Why are ranks limited?

[Henry]

A first level human rogue (Int 12) can speak 41 languages, if he wants...

-Hyp.

Speak language isn't a class skill for a rogue, but it is for a bard. Still 20+ languages at first level is a bit much, ne c'est pas?

 

[Hypersmurf]

That's what Cosmopolitan is all about, my friend...

-Hyp.

 

[Baron Von StarBlade]

or a rogue with +44 to use magic device....

Darn, beat me too it.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Obviously the prestige classes that followed were built around the skill point mechanic. If you changed the rule a lot of other material would be "broken". I dont think its acceptable to use the second to justify the first, which was used to build the second mechanic to begin with.

Sure, but that only applies if you think people are going to toss everything they have based on that assumption for your new rule. WotC would have problems convincing people to do that -- why would a smaller company even have a chance?

 

[Archer]

Skill ranks are limited for the same reason you can't buy up specific saves and BAB. A character of a certain level has a certain amount of power. Hyperspecialization makes a character better than a 20th level character in one aspect but inferior in all other aspects. Imagine a 3rd level character with +20 to hit with a rapier but +0 to hit with any other weapon. The character is unbalanced unless you take away the rapier, then they are useless. The level system is designed to reduce this sort of hyperspecialization. The system prevents idiot-savants and super-prodigies.

In other d20 games the examples are clearer. Imagine a 1st level jedi who has better telekinesis than Darth Vader. Does that make sense? That's what the level+3 limit is.

 

[Hypersmurf]

In other d20 games the examples are clearer. Imagine a 1st level jedi who has better telekinesis than Darth Vader. Does that make sense? That's what the level+3 limit is.

Of course, if you can have a 1st level Jedi with +40 to telekinesis, then you can have a 5th level jedi with +80!

Hey, how about Iaijutsu Focus?

-Hyp.

 

[fba827]

I believe the basic underlying decision behind the rule was simply this: They needed a strict way to guarentee that a higher level character will always have the potential to be better at some skill than a lower level character. Implementing a rule to base a maximum based on level is how they addressed it. The choice for +3 was probably done to keep first level characters from being without hope, so to speak

(That's my take on it anyway).

 

[Demon Knight]

*shivers at the thought of a 10th level human rogue (Int 18) with 169 ranks in Perform...turning every red dragon he meets into a fanatic*

 

[bret]

At a guess, the +3 was based on attribute bonuses. You want a first level character to be at least as good as someone defaulting off their attribute modifier.

At a +4 skill, at the point buy values the game is balanced for you are going to do better than someone who has zero ranks but a high attribute.

 

[Caliban]

It's part of the level-based challenge concept of D&D.

As your character gains levels, they get the skills and abilities that allow them to meet and overcome more difficult challenges.

In general, the DC's for the skill tests that you need to make will be much higher at 10th level than they were at 20th level. It takes higher level characters with higher level skills to meet the challenge represented by these DC's.

If you could buy as many ranks of a skill as you had available skill points, low level rogues would easily bypass any trap they meet, anyone could be a master craftsman with only minor amount of training, any low level wizard could be a master of any field of knowledge.

It would ignore the fact that some things are only learned after a lot of training and experience, that you can only learn a subject so quickly. People don't master a skill overnight, or in a single level.