What about skills ?

[Greg K]

actually thats genious. I always liked ADnD 2nd edition bard variants having bonus skills. Bonuses are always good for psyche.

In D&D 3.0 my biggest grief was bards having to spend 2 of their skills on Perform and use magic device to be capable of what an ADnD Bard can do without spending any skillpoint.

And a thief having to chose search, spot, listen, move silently, hide and use magic device leaves him 2 maxed skills worth of skillpoints somehow felt very wrong. (Even with int 18 and race human you had some hard choices which skills to invest)

Or a wizard/cleric/sorcerer having to know Concentration and spellcraft maxed leaves them without any skillpoints for other skills.

So I can only agree with you: more equal "skillpoints" for all classes, bonus skills where appropriate.

I agree with more skill points. However, the need to max out all of the skills you mentioned is dependent on play style. I know of games where there is no need to max out all those skills. The DMs encourage diversity by making other skills necessary and keeping multiple skills maxed out is a detriment.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

Hey, another skill question. What do you think the odds are that "class skills" are still in the game, in some form or another? They don't sound like they'd fit well into the SWSE skill system, but I still feel like they make enough sense that WotC might try to save them.

Maybe you get +6 for training in a "class skill" and only +4 for training in a "non-class skill"?

 

[Primal]

Minor nitpick: I think burglary can safely be said to be covered under the heroic skill set.

Brilliant! Personally, I'd prefer to go with just allowing PCs to have whatever noncombat skills they like, but the idea of tying nonheroic skills to heroic skills, or of allowing heroic uses for nonheroic skills, is appealing.

It really depends on your group's gaming style whether these 'Non-Heroic' skills play a part in your 4E campaign or not. While I think it's reasonable to merge some of them together (e.g. Tumble and Balance folded into Acrobatics), I don't like that they're going to ignore all skills not related to adventuring ("fluffy" skills) in the game mechanics. I think this was also confirmed in Ari's (or John's?) Playtest Report?

As my group really embraced the Craft skill in 3E, I am somewhat concerned over seeing the game mechanics concerning Craft being shifted towards Secondary Skills (as Mike Mearls said would be his preference) *and* letting players freely pick them. A couple of players in my group would pick as many as they could fit on their character sheets...

I am especially leery of letting players themselves define how skilled their PCs can be, and I hope this will be adressed in the rules beyond the usual "The DM will have the final word over this matter". If my 1st level PC can be a Master Armorsmith and there are no mechanics governing over this, is it legal to state that I have crafted a Full Plate before the campaign begins? If not, why? Wouldn't it make sense if my backstory (which the DM agreed to) includes my character owning a smithy. And I'd also like to ask my DM how much more Starting Money my Master Painter/Master Armorsmith has earned. Or how much extra GPs he earns per month -- assuming that there will also be some "downtime" from adventuring?

Some people (including playtesters and designers) seem to think that these "fluffy" skills are unimportant and work best as vaguely defined "hobbies". I disagree. All this would not really matter *if* wealth had *no* mechanical impact or advantage in D&D. If we were talking about systems like Dust Devils or Polaris, it'd not matter whether your character owned a luxurious saloon or crafted the best swords in the world (in fact, this would give everyone *more* "meat" for storytelling) because these things don't give you any mechanical advantage or "leverage" in these games. In D&D, it sadly does.

These are valid concerns, since (as I already stated) almost every 3E character in my group has had ranks in these skills -- some campaigns have even revolved around their shops/smithies/inns. Therefore I'd expect that if we tried 4E, at least some of the guys would want to know how those skills benefit their PCs in practise (i.e. how their PCs can benefit from them).

I'd hate to refer to 3E Craft/Profession rules or 'houserule' this, because it implies that there may be a *lot* more to houserule in 4E to make it work for my group's style.

 

[fnwc]

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.

Actually, some of the knowledge skills (Nature, Religion, Dungeoneering) are useful for monster lore. This occurs in some 3.5 monster descriptions, but not all of them.

From what I've seen in the previews, I think this will be a standard for all monsters in 4th Edition:

Pit Fiend Lore
A character knows the following information with a successful Religion check:

DC 25: Pit fiends are the nobles of the Nine Hells. Each pit fiend serves as a vassal to one of the nine archdevils and commands a fortress, city, or army in its master’s domain.

DC 30: Once every 99 years, a pit fiend can grant a mortal’s wish by performing a terrible ritual. Only the most powerful and promising of mortals are offered such a temptation.

DC 35: Well-known pit fiends include Baalzephon, one of the powerful circle of pit fiends known as the Dark Eight; Gazra, who governs the city of Abriymoch in Phlegethos, the Fourth Hell; and Baalberith, the major-domo of the palace of Asmodeus.