so on. What I could live with is to limit it only to some skill, for example, it sound reasonable that an experienced adventurer get better at spot check without to need a specific training, or that he is harder to fall for a bluff (I've read somewhere that maybe in 4e Sense Motive against bluff is replaced by Will defense, and while it have some problem is a good idea, imho). What I also would like is if each class had a number of skills that automatically improve with level a la SAGA (or a list to pick from), like survival and knowledge nature for rangers and druids, intimidate and mmh, heal? for fighters, spellcraft for wizards, etc. I can see a fighter getting more intimidating as he get experience without even trying, I can't say the same for a wizard getting better at climbing, or a barbarian in perform(flute) .

The idea of skills getting more expensive at upper ranks is an interesting concept, but do you think it would reduce the effect of people maxing out skills? I think more expensive skill points would basically end up with most characters becoming more tightly focussed than ever, just in order to keep Spot, Tumble, Concentration or whatever is their most key skill(s) as high as possible.

The intention is on one side to limit the number of skills PC can increase to the max (because they don't have enough points) and on the other to make the idea to take less than max ranks into a skill more appetible. If the large part of DC checks in a game, (no matter the level), are around DC 15-20, with some 25 here and there then even just 10 ranks in one skills are worth something. and if a PC had to choose between to use all his points to bring a pair of skills at 20 or to spread them around to put, for exampe 10 ranks in that Spot or bluff skill (10 ranks that would actually be useful even after level 10) I think most of them will do the later rather than the former.
Or at least that is the idea.
A low skill character (everyone that before had 2 skill per level and now have four) should have enough points in 20 levels to bring 2 skills to 20, with almost no ranks in other skills (20 ranks cost 50 points, 20 level character have 4* (4 + 19)= 96 points ) or 3 to 15 (cost 30), or 6 to 10(cost 15), (not counting INT, of course). a little weak but not so different from the actual situation fior fighters.
On the other hand the skill monkey, the rogue should have enough skill points (207) to reach 20 in 4 skills with almost no ranks in the others or 7 skills at 15, or 14 at 10, or 21 at 5 or combinations.
I think it could work, maybe we could give + 2 skill point/level to all classes, but even as it is now it could work fine.
The only problems could be magic items and spells that give skill bonus, but I think cutting in half the bonus they give should be enough to make them work (I hope)

One of the problems that 3e faces (I've no idea whether it will be resolved in 4e or not) is that on the one hand there are very low DCs (as you point out DC10 or DC15 isn't even a speedbump in short order), while on the other hand there are opposed checks where the opposing roll could scale indefinitely, which means you need to pump up the skill modifier as much as you can. The fact that 3e allowed synergy bonuses and other ways of pumping up the skill roll exacerbated both of those problems...

Cheers

part of the idea is exactly to get rid of that "scale indefinetly" part, or at least, tune it down. A gm when pick a DC should not ask himself "how many ranks of the opposite skill to that have my PCs?" but "how hard would be do this thing?" Though? then is DC 15. Challenging? DC 20, Heroic? then DC 30, but it should be appropriately rare. A DC 40 check should be exactly what it say in the SRD "near to impossible", only the best of the best should have a chance to pass it. A possible objection could be "What if there is one of this checks and nobody is the best of the best?" In that case I hope who put there that check put also some other ways around it, an adventure that depend on a single roll to be completed is an example of bad adventure design.

 

[mneme]

a human fighter has the following class skills
Athletics (swim/climb/jump) and Ride (including handle animal)

a human with a 12 int has 4 trained skills, I assumed cross classing wasn't possible without a feat.

As a first approximation, I'd guess that 4e classes don't have class skills any more -- obviously, some skill choices are more useful for some classes than others (theivery for rogues, arcane for wizards), but with a reduced class list and intent to have class powers be part of their special abilities/feats rather than a special effect of skills (note the "rogues can do things with their skills that nobody else can" and "Trapfinding" as a feat), and intention to give all classes stuff to do outside of combat as well as in, it makes even less sense than before that skills would be class-restricted.

Also, the idea of using triangular skills for D&D doesn't work well; D&D uses linear scaling everywhere else, so triangular scaling (even if you gave new level * skill points with every level, letting you choose between going broad or high or some combination) while it could be made to work, doesn't really fit; the characters gain a point of BAB every level to every other level, a spell level every two levels, etc. Mostly, it's unnecessary complication, especially given Wizards' goal of having level 20 play like a more complicated (but fundimentally, balanced identically) level 1.

 

[Ahglock]

Just because there's no craft skill, doesn't necessarily mean there's no crafting. Not to say that I know there is crafting, but with the whole "siloing" aspect, I do think putting craft into a different "silo" to adventuring skills, but still having it there would be a good thing.

Lets say I accept the siloing idea. And hey I would be happy with craft being in the game but being set up as side skills like the shadowrun 4e knowledge skills, or some other method of having it there without detracting from your combat potential. Fine great I'm happy, then what are knowledge skills doing in the kick butt skill section. My knowledge of history really slayed those ogres?

Also even if they put craft to the side I want a way to say this character is good at these skills, feats, skill points, spending language skills on NWP I don't care, but if someone wants to build a crafter character(not uncommon in my games) then they should be able to do so.

All 4e needs for me to be happy with the game is for my players to be able to make the characters they want, if they can't make the character they want to play it fails for us. I like a lot of the things I've heard, the style of gameplay is exactly what I want, but if my players aren't happy with there characters good rules wont save it.

 

[The Little Raven]

Fine great I'm happy, then what are knowledge skills doing in the kick butt skill section. My knowledge of history really slayed those ogres?

There's more call for knowledge in an adventure game ("These are the ruins of the city of the ancient King of Pawp." "Yeah, who cares?" "He was apparently buried with a glove encrusted with diamonds on one hand." "So, where's the entrance?") than call for crafting rules ("Defeat me in an underwater basket-weaving contest and you and your companions may pass!").

Remember, the qualifier is "adventure game appropriate" not "combat appropriate."

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

Depends on how one is running the game. The games that I have been playing since 2e have many opponents that need to be reasoned with.

Ok, yeah, that's absolutely true.

I was just cautioning that I might be seeing a lot of failed rolls simply because I'm forcing my players to roll a lot.

Mind you, I've seen Shadowrun games that involved far fewer tests, and Kung Fu games where the observation and jump dice never stopped rolling so I was wrong to link it to genre.