Why are ranks limited?

[Hypersmurf]

Well, that is, the mount would never get touched... once per round.

-Hyp.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Its "n'est-ce pas?"

Actually I think it's "ce n'est pas" as negation to "c'est"

Barbarians have such a great spell list!

 

[Tar-Edhel]

Actually I think it's "ce n'est pas" as negation to "c'est"

Maitre du Donjon was right. n'est-ce pas (isn't it) is the interrogative form for ce n'est pas (it isn't).

Back to the thread...

 

[Inez Hull]

Originally posted by Hypersmurf

What's the max rank / skill point cost when he levels up?

What about cross-class skills?

I would suggest that extra skill points when levelling would be spent the same way as on level one. If the number of points in a skill were less than the normal maximum (3 + level) they would cost one and if the existing total is beyond the normal available then extra ranks upon levelling would cost double. If you are pushing the boundaries with your knowledge and training you have to continue to do so to keep your edge.

I would suggest that under this system cross class skills still cost double but that you could develop up to 3 + level ranks in them but be unallowed to go beyond as with class skills.

I think I will also look at upping the bonus from the skill focus feat and create some feats like alertness that create a +2 to a package of skills (most likely more than 2 skills however).

 

[WattsHumphrey]

*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*

Wow... I guess I'm more curious to know the 169 different performance types you'd choose

 

[jerichothebard]

Another thing to think about - and I don't know ho wthis factors in, really - is that synergy bonuses all take effect at five ranks in the skill... which is inachievable at first level...

jericho

 

[DSC-EricPrice]

I'd like to thank everyone who answered this thread with their own opinions. While from a perspective of mimicing real life I do not believe in a system that limits the number of ranks as severely as 3E does, I do think that the comment made about making a system for which adventures can be planned for and written strikes a chord with me.

Having a system where heroes could max out skills in their entirety would make it difficult if not impossible for those who write adventures to write adventures that appealed to a wide range of people.

All that aside, I personally feel that people wouldnt really play characters who maxed out all their skill points on one or two skills. They might try it for a while, but after time they would revert. Initially being undetectable amongst the shadows and slipping unnoticed past the guards would be thrilling, but the instant fame of maxing out skills would quickly be replaced by the feeling of never having to really try in order to succeed. In many cases there would be no chance for failure. On the opposite end, the character would be completely unable or unprepared to attempt even the most rudimentary skills of their profession because of the "time" they had invested in ramping up that one skill.

Anyway, Im signing off this thread, but Im not going to stop thinking of a way to superimpose a new skill system on top of 3E.

 

[Hypersmurf]

... but the instant fame of maxing out skills would quickly be replaced by the feeling of never having to really try in order to succeed.

Heh!

Yeah, and nobody complained when the Sword and Fist errata made some of the weapons a little less scary, because nobody really wants to play a character that walks all over any encounter without trying...

-Hyp.

 

[Lord Rasputin]

Re: Re: Why are ranks limited?

I believe that it was intended to eliminate the "Johnny One-Note" syndrome that crops up from time to time in character design. This is most common in point based systems like GURPS or Hero where by heavily focusing your point spending you can create characters who are so good at one thing or another as to be able to break the system in a hurry. They are useless for anything else, but their specialty allows them to be so overwhelming that it doesn't matter.

Specialist characters are fun. Hyper-ultra-specialist characters are not.

Such characters are easy to beat. Johnny One-Notes fall down go boom in my games (which, when I run a game, is always GURPS). Any GM who loses control of these characters is a lousy GM.

I can see the limits in d20, since gaining the next level is a big goal, but I can also see raising some of the limits. Having a the best Craft (weaponsmith) as an Exp20 with 20d6 is unrealistic, but that is how the system works.

 

[Storm Raven]

Re: Re: Re: Why are ranks limited?

Such characters are easy to beat. Johnny One-Notes fall down go boom in my games (which, when I run a game, is always GURPS). Any GM who loses control of these characters is a lousy GM.

Not really. A well-designed One-Note character usually specializes in something that is useful in a broad array of situations: social skills are the most common choices, since an enormously high Diplomacy score, for example, means you can talk your way past most things and talk your opponents out of their socks.

There are a couple of other areas that One-Notes focus on, in modern games, various scientific or engineering abilities are fairly common, as they also have broad applicability. The key to a One-Note character is to find a skill useful in lots of situations, and pump that up out of proportion to the character.