Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Sylvaroth 04-29-07, 02:59 PM	I have attempted something like this before but seeing this article (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=starwars/article/SagaPreview2) gave me a whole bunch of new ideas. This is what I have so far: Acrobatics (Dex) (Balance, Escape Artist, Jump and Tumble) Deception (Cha) (Bluff, Disguise, and Forgery) Disable Device (Dex) (Disable Device, Open Lock, Sleight Of Hand, and Use Rope) Endurance (Con) (Climb, Concentration, Ride, and Swim) Initiative (Dex) Knowledge (Int) (Appraise, Craft, Knowledge Skills, Heal, Spellcraft, Survival, and Use Magic Device) Language (Int) (Decipher Script and Speak Language) Perception (Wis) (Listen, Search, Sense Motive, and Spot) Persuasion (Cha) (Diplomacy, Gather Information, Handle Animal, Intimidate, Perform) Stealth (Dex) (Hide, Move Silently) Note that I did not include Profession. It did not really fit anywhere and I never really liked it that much, anyways. Does this seem okay to you or do you think there are some skills that don't quite fit? There are no skill ranks for this system, the skill bonus applied to a skill check is determined as follows: 1/2 character level + relevant ability modifier + 5 (if trained) + 5 (if Skill Focus) All characters may use all skills, but specific uses of some skills are available only to those who are trained in those skills. Either you are trained in a skill or you are not. Trained Skills by Class Brb Brd Clr Drd Ftr Mnk Pal Rgr Rog Sor Wiz Acrobatics Yes Yes - - Yes Yes - Yes Yes - - Deception - Yes - - - - - - Yes Yes - Disable Device - Yes - - - - - Yes Yes - - Endurance Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Knowledge Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Language - Yes - - - - - - Yes - Yes Perception Yes Yes - Yes - Yes Yes Yes Yes - - Persuasion Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes - - Stealth - Yes - - - Yes - Yes Yes - - The following feats are no longer available: Acrobatic, Agile, Alertness, Animal Affinity, Athletic, Deceitful, Deft Hands, Diligent, Investigator, Magical Aptitude, Negotiator, Nimble Fingers, Persuasive, Self-Sufficient, and Stealthy. Same for racial traits or class features that provided a bonus to skills or bonus skill points. No skill provides a synergy bonus to another skill. Some of the changes that still need to be addressed are: Racial traits that allow to reroll a skill check (e.g. Half-Orcs should be able to reroll Persuasion checks to intimidate, resp. Half-Elves should be able to reroll Persuasion checks to gather information.) Same or similar concept of rerolling skill checks for class features. Class features, feats, or racial traits which allow a character to take 10 when he normally wouldn't be allowed to do so. Class features, feats, or racial traits that allow to switch your skill modifiers (similar to the concept of switching ability modifiers for attack rolls, e.g. Weapon Finesse) Skill Tricks As for skill tricks, I'd love to make them a way to specialize in a certain skill instead of 'once-per-encounter'-gizmos. Does this sound interesting to you? Do you have some kind of constructive criticism or suggestions? Would you like to contribute to this concept? Post your ideas and we'll see what we can do about this concept. -the just as annoying Sylvaroth ;)
SpoonyBard 04-29-07, 03:27 PM	You just made Climb, Ride, and Swim class skills for wizards by grouping thm in with Concentration... That just doesn't seem right to me. On top of that, you just gave perform and diplomacy to a fighter... I don't think this system works too well. It's simpler, yes, but it gets rid of a lot of the best parts of the skill system. Skills need to be differentiated the way they are.
Khementari 04-29-07, 03:46 PM	The system works very well. I've been using a similar system for years and after the Saga preview came out I made a few adjustments. Getting the skill groups together is a little tricky. There are a few posts about this in the Homebrew area. I'll post my groups here to give you a hand. Acrobatics Balance (Feat +5) Escape (Feat +5) Tumble (Feat +5) Athletics Climb (Feat +5) Jump (Feat +5) Running (Feat +5) Swim (Feat +5) Deception Bluff (Feat +5) Disguise (Feat +5) Devices Device (Feat +5) Locks (Trained Only; Feat +5) Magic device (Trained Only) Handle Animal Ride (Feat +5, specific creature) Teach (Feat +5, specific creature) Perception Listen (Feat +5) Sense Motive (Feat +5) Spot (Feat +5) Track (Trained Only, Feat +5) Perform Act (Feat +5) Dance (Feat +5) Music (Feat +5) Oratory (Feat +5) Trickery (Feat +5) Persuasion Diplomacy (Feat +5) Gather info (Feat +5) Intimidate (Feat +5) Stealth Hide (Feat +5) Sneak (Feat +5) Survival Gather Food (Feat +5) Shelter (Feat +5) Region (Feat +5) Craft Untrained, no results over 10. Specific (Trained +5), (Feat +5) Weaponcraft Armorcraft ... Lore Untrained, no results over 10. Specific (Trained +5). (Feat +5) Region Faith Heritage Creature Sorcery ... Language Untrained, no results over 10. Specific (Trained +5). (Feat +5) ... Profession Specific (Trained +5), (Feat +5) Healer Merchant Sailor ...
Sylvaroth 04-29-07, 03:50 PM	You just made Climb, Ride, and Swim class skills for wizards by grouping thm in with Concentration... That just doesn't seem right to me. On top of that, you just gave perform and diplomacy to a fighter... Climb, Ride, and Swim are things you can do with the skill Endurance. What's actually the problem with having those skills? Why should a wizard be unable to join his companions in, eg.g an exciting, fast-paced chase sequence. On the other hand, would a wizard really have to use these skills (being unable to cast haste, spider climb, levitate, fly, etc. for reasons unknown), why should he be unable to do so? He is an adventurer. Adventurers have to climb steep cliffs, ride noble steeds, or dive into the depths of the ocean once in a while. I don't think this system works too well. It's simpler, yes, but it gets rid of a lot of the best parts of the skill system. Skills need to be differentiated the way they are. This is no argument. It is your opinion. Why exactly is it, that we need Listen, Search, Spot, and Sense Motive? Why do we need four skills, when they really do only one thing. Perceive. Why do you have to be a monster and take a feat to use your sense of smell? Why do you need something like tremorsense or blindsight to represent something as simple as your sense of touch? Sorry, this does not make sense to ME. If you feel it is what you want, go ahead and stick with it. But, if you agree that some of the skills are basically aspects of the same thing, you are very welcome to state your ideas and suggestions here. The system works very well. I've been using a similar system for years and after the Saga preview came out I made a few adjustments. Getting the skill groups together is a little tricky. There are a few posts about this in the Homebrew area. I'll post my groups here to give you a hand. Thanks a lot, Khem! Though these are not exactly what I am looking for, I am very pleased to see that basically we are going into the same direction. Could you maybe come up with some links to those homebrew threads you mention?
Khementari 04-29-07, 04:02 PM	http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=837826
Grave_Accomplice 04-29-07, 08:17 PM	This is no argument. It is your opinion. Why exactly is it, that we need Listen, Search, Spot, and Sense Motive? Why do we need four skills, when they really do only one thing. Musicians good at tuning instruments and differenitating sound don't also have improved sight, empathy, or accuem for hidden alcoves. Good diplomats (especially those over 50) don't have improved hearing or eye sight. Sailors working a crow's nest don't suddenly understand when they are being lied to just based on their eyes.
Khementari 04-29-07, 10:48 PM	Musicians good at tuning instruments and differenitating sound don't also have improved sight, empathy, or accuem for hidden alcoves. Good diplomats (especially those over 50) don't have improved hearing or eye sight. Sailors working a crow's nest don't suddenly understand when they are being lied to just based on their eyes. That's why the musician would have a skill focus feat for a whopping +5 to his Listen checks. etc.
Grave_Accomplice 04-30-07, 03:57 AM	That's why the musician would have a skill focus feat for a whopping +5 to his Listen checks. etc. So by your account a 13 year old on board ship spending most of his time in the crows nest, capable of spotting objects others can't see at 25 miles away (the distance from ship to horizon on calm seas) should be just as good (without feats) hearing tumblers in a safe move, detecting when the merchant is lying, or finding secret compartments although he's never actually done any of these? Going back to Sylvaroth's previous examples: Climb, Ride, and Swim are all separate sporting events. Each require training and focus to improve performance. By consolidating skills your saying that champion jockeys (top in the class) should be equal to, or slightly inferior (a whole -5 if they took their specialized feat) to, Olympic swimmers in the pool. Without ever doing more than a few laps in the hotel spa. Doesn't make much sense. If we want to get into more mundane examples, there are accounts of sailors, trained and able to climb riggings, who couldn't swim. No ranks what so ever. Heck, I've climbed obstacle courses in decent time and still swim like a rock. Not getting angry, it just that this set of consolidations makes no sense to me.
Potato Weasel 04-30-07, 08:29 AM	I really really dislike the saga system. Yes it simplifies it, and yes it allows characters to do a lot more. But, I dont think every character should be able to do everything excepting a +5 bonus. It means a sorceror or even a slightly charismatic fighter has almost as much chance of diplomacy, etc as a swashbuckling ladies man, or a noble cleric. Plus, it takes away the scale of chalenges. The maximum a character can get without an ability bonus is +10, and thats if you burn a feat. And thats what you can get at level one. That means that the traps your disarming at level 15 are about the same as level one traps. Same goes for any skill that stays usefull as you level, you dont get any better unless you drastically improve ability scores, and so the challenges and checks have to stay the same. I genuinely hope they dont do this for dnd.
shift244 04-30-07, 08:53 AM	Why should a wizard be unable to join his companions in, eg.g an exciting, fast-paced chase sequence. On the other hand, would a wizard really have to use these skills (being unable to cast haste, spider climb, levitate, fly, etc. for reasons unknown), why should he be unable to do so? He is an adventurer. Adventurers have to climb steep cliffs, ride noble steeds, or dive into the depths of the ocean once in a while.And they can. The skills are merely cross-class skills to be purchased at twice the cost of a class skill, and they are at best, only half as good compared to the more rowdy classes. A wizard, by class, is more of a scholarly type and spend more time climbing intellectual heights than physical mountainous ones. By grouping them like this, you remove part of the flavor of a wizened wizard image based off Gandalf (NOT the movie version!)/Merlin.
Khementari 04-30-07, 11:28 AM	This system is designed for heroes, not for your mundane examples. Watch a movie and find an example of a hero that says, "You know what guys, there's no way I can (pilot that ship/climb that mountain/convince the king to attack our enemies)so I think I'm just going to sit this one out and let you guys handle it. It's about freeing your players from the confines of poorly thought rules. I have someone playing a fighter that can turn the tide of a negotiation. Why shouldn't that be possible? Simply because you can't wrap your head around a new way to do things? It is also more complex than you are giving it credit for. There are applications that can't be done untrained. There would also be applications that can only be attempted in conjunction with a skill focus feat. The "scale of challenges" is just fine. You would see that if you took a few minutes to think about it. And anything with a few limbs and the will to live can swim. I don't care if you say so-and-so can't swim. If you toss them in the water they will. They may not swim for long, and may eventually drown, but at some point they are swimming. Look, even a mundane can do it. Unshakable archetypes like the "wizened wizard" are crutches. If I want to make an adventurous wizard that knows how to sneak and how to climb then no rule should be telling me that since I'm a wizard I will never be good at such things. If you like to play that kind of old wizard that can only read books and talk about the outerplanes them I'm fully behind you. But don't say your need for that type of play has to be universal. Playing the game is about fun, and I can tell you my group is having more fun than we've had in many, many years.
Sylvaroth 04-30-07, 02:45 PM	:D Khementary beat me to it. What s/he said.
Sylvaroth 05-01-07, 04:07 AM	GREATER SKILL FOCUS [GENERAL] Choose a skill to which you already have applied the Skill Focus feat. Benefit: You get a +3 bonus on all checks involving that skill. This bonus stacks with the bonus from Skill Focus. Special: You can gain this feat multiple times. Its effects do not stack. Each time you take the feat, it applies to a new skill to which you already have applied the Skill Focus feat.
Grave_Accomplice 05-01-07, 04:23 AM	This system is designed for heroes, not for your mundane examples. Watch a movie and find an example of a hero that says, "You know what guys, there's no way I can (pilot that ship/climb that mountain/convince the king to attack our enemies)so I think I'm just going to sit this one out and let you guys handle it. -Star Wars part IV: Obi Wan can't fly them out of the system (he has the force, and the means/morality to steal/convince a thug to give up his ship). He has to let Han Solo do the flying. Star Wars part I: The princess can't fly her personal craft, relying on her crew to do so. Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets: Harry Potter can't make the potion to change forms, so Hermoine has to. Remember that she nds up a victim in this film, not the hero. Ron is also the one operating the flying car, not Harry. MI 1: Tom Cruise can't hack into various computer systems, and has others doing it for him. Aoen Flux, the series: Aeon can't crack a given code, so goes to Una to crack it for her. Eight Heads in a Duffel Bag: Joe Pesci's characetr can't fly a plane. He relys on public airlines, and later a hostage, to cover large distances. Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Authur Dent literally can't do anything other members of the crew do. Blade 1 - 3: Blade didn't make his own weapons, or his serum. Ocean's 11, 12, and 13: Geoge Clooney wasn't doing everything. He filled his team with members that could do things he could not. The list goes on. -People who don't swim regularly don't; they float. It's an inherent result based on physics and the fact their lungs are filled with air. Once they get tired or panic they die. This is true regardless of age. A 20 year old and a 50 year old, neither of which have touched the water before, both go down at roughly the same time (allowing for variations in physical make-up). The 50 year old doesn't swim longer or better just because he's more experienced overall. PS: Chimps don't swim; they drown. A reserve for abused chimpanzees keeps them on islands as a means to separate them from the local population. The locals won't bother the chimps, and the chimps won't hurt the locals should something make them snap. The same goes with mountain climbing. I have yet to see a 50 year old with no experience in climbing outclimb (or come anywhere close to competeing with) a professional free climber. Heck, I have yet to see one compete with the climbing skills of a freerunner! -I have nothing against wizards learning to sneak, creep, etc. I don't have anything against charismatic fighters. I do have a problem with a system that caters to player-self gratification. There are other ways to work the system as shown by OGL game makers that allow you to group your skills if you choose. Claiming that a system ensures that a character isn't stuck without a skill capitulates to those who want to do it all. With a good DM, the senario doesn't happen without just cause. -The various archtypes aren't nessecarily crutches. They are archtypes imbedded in the subconscious in nearly every culture, in one form or another. Carl Jung goes to great length proving this.
Potato Weasel 05-01-07, 08:23 AM	*applause for Grave_Accomplice*
Sylvaroth 05-01-07, 08:39 AM	-Star Wars part IV: Obi Wan can't fly them out of the system (he has the force, and the means/morality to steal/convince a thug to give up his ship). He has to let Han Solo do the flying. Star Wars does not consist of only one episode. Paying attention to all six you will notice, that Obi Wan can pilot space ships, but doesn’t like to very much. I think the main reason why he hired Han and Chewy instead of just stealing a ship was to introduce those two characters to the audience. It’s also worth nothing that it is a heck more complicated to journey without attracting attention, if you pilot a stolen space craft. Star Wars part I: The princess can't fly her personal craft, relying on her crew to do so. I take it you mean queen Amidala. She’s most likely an Aristocrat. Your argument translates to D&D as follows: The queen can't drive her coach/sail her ship, relying on her choachman/crew to do so. Looking at the skill section of the Ari NPC class you’ll find that ride as well as handle animal are class skills, so riding a horse, resp. driving a coach is well within the ability of the Aristocrat. Adding Profession to the consolidated list of skills, an Aristocrat in both systems would have Profession (Sailor) as a cross class, resp. untrained skill at most. So no advantage of the old skill system over the supposed new one. Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets: Harry Potter can't make the potion to change forms, so Hermione has to. Remember that she ends up a victim in this film, not the hero. So what? Hermione (Sor or Wiz) succeeds on a Gather Information check (cross class, resp. untrained for Sor and Wiz) to learn the formula of the Polyjuice Potion. Next she fails her Craft (Alchemy) check (class skill, resp. trained skill for both classes) and adds the wrong ingredient to her own vial of PP. Again you fail to show what is so wrong with the new and so much better with the old skill system. Ron is also the one operating the flying car, not Harry. Looking at the flight scene (I’d say Ron had to make several skill checks, failing some of them by 4 or less) and the crash landing in the end (failing the last skill check by 5 or more), the DC of flying a car untrained seems to be a bit high for both, Ron AND Harry. Heck, I guess even I could have done that, too ;) MI 1: Tom Cruise can't hack into various computer systems, and has others doing it for him. He’s a frickin’ rogue, don’t tell me he’d need somebody else to do this for him in D&D. It’s either UMD or Disable Device, both class and trained skills of the Rog class. Next please! Aoen Flux, the series: Aeon can't crack a given code, so goes to Una to crack it for her. Same as above, but with Decipher Script. Next! Eight Heads in a Duffel Bag: Joe Pesci's character can't fly a plane. He relies on public airlines, and later a hostage, to cover large distances. See queen Amidala above. Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Arthur Dent literally can't do anything other members of the crew do. Other than being a complete idiot, Arthur is also most likely a Commener (nuff said). Blade 1 - 3: Blade didn't make his own weapons, or his serum. Because Whistler does have Craft (Alchemy) and Craft (Weaponsmithing, etc.), a skill focus in both AND a high Int score (which Blade most likely doesn’t) at least. Ocean's 11, 12, and 13: Geoge Clooney wasn't doing everything. He filled his team with members that could do things he could not. Great example of different skill focus feats, etc. -People who don't swim regularly don't; they float. It's an inherent result based on physics and the fact their lungs are filled with air. Once they get tired or panic they die. This is true regardless of age. A 20 year old and a 50 year old, neither of which have touched the water before, both go down at roughly the same time (allowing for variations in physical make-up). The 50 year old doesn't swim longer or better just because he's more experienced overall. The same goes with mountain climbing. I have yet to see a 50 year old with no experience in climbing outclimb (or come anywhere close to competeing with) a professional free climber. Heck, I have yet to see one compete with the climbing skills of a freerunner! What’s your point exactly? As a hero you can Swim and Climb. If your character does not have any experience in any of the feats of the Athletics skill, he simply does not have it. Now if your PC does have the Athletics skill, his class lists it as a trained skill, he has a high Str score, and he chose skill focus feats to, e.g. achieve a higher Climb skill bonus, he is by far better than anybody with or without simply the Athletics skill. PS: Chimps don't swim; they drown. A reserve for abused chimpanzees keeps them on islands as a means to separate them from the local population. The locals won't bother the chimps, and the chimps won't hurt the locals should something make them snap. Which would most likely result in a racial skill penalty in both skill systems, wouldn’t it? -I have nothing against wizards learning to sneak, creep, etc. I don't have anything against charismatic fighters. I do have a problem with a system that caters to player-self gratification. There are other ways to work the system as shown by OGL game makers that allow you to group your skills if you choose. Claiming that a system ensures that a character isn't stuck without a skill capitulates to those who want to do it all. With a good DM, the scenario doesn't happen without just cause. Meh. With a good DM I don’t even need the Core Books or a character sheet. Ever heard about KISS? -The various archtypes aren't nessecarily crutches. They are archtypes imbedded in the subconscious in nearly every culture, in one form or another. Carl Jung goes to great length proving this. How does the suggested skill system affect archetypes? Most of the time you play the hero anyways, so where is the change in that? All of your examples fail to show why a consolidated skill system would be inferior to the old system. In fact they only show that you have no grasp of what we are really suggesting. Most of the time your examples do even support our arguments, so thanks a lot and some applause from me, too ;)
Sylvaroth 05-01-07, 09:03 AM	Seeing that you state occham's razor as your religion of choice, why then do you prefer the more complicated original skill system over the more simplistic one we suggest?
Steely_Dan 05-01-07, 09:09 AM	I'm all for Skill folding, my group has folded some skills in our current Planescape campaign, but we've gone about it slightly differently: ·Acrobatics (Balance + Escape Artist + Tumble) ·Athletics (Climb + Jump + Swim) ·Deception (Bluff + Disguise + Forgery) ·Disable Device (Disable Device + Open Lock) ·Perception (Listen + Search + Spot) ·Persuasion (Diplomacy + Intimidate) ·Stealth (Hide + Move Silently) ·Use Device (Use Magic Device + Use Psionic Device)
Grave_Accomplice 05-01-07, 09:12 AM	Applying 'if's, 'maybe's, or 'they'd most likely have' doesn't change anything. Changing the arguement does not help you, nor does it prove the system is any better. The question was when did hero's have to sit back and rely on others. Examples were provided. What’s your point exactly? As a hero you can Swim and Climb. By what reasoning is this an absolute?Several movie and literary examples exist supporting otherwise. If your character does not have any experience in any of the feats of the Athletics skill, he simply does not have it. Now if your PC does have the Athletics skill, his class lists it as a trained skill, he has a high Str score, and he chose skill focus feats to, e.g. achieve a higher Climb skill bonus, he is by far better than anybody with or without simply the Athletics skill. But in the same vein, anyone who takes the skill w/o further training has the same odds everytime. Your typical Marines (some would call them heros right now), even with the same training, do not have the same shooting, climbing, running, swimming, or other similar skills coming out of boot camp. Your typical group of heros will not have the same skill sets, a goal listed hinted at by WotC when they introduced the system. Why else would you want to create a system that ensures that when ever a skill is needed, whoever's there will have it. How does the suggested skill system affect archetypes? That remains to be seen. The comment was a response claiming that old archtypes favored by players were a crutch. It's not so.
Grave_Accomplice 05-01-07, 09:15 AM	Seeing that you state occham's razor as your religion of choice, why then do you prefer the more complicated original skill system over the more simplistic one we suggest? An applied solution that appears simple isn't always the case. Claiming to lighten a car by removing the engine doesn't make it go any faster. Removing choice by giving everyone the same skills doesn't improve the game in my opinion. PS: I'm not attacking you, if it seems this way. I just not a fan of consolidating skill sets with there's room for major diverngies between them.
Steely_Dan 05-01-07, 09:24 AM	Why not a Smell, Taste and Touch skill?
Sylvaroth 05-01-07, 09:42 AM	The question was when did hero's have to sit back and rely on others. Examples were provided. I think we all do agree that the hero, as for D&D, does need some help, otherwise there were only solo campaigns and no 4+ adventurer groups. What your examples fail to touch, however, are circumstances that show a hero in a situation where he cannot do something heroic, because he simply does not have the ability (resp. skill) to do it. Applying 'if's, 'maybe's, or 'they'd most likely have' doesn't change anything. Changing the argument does not help you, nor does it prove the system is any better. I did not change the argument, you simply did not see, why I included all those if, maybes, aso. AFAIK your examples were given to provide evidence of heroes that don't have the skill to do certain things. I on the contrary provided explanations, why your examples are, for the purpose of discussing the old and new skill system, empty to useless. I provided explanations for your examples as well as to show how those situations can be described or even circumvented in both systems. By what reasoning is this an absolute?Several movie and literary examples exist supporting otherwise. It isn't, that is why I cited three example builds (one without a skill, one with a skill, and one optimized towards a high skill bonus). But in the same vein, anyone who takes the skill w/o further training has the same odds everytime. This is correct for a character with a certain skill, yes. Your typical Marines (some would call them heroes right now), even with the same training, do not have the same shooting, climbing, running, swimming, or other similar skills coming out of boot camp. Your typical group of heros will not have the same skill sets, a goal listed hinted at by WotC when they introduced the system. Why else would you want to create a system that ensures that when ever a skill is needed, whoever's there will have it. We don't. Please understand that the progression from low to high is as follows: Character... ...doesn't have a skill ...does have a skill (untrained) ...see below ...does have a skill (trained) ...does have a high modifier from the relevant ability ...does have the Skill Focus feat ...does have a feat that influences his skill check result ...does have a racial trait that may change his skill check result ...does have a class feature that influences his skill check result ...does have an item that may change his skill check result, etc. That's quite enough possibilities to differentiate one marine from the other, isn't it? That remains to be seen. The comment was a response claiming that old archtypes favored by players were a crutch. It's not so. The thing is, you cannot play an archetype. Your PC/NPC may be based upon or inspired by one, but you cannot play one. AFAIAC nobody wants to anyhow.
Sylvaroth 05-01-07, 10:09 AM	An applied solution that appears simple isn't always the case. Claiming to lighten a car by removing the engine doesn't make it go any faster. Bad example, but I get the idea. AFAIK occham's razor would prefer the development of a better engine over the removal of all parts of the car that can be categorized as 'excess weight' (including the windscreen, engine, etc.), and bolting on rocket engines. Two solutions to make the car going faster, but one is simpler and more feasible on the long run. Same is true for the old and new skill system (see below). Why not a Smell, Taste and Touch skill? The old system divides feats into single skill that basically do the same thing (Search and Spot are the most prominent examples). The addition of, e.g skill ranks (most people max out their ranks in a couple of skills and put only a few remaining points into other skills) and skill synergies (some skills do have one synergy skill, some don't, some skills provide a synergy bonus only to a certain use of a skill, and some skills have multiple synergy skills) make the system unnecessarily chunky and complex. Removing choice by giving everyone the same skills doesn't improve the game in my opinion. Again I do only partly agree. You still have choice (see the list above), but the choices you have are more streamlined and consistent. This does IMO improve the system greatly. PS: I'm not attacking you, if it seems this way. I just not a fan of consolidating skill sets with there's room for major diverngies between them. No offense taken, friend. Depending on your choice of class, skills, feats, races, equipment, aso. there is still quite enough room to create diverging PCs/NPCs. You just don't have to memorize or look up certain skill entries in case you don't remember which bonus comes from where and is added to what.
Steely_Dan 05-01-07, 10:14 AM	The old system divides feats into single skill that basically do the same thing (Search and Spot are the most prominent examples). The addition of, e.g skill ranks (most people max out their ranks in a couple of skills and put only a few remaining points into other skills) and skill synergies (some skills do have one synergy skill, some don't, some skills provide a synergy bonus only to a certain use of a skill, and some skills have multiple synergy skills) make the system unnecessarily chunky and complex. I agree that the current skill system is overly clunky, not the way they are used, but the way they are allocated/chosen.
Khementari 05-01-07, 11:34 AM	:D Khementary beat me to it. What s/he said. It seems you've returned the favor thricefold. I would give you a clap for swiftly resolving the misguided arguments of others but I'll leave the clapping for those that feel the need to interject, but have nothing to contribute. I think this is a pretty well debated thread and I'm thoroughly enjoying it. Most people would argue that this Saga-type system only fits star wars and is not a good depiction of what a D&D character should be able to do. (Of course, that's rediculous) I want heroes in my games. If someone ends up with a 20th level fighter I don't want him to turn around and say, "Well guys, I never had enough skill points to put into a lore skill so my guy wouldn't know anything about the history of X." That is absurd. To think a character that is supposed to be a hero and 20th level and doesn't know some basic lore. Even if he did throw a few points in it the skill wouldn't amount to anything. Or I'm a 20th level cleric and I never had a chance to get the ride skill. I'll meet you guys in the next town when the next merchant caravan passes through... The system is about freeing your players and yourself from silly boundaries.
Someone 05-01-07, 01:11 PM	Skills aren't the only thing a higher level character is learning. A high level fighter doesn't (nor necessarily should) know some basic lore. He does know, however, how to make a mockery of full plate armor, breaching through its attempts at protection as if the person were naked and standing still. There are things that are consistent across all members of the class- things like BAB, saves, hp. I just don't think skills should be one of them. A character's skills (at least the ones they have ranks in) should be like a character's feats- something that differentiates their capabilities from other members of the same class. Lastly, unless it is "trained only", there are plenty of things a character can do well enough without a single skill point in the skill. You can ride a horse without any points in Ride. You can see things without any points in Spot. A high level "hero" is either doing heroic things with the skill, and has invested points, or is doing more mundane things with the skill, and needn't spend any points anyway.
Khementari 05-01-07, 04:46 PM	A high level fighter doesn't (nor necessarily should) know some basic lore. He does know, however, how to make a mockery of full plate armor, breaching through its attempts at protection as if the person were naked and standing still. That may be okay for your game or a video game if that's what you enjoy. There are things that are consistent across all members of the class- things like BAB, saves, hp. I just don't think skills should be one of them. A character's skills (at least the ones they have ranks in) should be like a character's feats- something that differentiates their capabilities from other members of the same class. My thoughts exactly - I don't believe any class should have more or less feats than another class - the same goes for skills. Lastly, unless it is "trained only", there are plenty of things a character can do well enough without a single skill point in the skill. You can ride a horse without any points in Ride. You can see things without any points in Spot. A high level "hero" is either doing heroic things with the skill, and has invested points, or is doing more mundane things with the skill, and needn't spend any points anyway. Thank you for supporting the heart of a new, different system. With it, you actually can be useful on a horse or being a lookout. A high level hero should never have a skill equal to Bobby, the zero-ranks in anything stable boy. I've lasted 20 levels and by golly I'm glad because I've picked up a lot of things along the way. Surely I'm better with my +10 untrained skill bonus than Bobby over there. Surely.
Someone 05-02-07, 01:23 AM	Uh, certain classes do have more feats, they're called bonus feats. They are some of the things the PC "picked up along the way". And what PC did with those bonus feats can vary from character to character. The same goes with skill points- what a PC does with them can vary from character to character. And I don't see anything wrong with that.
allenchan 05-02-07, 02:59 AM	This works in star wars, but I dont want it anywhere near my dnd.
Grave_Accomplice 05-02-07, 07:04 AM	I want heroes in my games. If someone ends up with a 20th level fighter I don't want him to turn around and say, "Well guys, I never had enough skill points to put into a lore skill so my guy wouldn't know anything about the history of X." . So Han Solo failed his Lore check when he denounced the Force? Or maybe Qui-gan failed their Know (Species) check when he attempted to use the Force mind trick on a creature immune to the effect? Should Madmartigan have been given a chance to roll knowledge checks against spells in Willow? Let's try another tact: Give me a list of characters you classify as heros.
Grave_Accomplice 05-02-07, 07:05 AM	My thoughts exactly - I don't believe any class should have more or less feats than another class - the same goes for skills. Why?
Grave_Accomplice 05-02-07, 07:23 AM	Bad example, but I get the idea. AFAIK occham's razor would prefer the development of a better engine over the removal of all parts of the car that can be categorized as 'excess weight' (including the windscreen, engine, etc.), and bolting on rocket engines. Two solutions to make the car going faster, but one is simpler and more feasible on the long run. Same is true for the old and new skill system (see below). Feasibility is defined by the observer and the goal. Land speed records are set by cars with minimal body design and rocket engines. The first such vehicle to break the sound barrier used this design. The original point being that what might seem a simple idea really isn't in practice. The old system divides feats into single skill that basically do the same thing (Search and Spot are the most prominent examples). The addition of, e.g skill ranks (most people max out their ranks in a couple of skills and put only a few remaining points into other skills) This depends on your players. I have examples of both a min/maxer and rp skill choosing in my current group. I do agree with your assessment of synergy bonuses, which is why I don't use them. It's also why I don't confirm critical hits. While there are things I would change with the skill system, I wouldn't use this level of consolidation. Again I do only partly agree. You still have choice (see the list above), but the choices you have are more streamlined and consistent. This does IMO improve the system greatly. It isn't really much of a choice. The folks who max skills in one system will max it in the other. They'll still pick those options which give them the best advantage. With the new system, their actually rewarded for their powergaming. They can max those skills that give their advantage, munchkin the hell out of their charactre, and be rewarded for their efforts with extra skills that always improve so they don't have to focus on those areas of development. No offense taken, friend. Depending on your choice of class, skills, feats, races, equipment, aso. there is still quite enough room to create diverging PCs/NPCs. You just don't have to memorize or look up certain skill entries in case you don't remember which bonus comes from where and is added to what. Not divergent enough for me I'm afraid. Too many stories I like or wish to use have events that are too easily glossed over by this system. YMMV.
Grave_Accomplice 05-02-07, 08:35 AM	I've lasted 20 levels and by golly I'm glad because I've picked up a lot of things along the way. Surely I'm better with my +10 untrained skill bonus than Bobby over there. Surely. Again, why? A 20th level privateer isn't going to be better than Bobby at handling or riding horses; quite the opposite. Niether will be applying extra ranks to it: Bobby won't be doing any special moves or training it tricks, and the privateer will almost never use it. Why should he be better?
Khementari 05-02-07, 12:44 PM	Why? Simply put, classes should define themselves, not be defined by skills or feats. There should be enough reason to be a rogue other then, "Oh yeah he's the 'skill monkey"...and there should be more to a fighter then getting more feats then everyone else. Now, I'm not going to get into a debate about how to make the fighter better here--because I don't use the class, or any class in the books. I am showing support for persistently trying to find ways to rule the game better. Most people are posting with the idea that everyone should be playing what's in the PHB and that's fine if that's how they like it. I would really love it if people would approach the topic constructively, weight the pros and cons as they see them, and develop a level of communication that goes beyond, "Well that's not what it says in the book/It's never getting in my game/My examples are better than yours..." It's silly. In my game a 20th level hero most certainly will have better untrained ability than Bobby the Stableboy. I don't care what class they are. Bobby has no heroic class, at best has training in Profession: Almost Useless Stableboy. 20 levels, years upon years of experience being an adventurer amounts to that. If you don't like it then don't comment about it. If you are questioning a mechanic, aren't sure what the ramifications to the rest of the game are, or simply want to help refine the idea being the devil's advocate then post away. If you can't be constructive, just let it die.
Someone 05-02-07, 12:56 PM	There is more to a fighter than bonus feats. A fighter gets a good BAB, a strong Fort save, d10 hitpoints, and proficiency with just about every weapon and armor out there. What I'm saying is that fighters should be allowed to have as much divergence in their selected skills as they have in what weapon and armor they equip. Classes are differentiated by class abilities, its characters that are differentiated by skills and feats (and attributes, and rolled hp).
Grave_Accomplice 05-02-07, 01:10 PM	I would really love it if people would approach the topic constructively, weight the pros and cons as they see them, and develop a level of communication that goes beyond, "Well that's not what it says in the book/It's never getting in my game/My examples are better than yours..." It's silly. So far I have. My opinion is that heros are not omnipotent characters. They have limits and flaws. There are things they cannot do that secondary and 'useless' charcters can. It's those limits as well as their strengths that define them. A charac ter with no limitation does not stand out as much in the mind as those that over come them. They simply become another stat block that gets bragged about when the next game starts. That is what I've presented, or have attempted to. To me, consolidating skills in this manner robs tha game of actually creating heros, or any kind of myth cycle for that manner. It's assumed that they are already heroic with no sense of their developement. As for a rogue being more than their skills, a fighter being more than their feats; you face the same problem with the second system in a streamlined fashion. Instead of having the fighter with the best feats, you have a fighter optimized per your system. The 'more' is an element you add to the game. It doesn't matter what the system is. In my game a 20th level hero most certainly will have better untrained ability than Bobby the Stableboy. I don't care what class they are. Bobby has no heroic class, at best has training in Profession: Almost Useless Stableboy. Nobody lives in a vacuum. Bobby will have his own set of experiences and developements. Luke was effectively your 'useless stable boy' before he found the droids. As was Harry Potter, Aladdin, King Arthur, etc. 20 levels, years upon years of experience being an adventurer amounts to that. Again, why? Where would he have learned it? How? Why is it assumed that he did at all? If you are questioning a mechanic, aren't sure what the ramifications to the rest of the game are, or simply want to help refine the idea being the devil's advocate then post away. If you can't be constructive, just let it die. I'm questioning your reasoning behind it. It doesn't make for heroic play. Your assumed to be better than those of lower level simply by the grace of your existance. No real developement, no story, no true character.
okaynowa 05-02-07, 01:24 PM	I'm a fan of the factotum class presented in Dungeonscape. The factotum class's big advantage is the ability to boost/exploit the skill system-- which I think it does quite elegantly. How does the consolidation of skills affect such a class? Can the class be changed to keep pace with this new system, or is a different approach necessary? Put another way: if skill ranks/points and synergy are no longer a game feature, how does one create a "joat" that exploits the revised mechanics? Re-roll options? New applications not listed in the standard skill descriptions? Is the concept of the factotum ("do any/everything") even relevant under the consolidated system? (Of note: I like the factotum because I believe it solves the problem of skill deficiencies in the party. If a consolidated/revised skill system lets everybody in on the dramatic action, I won't mind giving up this one class.)
Grave_Accomplice 05-02-07, 02:09 PM	Where can I find more info on this?
liquidhypnotic 05-02-07, 02:41 PM	Are Sylvaroth and Khementari both acolytes of Deepak Chopra? They seem to have mastered his fallacious reasoning style. 0) Pick an idea that tickles his fancy for whatever reason. Create some argument for it. 1) Listen to counterargument. 2) Counter with irrelevant facts, ad hominem attacks, fanciful and emotional language. Concoct corner cases that seem to dictate how the entire system works. Make large assumptions. Issue challenges to disprove those assumptions. Quickly change the topic whenever assumptions are successfully disproven. When backed into a corner, hide behind "well that's your opinion, although I will still pretend that my opinion is objectively better." 3) Repeat steps 1 and 2 for a while. 4) Find like-minded individual who agrees with his idea; begin rhetoric of all like-minded individuals as "open-minded"; insult all who disagree as "slaves to tradition." 5) Ad hominem attacks begin in earnest, now that he knows how best to insult them. Hide behind plausible deniability; "Oh, it's not meant as an insult, I'm just SAYING!" 6) Bring in wildly inappropriate examples. Create straw men to knock down. Having heard others using big words, start using them himself, using the language of logic and rhetoric. Inappropriately. Shoot down illustrative examples on technicality. Make straw men concessions. Throw some cajoling in there, false graciousness. Continue to farm the mutual admiration society. Maybe try calling victimization and oppression, as a tactic; that's always a favorite. I could go on. ***** Needless to say, I think that this proposed system would be disastrous in3 the D&D setting. Perhaps I just don't have an open mind to the possibility, of like, you know, doing things, like, differently, man, like, like, I don't know how to use commas, or maybe I DO but I don't follow THEIR rules, man, BUT! I think that the skill system, along with the way that most DCs are determined, is much better geared towards customize-ability and flexibility. I often hear people complaining that Spot and Search are different skills, and then I think about the difference in trying to notice something moving out of the corner of my eye (Spot) and methodically trying to find where I left my keys (Search). Then I also remember that most people who complain about this also want their 10th level characters to turn undead like 70th level clerics, destroy gods, have a weapon with a x7 crit on a 15-20 roll, etc... "Who says that a 10th level character can only do x, y and z things? Man, ya gotta be open-minded, man, think outside the box..." While I agree that it is silly to have a 20th level fighter who really doesn't know any history of anything at all, I don't see that this particular corner case justifies revamping the entire skills system. If you want to make a fighter with some history, then give him some history; what's stopping you? And are you saying that ALL fighters SHOULD have some knowledge of history? The biggest thing that annoys me here (aside from the nearly crippling inability to communicate and wield logic) is that v3.5 already has addressed some of these issues, by getting rid of the banned skill. Now there was a system which prohibited you from doing stuff, and forced some people into stereotypes. I guess a useful discussion would have been "So what ARE class skills? Maybe could we try implementing some system where you gain class skills at the END of a level-up? Some kind of use-based system, as has been seen in many other RPG systems?" A more meaningful question would be "If a fighter has been spending his 20 levels just going from dungeon to dungeon, smashing in doors, killing stuff, looting, and repeating...but suddenly the player wants to make sure that his fighter has skill ranks in Crochet Alchemical Scarf, then how does the player justify attaining those skill ranks? Unless maybe you implement rules like "you cannot actually do your level up outside of a city or something", but some people want immediate access to new spells, class features, etc. I'm not saying that that is good, or that it's bad; I'm saying that this is D&D, baby, and you gotta cope with that possibility. I'm still bristling at the illogic. As an example, one of the duo's posts said something about someone with no ranks in Ride being unable to sit on a horse at all. Completely bogus. A textbook example of a straw man argument. The fact that whoever wrote that is so unfamiliar with the RAW makes it hard to believe that he/she is qualified to take her opinion and thrust it out as objective fact. As for another: You failed to come up with evidence that the new is worse than the old. Therefore, I'm right because....in the lack of evidence to the contrary, you might as well assume the positive, right? If you can't disprove that you're a pinko commie, then you must BE one. (And now here come the poorly formed rebuttals...) **** Perhaps the OP is looking for something more like White Wolf's skill system, although of course the die rolls are radically different. In that particular system, essentially what happens is that you start by deciding what it is that you want to do, and then you pick which stat and skill combination is most relevant to that activity. Porting that idea here, perhaps you get these sample skill rolls: Concentration +: Dex - to quell hand-shaking long enough to defuse a bomb or perform high risk high stakes surgery Wis - to block out a heckler Int - trying REALLY hard to remember something Cha - trying real hard to keep up that smile etc. The DMG, I believe, does allow for the idea of keying saving throws to different ability scores; for example, Fort/Str to avoid dropping a super heavy weight, Ref/Wis to recognize that the spellcaster was casting a spell and that he and his companions were awfully conveniently placed for a fireball and make a preparatory dodge, maybe Will/Con to keep pushing in a marathon. Just ideas. The advantage of the White Wolf system is that basically anyone can try to do anything, as Khementari suggests is necessary for a heroic campaign (as his challenge to find an example of a hero relinquishing some act implies). Another aspect of the system, however, is that no one is really good at anything because the bell curve is much wider and shorter. I'll leave it up for debate whether that's an advantage or a disadvantage. *** Saying things like "with a REALLY good DM, you don't need any books" shatters your credibility into a million pieces. *** I'm amazed at the tag team action. One guy makes a challenge, someone answers it, then the other guy comes in and proceeds to make a ton of non-arguments against them in a completely irrelevant answer. Picking apart Khementari's last post, piece by piece (which I ordinarily hate doing: 1) Well, yes, someone who plays a high level fighter would like to be able to kick some ass with that character; that is generally why such characters are played. Not everyone belongs to the cult of the ever-suffering roleplayer, and not all campaigns unfold like a mysterious tapestry over the course of 10 years. Me, I prefer that, but not everyone does. Talk about not being open-minded. 2) YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO SAY "Ah, mm, yes, my thoughts exactly!" AND THEN SAY SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT FROM WHAT THE POSTER WAS SAYING, JUST BECAUSE YOU USE SOME OF THE SAME WORDS!!! "The sky is blue". "Yes, my thoughts exactly; there is indeed such a thing as a sky." 3) He's not suggesting some new system; he's clarifying the existing system which you, frankly, do not understand. In the existing D&D rules, one need not make a Spot check to see his hand in front of his face, a Search check to find his ass with his two hands, a Ride check to get on a horse and clop around, nor an Open Lock check to use a key on a door. The guy in the Austin Powers movie didn't have to make a Reflex save to get out of the way of the bulldozer, you don't have to make a Fortitude save to avoid falling unconscious from smelling dirty socks, and you don't have to make a Will save to resist buying every thing you've ever seen in any commercial that you've ever watched. Rolling a natural 20 on an attack roll won't let you slip an arrow in through the molecules of a closed door or shoot it around the corner. Taking Ride as the example, having skill ranks in Ride means that you can do fancy, combatty stuff with a horse, like use it for cover, and things like that. As the PHB says somewhere, "you don't need to make a roll to tie your shoes." If you're called upon to do something for which you have no skill ranks, then you either make it as an untrained check (spot, or something), or you can't make it untrained (which also makes sense; if your PC can't Decipher Scripts at all, then your PC couldn't decipher a paragraph of dead writing anymore than you yourself could look at an Egyptian papyrus and know what it "means".) *** I myself have made a house rule, called a set of Common skills, that count as class skills for anything at all with Hit Dice. The basic "sense" skills are on there, namely Spot and Listen. I do remember a feat somewhere that lets you take skills and designate them as class skills forevermore; my DM certainly has one in his campaign and so my Wiz/Clr is talky (Diplo and SenMot). There exist options now to customize your character outside of the narrow archetypal stripe. Ordinarily, I like to do something just a little off the beaten path (maybe like a physically frail as hell little girl with powerful spellcasting ability; not a revolutionary trope but not a common PC you must admit), but not to the point of being ridiculous with no redeeming roleplaying qualities (a flying dwarf bard with a spiked chain and divine feats to create this really awesome combo that lets you do 288 damage per round to everyone!), but sometimes I like to play greatsword wielding full plated paladins with ice blue eyes and flowing blond or brown hair, or graceful elves who are masters of spell and sword and bow. It is my right to do so if and when I choose. If you don't like it, that's fine, but how does that give you the right to call me narrow-minded if I decide to do something traditional? Final words (phew)- What really makes the argument against this idea is thus: none of this stuff is actually *impossible*; that's just a straw man argument. You CAN buy any skill ranks for any character, but it will just cost you a little bit more. The fact that the cost of two skill points per rank is too much for some players, however, strongly suggests to me what a lot of us are thinking: This is nothing more than out and out munchkinry. Power-gaming for those who want to min-max and not have to work at it. Min-maxing is possible in both systems, but this one rewards it even better. It's just sad that some people are absolutely incapable of gracefully changing their minds, and instead see it as a "strength" that they hold firm in their opinions, despite tons and tons of evidence to the contrary. In the neo-con world, this is considered a strength. Ralph Waldo Emerson, the great American transcendentalist, said that "Great men can change their minds." I agree with some of the principles that Khementari is quoting, the idea that not all characters need to ship out the same, but I don't see how his system makes that idea happen any better. By further abstracting it, it gives even less room for specialization. It's a marvel to me that he can't see that. What if I want to play a blind character who has ridiculously good hearing? Ordinarily, I'd want to take Blind-Fight and Hear the Unseen, max out my ranks in Listen (X-ing through Spot and Search), and proceed. In this new system, what, I'd just have a high Perception score? This is the problem that arises when you define what the skills should do with too narrow a scope; if you think that all Spot is good for is spotting enemies hiding in the bushes, well, then, that's your game. It's ridiculous for you to set up "your own" system and claim victory when the old system actually does what yours does, and you just don't understand it. It kills true creativity, and while you can CLAIM all day long that it's better role-playing, the truth is that it's not. This isn't even putting make-up on a pig and calling it a pretty woman; it's just pointing at a pig in the mud and saying "This pig is a pretty woman." If you're going to go on and on about how you don't need books, then it sounds to me like you are not even playing D&D anymore, in which case what are you doing here? Rescuing the benighted locals from their dread fate, under the oppressive fist of the tyrants at WotC? Thanks, but no thanks.
okaynowa 05-02-07, 03:24 PM	Where can I find more info on this?If you mean the factotum, it's a base class presented in the Dungeonscape supplement (co-authored by Rich Burlew, he of Order of the Stick fame). There's a decent discussion of it on the boards here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=791436), which should provide an adequate overview of how it works with skills. Personally, I love how it works; but for the sake of full disclosure I must report that others have complained about the wording of its class features (especially Arcane Dilletante, and how inspiration points are regained) and resulting power level (either weak, or full of exploitable loopholes).
Grave_Accomplice 05-02-07, 03:46 PM	Remind me not to get on your bad side LH...
Grave_Accomplice 05-02-07, 03:47 PM	If you mean the factotum, it's a base class presented in the Dungeonscape supplement (co-authored by Rich Burlew, he of Order of the Stick fame). There's a decent discussion of it on the boards here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=791436), which should provide an adequate overview of how it works with skills. Personally, I love how it works; but for the sake of full disclosure I must report that others have complained about the wording of its class features (especially Arcane Dilletante, and how inspiration points are regained) and resulting power level (either weak, or full of exploitable loopholes). Thanks! Appreciate the help. :)
Sylvaroth 05-02-07, 03:47 PM	:rant: :rofl:Yes, my thoughts exactly; there is indeed such a thing as a sky.:rofl:
Grave_Accomplice 05-02-07, 04:24 PM	. Your PC/NPC may be based upon or inspired by one, but you cannot play one. AFAIAC nobody wants to anyhow. Since when? Shakespeare is quoted saying 'There are no new ideas...' for a reason.
Sylvaroth 05-02-07, 04:37 PM	What I meant to say was, archetypes are basically the marble block, while the PC is the sculpture you chisel from it. Now while a huge marble block may be impressive, most of the things that find their way into museums are the finished statues. ;)
liquidhypnotic 05-02-07, 04:43 PM	I doubt you would, GA.
Grave_Accomplice 05-02-07, 04:48 PM	What I meant to say was, archetypes are basically the marble block, while the PC is the sculpture you chisel from it. Now while a huge marble block may be impressive, most of the things that find their way into museums are the finished statues. ;) I agree to a point. The thing is, your system does not do this any better than the old system. It actually creates barriers to this process. It states, for example, that all fighters are guaranteed to have a given set of skills. You choose what you wish to specialize in, but all will have the same core skills at the same level. Every 10th level fighter is guaranteed to have a core set of skills of at least +5. Some skills may be higher based on various factors, no other skills may be chosen. In effect, your cutting out gingerbread men with the same cutter and garnishing them with different frosting. How does this add individuality to a character? Warhammer 40K uses the re-roll bonus as a reward for experience earned (should you play this type of game). They state their reason as well: a unit that gains differeing abilities will stray from its original purpose. By allowing rerolls, you make them better at what they already do. I don't see how this philosphy changes in this example. How does this add diversity?
Someone 05-03-07, 12:17 AM	Re-rolls in 40k are mostly there because there is no such thing such as a Ballistic Skill of 4-1/2. And 40k "skill" is more analogous to D&Ds attack rolls. Also, LH, you have made my day. I mean, just, wow.
Khementari 05-03-07, 07:04 PM	This thread really cracks me up. I can't believe someone compared me to Deepak Chopra, how appalling... What you fail to accept is that from the start this thread was about exploring the possiblities of the new skill system that has already been written by WotC. You may not like the Saga system. That is fine. You may feel it has no place in D&D. That is fine. You may have taken a course in philosophy and think you are really important. That is fine. You may be angered because while I was out at work, the OP Sylvaroth answered a question that was directed at me, I thanked him and visa-versa. Sure, that's still fine. You may even be perturbed because from time to time I reply to a post with a grin. Saga is not D&D. A link to related Saga articles was provided and I thank those of you who took it upon yourself to read them. Classes in Saga are not put together like D&D classes. Combat, feats, the entire game is written with a different goal in mind. I cannot answer questions about the factotum class(or any standard D&D class from any D&D book). I enjoyed that post, since it seemed like you put some thought into it. The bottom line is that standard D&D classes do not mesh well with the Saga system and a lot of thought would have to go into how what we know about Saga works. Again, thank you! That being said, when a person chooses to post in a thread such as this you should consider that we have already said we want to talk about how this system could work for us. This is not a debate about Saga being wrong or right. And I am not aware of myself or the OP attacking anyone about the topic. You can argue until you are blue in the face, but the system exists in official form. Now to get back on course a new preview of Saga was posted. Everyone go read up. I would love to continue discussing this topic and I would hope everyone can be responsible enough to keep their need for personal attacks (to bolster their ego) to themselves, or on some other message board where people have nothing to be constructive about. Thank you, in advance.
Grave_Accomplice 05-07-07, 02:27 PM	Skills available to the Scout in the Saga System, per Game Trade Magazine: Climb, Endurance, Initiative, Jump, Knowledge (All, taken individually), Mechanics, Perception, Pilot, Ride, Stealth, Survival, Swim They pick 5 + (int bonus) to be trained in. An interesting comparison to the examples presented.