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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Just Another User" data-source="post: 4026045" data-attributes="member: 23516">Thank you <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f631.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":o" title="Eek!    :o"  data-smilie="9"data-shortname=":o" /> 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. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /> 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) <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> .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)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.</blockquote>

Verification