Post/Author/DateTime	Post
timerino 01-05-07, 03:54 PM	Was reading the Complete Scoundrel excerpt: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20070105a&page=5 the Trick System sounds interesting: half way between feat and skill ranks. It sound like a better system for the many ad hoc DCs for 'tricks' performed without this system. tim
trollbill 01-05-07, 03:59 PM	Sounds like they are tinkering around with things they are thinking of putting into 4.0.
budleiser 01-05-07, 04:21 PM	Wow. Some of these are better than feats, and only cost 2 skill points. INT/Skill based characters just got a lot better. Spot the Weak Point Spot 12 ranks Make your next attack a touch attack
GrahamWills 01-05-07, 05:48 PM	Sounds like they are tinkering around with things they are thinking of putting into 4.0. Yup. Actually, it's pretty clear the direction they are heading -- for anyone who played Rolemaster. Several of the main people on D&D are from those designers and the changes they have made to D&D have been consistent with that vision. It makes sense, as Rolemaster was very succesful and the things that were good in it were very good -- they just never had time to make it all hang together as a real system rather than a D&D add-on. And this system sounds like a move to more of a point buy system where feats just cost more to buy than skills. This is a half-way step. For a full point buy system a la Rolemaster, give every class the same number of points and then they can buy skills at a cost of 1, cross-class skills at a cost of 2. The "skill feats" would cost 2 or 4, and then just add in feats with varying costs, costing double for cross-class feats. So a barbarian might buy RAGE for 4 and FAST MOVE for 3, but the gnome wizard spends 6 to get her speed to 30'. "So what did we elarn in wizard school today, Przzt?" "Well, actually I ditched classes and learned how to run away from the school guards ..." You might need to tinker with the number of skill points too. In rolemaster terms you'd use a complicated formula based on CHA, WIS and INT (maybe CON too ...) rather than pure INT. However I think you'd see a lot more intelligent fighters if that allowed them to learn feats faster ... might be a nice improvement
Samwise 01-05-07, 07:31 PM	Some of them look way too powerful. Otherwise I generall agree with Trollbill and GrahamWillis. (Although I didn't place the concept, it's been a long time.)
Arvagor 01-05-07, 07:58 PM	the Trick System sounds interesting: half way between feat and skill ranks.I only just glanced at it, but I saw at least one trick that duplicates a feat -- "Hidden Blade" has the same requirements as the 'Flick of the Wrist' feat (from Complete Warrior and Races of the Wild) and does the same thing. In some ways, it's actually better than the feat, as the feat requires Dex 17, but the trick has no Dex requirement...
haferka 01-05-07, 11:46 PM	I also fear that they have given these "tricks" to much power.. but, lets not jump to conclusions.. wait till we can see the full descriptions for the tricks. We don't know if these "tricks" are limited x/day? We don't know if they require a high DC skill check to execute?
LGMoses 01-05-07, 11:55 PM	Does it look like things are getting more complicated to anyone else?
haferka 01-05-07, 11:58 PM	Yes, and I love it. you can still play a basic barbarian or fighter.... just dont take any complicated feats or skills.
Lupo 01-06-07, 02:12 AM	Yes, and I love it. you can still play a basic barbarian or fighter.... just dont take any complicated feats or skills. sounds like a complex system to achieve nothing useful for an ongoing campaign with the momentary 3.5 rules, unless one introduces a total new character and skill system as well. a fighter or cleric just gets way too few skill points to use the tricks system. those who get lots of skills already would grossly benefit ciao martin m.
haferka 01-06-07, 08:55 AM	sounds like a complex system to achieve nothing useful for an ongoing campaign with the momentary 3.5 rules, unless one introduces a total new character and skill system as well. a fighter or cleric just gets way too few skill points to use the tricks system. those who get lots of skills already would grossly benefit ciao martin m. The skill point requirement would probably explain why they added it to the "Complere Scoundrel"... classes that typically have more skill points than anyone else. Please don't assume that it is overly complex... Untill you see the rules.. all we have seen is a chart detailing the basic benifits. Looks to me like these "tricks" add new uses to exisiting skills. Adds a little complesity.. sure, but I believe the benifits GREATLY outweigh the costs.
Lomiat 01-06-07, 09:30 AM	sounds like a complex system to achieve nothing useful for an ongoing campaign with the momentary 3.5 rules, unless one introduces a total new character and skill system as well. a fighter or cleric just gets way too few skill points to use the tricks system. those who get lots of skills already would grossly benefit ciao martin m. My fighter gets a minimum of 5 skill points per level, with very few "necessary" skills. He's already got enough ranks in the skills he's likely to use to meet any DC he's likely to encounter. Tricks would serve him well (ridiculously well, and I think they should NOT become a part of LG.) My skill-based characters (arcane trickster, bard, etc.) have more skill points per level than my fighter, but they also have more demand for their skill points. They want to be good at several skills and need X many ranks in Y many skills to qualify for prestige classes. They'd have a harder time finding free skill points for Tricks. My wizard gets a minimum of 8 skill points per level, with only a couple of necessary skills (Concentration, Spellcraft), and would easily abuse and break several Tricks on his first level if they become available. Silly Wizards, Tricks are for Rogues!
ranagrande 01-06-07, 10:08 AM	Granted, we don't know the details yet, but that all looks pretty ridiculous to me. There's a feat that gives you five skill points. With these tricks, you're basically spending two skill points to get a feat. Several of them actually do grant the benefits of feats and often with less strict prerequisites. As I looked at that list I thought of several builds that would seriously break the game.
Vanadium 01-06-07, 11:35 AM	Just for some information, from various sources I've seen of people with the book, it looks as if most of the tricks are only usable once per encounter or once per minute out of encounter. Then again, I also heard that some of the prestige classes change this, but I couldn't tell you how.
awroe 01-06-07, 01:04 PM	You're also only allowed one trick per two levels, so no breaking things at first level
Vanadium 01-06-07, 01:32 PM	You're also only allowed one trick per two levels, so no breaking things at first level Well, that and you need at least 5 ranks in a skill to get the lowest level tricks in the excerpt. I think the tricks are perfectly viable, especially seeing as even if they replicate an existing feat or class feature, they don't seem to be able to do this very often. Then again, when the book is in more people's hands I guess we'll know more about that. I think they would fit into LG just fine, but then again I've only been playing a few months. In my mind, more options are a good thing. Then again, this might be something that simply came out too late for this next LGCS.
haferka 01-06-07, 04:35 PM	In my mind, more options are a good thing. Then again, this might be something that simply came out too late for this next LGCS. I agree, and Britt has already stated that they are considering content form PH2, CM & CS.
Britt 01-06-07, 05:15 PM	We will talk about tricks, but since we don't yet have CS and there's not much time between now and the LGCS release, I don't know how much chance there will be to review, discuss, and implement a new system like Tricks. We will discuss them, though.
Munkwunk 01-06-07, 06:22 PM	Well, heres' one more person hoping that you'll be able to review them in time. If nothing else, Wizards can be comfortable knowing that they're still producing some mighty fine game mechanics; I really love the idea of the Skill Trick system, and would love to see it in both LG and home games alike. I'd especially like to see it in LG though, for one simple reason: LG sells books. I know that myself and most of my pals have limited spending money, and we gravitate toward the books that have hte most LG access, since it's our primary campaign. The more we get to use, the easier it is to justify buying the supplements. Okay, so that was a rather lengthy way of saying "Dang, that looks like some cool stuff! I hope it shows up in LG!"
LGMoses 01-06-07, 08:48 PM	ok, i'm confused about this: for LG do you need to own the book and have it with you or can u just print the pages you need off?
pedr 01-06-07, 08:58 PM	If you own the book you can photocopy the relevant sections, or print from a .pdf version you've bought for those books which Wizards sells on pdf.
Sutro 01-07-07, 03:40 AM	LOL, most of these tricks are hilarious. See, in my local gaming group, there is one insult of a character - above all others - that makes people fall silent and purse their lips in awe of the gauntlet has been thrown. It has nothing to do with a character's mother, or race, or anything like that. It's a simple, "Oh yeah? Well, you're light infantry." A variant of this insult is to say mockingly, "Oh, well, I've got a +3 attack bonus, but I've got this going for me..." I see these skill tricks being used to lead more and more players down that path of "I jump on the chandelier, balance on the staircase, tumble onto the veranda next to the babau and...miss." Next round: "I tumble around the creature, make a free bluff check to draw my secondary weapon, dervish dance around the lemure and...miss." Third round: "I full attack. One sec... (player counts) Three damage. No, wait, four." True, these skill tricks may enhance a character's abilities in some aspects, but the purity of purpose that they're giving up with the skill points and the associated Int point buy, I think, more than will compensate for the versatility. Characters aren't supposed to do it all. That's why there's six of you at the table. -Sutro
Arvagor 01-07-07, 12:38 PM	Characters aren't supposed to do it all. That's why there's six of you at the table.Sure they are -- Mordenkainen and Robilar were regularly a two-man party, and they survived to epic levels ;)
Samwise 01-07-07, 07:55 PM	Sure they are -- Mordenkainen and Robilar were regularly a two-man party, and they survived to epic levels ;) No they didn't. Nobody ever got above 12th level in the old days. At least that's what certain advocates of the old days like to claim when they want to mock the concpt of a PC actually casting an 8th or 9th level spell. :rolleyes:
Mithreinmaethor 01-07-07, 09:08 PM	I doubt we will see Tricks in LG any time soon. They didnt take anything from the Tome of Battle, and this is just going down that same line rules wise.
LGMoses 01-08-07, 12:23 AM	what I'm afraid of is that all of these feats and stuff will cut into freedom. PC: I wanna do this (insert cool thing) Judge: Do you have feat X PC: No Judge: then you can't do it. Thats just what I'm afraid of. Call me paranoid.
Sutro 01-08-07, 01:00 AM	I hear you, Moses. It's bothersome that the original intent of the skills system - to provide a framework for doing all these cool things with checks - is kind of being sapped by skill tricks and tactical feats. It's very disempowering to the DM as well. If someone wants to swing over a chasm with their whip, that sounds risky but reasonable to me. I'll call for a AC 15 ranged touch to get a firm grip on the object, DC 8 STR check (depending on your weight) to hang on, and a DC 12 Dex check to actually make the swing. Three fairly easy checks for a character based around a whip, but also three chances for failure (with potentially catastrophic results.) If they're put into the LGCS, then players can do less cool things. And that's not fun.
Arvagor 01-08-07, 08:27 AM	If they're put into the LGCS, then players can do less cool things. And that's not fun.Naw, players will always be able to do cool things just with skills. Using your example above, I estimate the chasm is no more than 25 feet across (can't be wider than twice the whip's 15-foot length, and you lose some length angling up to whatever it is you're catching with the whip). With nothing but a high Jump skill, I think it's pretty cool that my rogue can jump across that from a standing start with no dice roll needed, and I don't even need a trick to do it! ;)
haferka 01-08-07, 11:23 AM	I hear you, Moses. It's bothersome that the original intent of the skills system - to provide a framework for doing all these cool things with checks - is kind of being sapped by skill tricks and tactical feats. It's very disempowering to the DM as well. If someone wants to swing over a chasm with their whip, that sounds risky but reasonable to me. I'll call for a AC 15 ranged touch to get a firm grip on the object, DC 8 STR check (depending on your weight) to hang on, and a DC 12 Dex check to actually make the swing. Three fairly easy checks for a character based around a whip, but also three chances for failure (with potentially catastrophic results.) If they're put into the LGCS, then players can do less cool things. And that's not fun. Nothing is preventing you from allowing the example above... The trick system sounds like a way to simplify that process for those characters who do that particular "trick" all the time. If you ever played the old MARVEL heroes game.. think of it like a power stunt... you try it.. over and over again.. untill you "learn" to to do it with much less difficulty. The trick system is great becouse it grants players the "ability" to try this stuff, even if they have a DM who lacks the creativity to come up with rules on the fly... Personally, I love the example you gave above.. and I think it would be WONDERFULL if there was a similar example for EVERY trick listed in "skills tricks" list.