When did I stop being WotC's target audience?

[Mallus]

You missed where I said this is one skill that they probably mind going away.

No I didn't (but I mentioned it because it served as a good example of the generality of the 3e skill system).

I might actually use bluff if the confidence man is not sincere.

Nitpick: that's an incorrect use of Bluff. A Bluff is a short-duration lie ("these aren't the the droids you're looking for" minus the Force). Ingratiation is Diplomacy.

First, we introduced new some skills and/or treated some skills like Perform or Knoweldge in that you chose a specialty. Second, the consolidation in 3e is not nearly to the degree of 4e.

The problem with a big list of more specialized skills is that the whole skill system loses utility (unless you start handing out a lot more skill points). You end up with a group of skill specialists sidelined until there particular area of knowledge comes into play.

For example: Knowledge: history made seem absurdly broad... but Knowledge: history (of a particular region and era) is basically useless unless the whole campaign is based around there/then.

 

[Greg K]

Out of curiosity, which ones do you like?

For the record, I currently prefer systems with small lists of broadly applied skills (and when needed, simple ability checks) like 4e.

My skill lists preferences

Number of skills between that of 3e or d20Modern and RMSS and that allow players to assign points to purchase just how good they are. 3e and d20M are closest to what I like, but could use a few extra skills and applying perform like subskills to a few of them. RMSS is a little on the heavy side, but not enough that I will not play it.

Set levels of difficulty with explanations of just hard a particular DC is? What is an easy task? what is an average task? What is hard? etc. And these should be set levels (edit: (e.g, DC 30 is x difficulty). This is unless an action is complicated by someone opposing the character in which case the relative skill levels should modify the difficult.).

Preferably it should have a list of how good a specific rank is. What is a novice/beginner, what is professional level? What is an expert? What is the best in a region? A nation? The best in the world?

Games that I find are too consolidated for my tastes include 4e, Cinematic Unisystem (however Buffy and Angel soucebooks make an ok reference), and Savage Worlds.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

My skill lists preferences

Number of skills between that of 3e or d20Modern and RMSS and that allow players to assign points to purchase just how good they are. 3e and d20M are closest to what I like, but could use a few extra skills and applying perform like subskills to a few of them. RMSS is a little on the heavy side, but not enough that I will not play it.

Set levels of difficulty with explanations of just hard a particular DC is? What is an easy task? what is an average task? What is hard? etc. And these should be set levels

Preferably it should have a list of how good a specific rank is. What is a novice/beginner, what is professional level? What is an expert? What is the best in a region? A nation? The best in the world?

Games that I find are too consolidated for my tastes include 4e, Cinematic Unisystem (however Buffy and Angel soucebooks make an ok reference), and Savage Worlds.

It sounds like you are looking for a point based system, and not a class and level based system.

 

[Greg K]

They may view their character seeking to become a haiku master. But if they play a straight Fighter in 3E they can't. Only a class with Perform as a class skill can accomplish that.

Check your PHB (3.0/p.94 and 3.5/p.110). There is an example of giving the figher more skill points and some additional class skills.

Another question: Why are automatically increasing skill points a deal-breaker for you when all 3E classes have automatically increasing BABs and saves? Why does every fighter excel at fighting at the exact same rate?

They are something tolerable, because there will probably be a lot more fighting and saving throws whether you are in a dungeon, in the wilderness, in an urban center, etc. Although myself, I thought they should have kept the four levels of combat proficiency from 1e and 2e. That doesn't mean that I would not have preferred a switch to assigning ranks to attack abilities.

 

[Greg K]

What I don't see is the need for D&D to be this sort of game.

I have found 3e do be a good middle point that the DND players and RM/GURPS/HERO players I know can both enjoy.

 

[Greg K]

It sounds like you are looking for a point based system, and not a class and level based system.

Nope. 3e and d20 Modern both give me the basic of what I want which is something in the middle - especially for fantasy. They also have a good core mechanic. However, beyond the core books, I turn to UA and 3pp for support products, because they help me tailor the game.

Which is not to say there are not a few things that I would have loved to have seen from 4e in 3e.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

I have found 3e do be a good middle point that the DND players and RM/GURPS/HERO players I know can both enjoy.

And yet WotC chose as a business decision to make D&D for the D&D fans, and let RM/GURPS/HERO players play those games.

 

[Greg K]

And yet WotC chose as a business decision to make D&D for the D&D fans, and let RM/GURPS/HERO players play those games.

Let me clarify. I meant groups that had previously mixed preferences prior to 3e. My own group had one or two people that would not play RM and two or three that would not play pre-3e dnd. That meant no DND at all. With 3e the pre-3e DND people liked it much better than previous editions and the RM players liked it almost as much or equally to 3e. So, they all became DND players.

 

[The_Gneech]

And yet WotC chose as a business decision to make D&D for the D&D fans, and let RM/GURPS/HERO players play those games.

So "D&D fans" didn't like 3E? News to me.

There's no reason why a well-made game can't appeal to both sub-sets.

-The Gneech

 

[Cadfan]

I honestly wouldn't mind a craft, profession, or perform system, if they actually DID something.

That was my problem with the 3e system. Other than perform, which tied to bardic abilities, these skills didn't do anything. They gave you an arbitrary number, and you used that number to... well... usually do nothing. If you had to actually make a skill roll (which didn't happen often because you could usually take 10 or 20) you rolled against a totally arbitrary number the DM made up.

It accomplished one meaningful thing- it made "is a blacksmith" an official character trait, instead of "just" backstory. But I'm not sure how important that is.

So, I dunno, maybe 5e will have a really great craft/profession/perform system, and in eight years you'll be hearing me laugh about how inferior "just ad lib it" is as a system. But I'm going to have to actually see that better system before I endorse it, and I'm not going to complain that 4e has the actual, existing "just ad lib it" system instead of the hypothetical, imaginary "system that fixes 3e's problems and is totally better in every way."