Post/Author/DateTime	Post
larry_the_titan 02-29-08, 06:24 PM	This skill System will simplified to a short and useful list of skills but is still capable of being a complex system for the use in game. The Skill list includes; Acrobatics - Tumble, Balance, Jump Athletics - Balance, Climb, Jump, Swim Awareness - Spot, Listen, Search Concentration - Auto Hypnosis/Control Shape/Iaijutsu Focus Thievery - Sleight of Hand, Forgery Mechanics - Disable Device, Open Lock Escape Artist Handle Animal - Ride Heal Bluff/Diplomacy/Intimidate Profession - Appraise, Decipher Script, Use Rope, craft, Perform, also gives specific knowledge and other checks. Sense Motive Spell craft/Psicraft/Martial Lore Speak Language Stealth - Move Silently, Hide, Disguise Use Magic Device/Use Psionic Device Knowledge Arcana Knowledge Architecture and Engineering Knowledge Dungeoneering Knowledge Geography Knowledge History Knowledge Local - Gather Information Knowledge Nature - Survival Knowledge Nobility and Royalty Knowledge Religion Knowledge The Planes Knowledge Psionics Skills are no longer connected to a specific Stat. You still get a Stat Mod but it is added when the roll is called for. The mod should be one a DM considers appropriate. Gather Information and Survival are connected Knowledge Skills now. While they are connected Directly with Knowledge Local and Knowledge Nature Directly, other kinds of Knowledge might be more useful at certain times, such as when trying to track someone or find a good place to hide out a storm when on another plane, At that time a Knowledge the Planes can be made at a lower DC then a Standard Knowledge Nature. Concentration now has some secondary abilities which are tied to certain classes and feats. These abilities are the skills Auto Hypnosis, Control Shape and Iaijutsu Focus. Auto Hypnosis reguires a Naturally Psionic Race or the Wild Talent feat or class ability and Rules for this skill can be found in the Expanded Psionics Handbook. Control Shape requires being an afflicted Lycanthrope and Rules for this skill can be found in the Monster Manual. Iaijutsu Focus reguires either Quick Draw and a Martial Weapons Proficiency or a Level in a class that already has it in its skill list and rules for this skill can be found in the Oriantal Adventure book. In addition to having to have the feats or class abilities reguired Autohypnosis and Iaijutsu Focus require an Additional Skill point spent when you level to unlock the skill. Control shape doesn't have this requirement. Profession will be a little different. As it was written the only thing the skill was used for in game was a simpler check to see if you made money while you stood around and did nothing as time passed in game. It still can be used to make money but now can be used to craft items that deal with your career of choice and such as Blacksmiths get to Craft Armor and weapons, Appraise Armor and Weapons, and the ability to Barter. Jeweler would get to Craft Jewelry, Appraise the Value of metal and Gem stone, make Forgeries of Gemstones and Decipher Scripts normally found Jewelry. Circus Preformers and Actors may have an astorment of Perform skills depending on there actual focus. Towns should have atleast a few commoners or other NPCs with Professions maxed for their levels. Not all skills are given just because you take Profession. To determine you class skills you take your normal list. A. Any that skills that still exists you get. B. Any that got moved to another skill gives you the new base skill. C. Acrobatics is an exception as you must have tumble as a class skill to get Acrobatics as a Class skill. D. Everyone now has Profession as a class skill. E. Skills listed after '-' are automaticly part of the orginal skill. F. Skills split by a '/' only allow you to benefit from the skill that is already on you skill list. G. To purchase abilities that are split by a '/' you must spend an additional skill point when buying a Skill rank at which point you choose one skill opition to add to your abilities. It is treated as being of equal skill ranks to the original skill. To simplify things so I don't have to rewrite a lot of items and class abilities, any item or class or race ability that gives you the same bonus when making only those kind of checks. For Entrance in to a PrC or to Qualify for a feat you need to atleast the skill that is connected directly connect with the above list. It seems that the 4E is moving away from the old Skill system entirely. Did it do that bad of a job or was the use of it done poorly? Have you done anything to fix it or were you completely happy with the system? I thought the system was good but a little complex. I mean the physical skills were to many and the classes got way to few skill points. I think the worst part was there were just to many skills. I found that the easiest way to fix the issues with the system was first to cut down on the number of skills. Why have five skills to represent evry thing you exersize daily to become better at? Tumble Swim Climb Balance and Jump can easily be represented with 2 skills called Athletics and Acrobatics. Second get rid of the stat mod related part. Athletics Str to see if you can jump really far but Athletics Con to see if your endurance holds out while climbing the cliffs behind the castle so you can sneak in. Knowledge skills would benifit as well with remembering being related to Int, Discussion of the subject checks get Cha and Using the Knowledge to for your survival and tactics is Wis. I have a lot of this system written down but I figured I would test the idea before I posted it completely.
MrWildman 02-29-08, 09:40 PM	The 3.X Ed. skill system. . . I'd cheerfully describe it as "workable". ;) I like the system well enough, it's easy to understand and use. I like the way synergies work. That said: one of my group's standard House Rules is to add +2 skill points per level/HD, for everybody- PCs, NPCs, animals & oozes, everybody. Also, over at Giant In The Playground there are a couple of articles in their Gaming section that I regularly use; one by Rich Burlew on Diplomacy and an excellent one by Amber E. Scott on Knowledge skills. So, I think that the system works well enough (some parts very well, others less so). There's always room for improvement, though, in anything. I've seen the Star Wars Saga skills rules in action and agree that they're very streamlined and all. Though, as a fan of gratuitous complexity I really enjoy covering whole sheets of paper with diagrams and lists. As if seeking some mystical convergence of numbers and words; a poetic equation, if you will, that represents the ideal of my character. I think most, if not all, DMs are constantly on the lookout for a better (read easier) system. I know I'd be interested in seeing your work. Peace.
StevenO 02-29-08, 11:11 PM	Skill worked well in 3.x but do have there few problems. Problem 1: Too many skills. As noted this is having all these skill that could be combined into a single skill that would simplify things. Needing both Hide and Move Silently to sneak past something is just wrong when a single "Sneak" skill should work just as well. The simple solution to this problem is consolidation and perhaps the easiest way to do that is look at all those +2/+2 skill feats and combine the two skills named into a single skill. Problem 2: If you don't put ranks into a skill you never become better at it. The demonstration of this is the Fighter 20 who only neaks as well as a first level Commoner. The correlary to this is that you only need so many ranks in a skill to overcome anyone who isn't designed to counter you. Five to Ten ranks is spot will enable someone to detect almost anything that isn't specifically build to be sneaky. The SAGA answer to this problem that could translate to DnD is to give characters "phantom" skill ranks equal to 1/2 the character's level; this makes cross-class skills practically worthless (an extra 1 1/2 ranks) but means a level 20 character effectively can use any skill as if they had 10 ranks. Of course you can still have exclusive skills (Use Magic Item) that can only be used with actual skill ranks.
JamesMaissen 02-29-08, 11:41 PM	It seems that the 4E is moving away from the old Skill system entirely. Did it do that bad of a job or was the use of it done poorly? Have you done anything to fix it or were you completely happy with the system? The only thing I would tend to do is replace cross-class 1/2 ranks with a linear shift in ranks. Basically do away with the x4 skills at 1st level and give characters the equivalent of skill focus (i.e. a +3) in all class skills. Many places where 3rd edition does 1/2 abilities they should instead be a shift. A ranger's animal companion is another place.. they are near useless almost at inception. -James
Zyrusticae 03-01-08, 12:51 AM	Well, I think it's O.K., except for two major issues, both of which have already been pointed out. 1. Too many skills, too few skill points. I think Iron Heroes handled this nicely, allowing characters to put ranks in "skill groups" which were basically groups of related skills who all rose at the same time when you put ranks into that group. Each class would have its own "groups", so you could just sink a rank every level into a certain group so your character would have its essentials down and still put ranks into other skills as according to your concept (cross-class skills don't exist in that system). 2. Too many ways to raise skill ranks. This shouldn't matter if your DM isn't stupid, but skill-boosting items are extremely cheap and you can always use skill-boosting feats, and so it's ridiculously easy to get a Hide modifier of +20 at level 5. Who's going to have a Spot modifier to beat that at that level? It gets especially ornery if said character has Hide in Plain Sight...
mplindustries 03-01-08, 04:17 AM	Every problem people have brought up (over and over) in this thread is what they are fixing in 4E. The too many skills/too few skill points are being addressed by folding skills together into only a handful, for example Stealth (Hide/Move Silently) and Thievery(Don't know for sure, but I'm assuming Sleight of Hand/Open Lock) and things of that nature. And if the sample characters and other little leaked tidbits are any indication, the Saga skill system is going to be adapted in which all characters get some proficiency in many (or possibly, all) skills, with a few choice ones being "maxed." Unfortunately, they are not fixing my one and only problem with the 3.X skill system: Class Skills. I will never understand why someone who trains to be a good fighter can't also Know stuff about Nature, for example. Or sneak around. Or, notice when someone was sneaking around. Or the one that bugged me the most, have any social dealings in a fashion that isn't intimidating. Furthermore, not only do I see no "flavor" justification for this, I see no rules balance issue either. I've always run my games with no cross-class skills and its never proven to be an issue. Everyone generally takes the same few skills anyway (Spot, Sense Motive, Tumble, etc.), and then fills the rest in with flavor stuff. "Oh no, you could enter prestige classes without taking levels in what you're "supposed" to take!" If everyone can do it, player and GM alike, it stays balanced since everyone gets the same lift. To be honest, I think the only reason for class skills is the same as why monks and paladins can't freely multiclass: "Its the way its always been." /sigh
larry_the_titan 03-01-08, 09:33 AM	Well since I am getting replies and some are already in agreement with my idea, I will post my current write up. It was wrote up to be handed over to the players when they made there characters. ------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------ The skill System will simplified to a short more useful list. The new list includes; Acrobatics - Tumble, Balance, Jump Athletics - Balance, Climb, Jump, Swim Awareness - Spot, Listen, Search Concentration Escape Artist Handle Animal - Ride Heal Persuade - Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate Profession - Appraise, Decipher Script, Use Rope, craft, Perform, also gives specific knowledge and other checks. Sense Motive Spell craft/Psicraft/Martial Lore Speak Language Stealth - Move Silently, Hide, Disguise Thievery - Disable Device, Open Lock, Sleight of Hand, Forgery Use Magic Device/Use Psionic Device Knowledge Arcana Knowledge Architecture and Engineering Knowledge Dungeoneering Knowledge Geography Knowledge History Knowledge Local - Gather Information Knowledge Nature - Survival Knowledge Nobility and Royalty Knowledge Religion Knowledge The Planes Knowledge Psionics Gather Information and Survival are connected Knowledge Skills now. While they are connected Directly with Knowledge Local and Knowledge Nature Directly, other kinds of Knowledge might be more useful at certain times, Such as when trying to track someone or find a good place to hide out a storm when on another plane, At that time a Knowledge the Planes can be made at a lower DC then a Standard Knowledge Nature. Auto Hypnosis and Iaijutsu Strike Would be Concentration Checks with the Right Class or Feat Selection. They are also no longer connected to a specific Stat. You still get a Stat Mod but it is added after I call for the Roll. Profession will be a little different. As it was written the only thing the skill was used for in game was a simpler check to see if you made money while you stood around and did nothing as time passed in game. The list of skills beside profession isn't what you get every time you take it. You get any of those skills that apply. To determine you class skills you take your normal list. A. Any that skills that still exists you get. B. Any that got moved to another skill gives you the new base skill. C. Acrobatics is an exception as you must have tumble as a class skill to get Acrobatics as a Class skill. D. If you don't have at least a number of skills known equal to the amount you get per level please let me know. E. Everyone now has Profession as a class skill. To simplify things so I don't have to rewrite a lot of items and class abilities, any item or class or race ability that gives you the same bonus when making only those kind of checks. ------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------- I am sure it still has some problems to hammer out.
Someone 03-01-08, 12:39 PM	The only problem I have with consolidating all the skills is that there are lots of circumstances that only modify one aspect, with no effect on the rest. For example, being invisible is a big help to the visual aspect of a stealth skill. But its no help to the audible aspect of said skill. So you just end up with a bunch of situational modifiers, reading out like "Stealth +10 (visual +20, audible +8)".
larry_the_titan 03-01-08, 01:58 PM	The only problem I have with consolidating all the skills is that there are lots of circumstances that only modify one aspect, with no effect on the rest. For example, being invisible is a big help to the visual aspect of a stealth skill. But its no help to the audible aspect of said skill. So you just end up with a bunch of situational modifiers, reading out like "Stealth +10 (visual +20, audible +8)". I tend to track all variants like that on my character sheet as the game progress. The main goal was to make it so you buy one skill and get the effect of more then one. The effect just makes skills cheaper to buy and allows you to get more for you spending. I also designed left all the information to still use all of the old system. Sorry if it doesn't decrease the numbers you keep track of but it doesn't increase the numbers you have to keep track of.
TheRealOrion 03-02-08, 12:37 AM	I will never understand why someone who trains to be a good fighter can't also Know stuff about Nature, for example. Or sneak around. Or, notice when someone was sneaking around. Or the one that bugged me the most, have any social dealings in a fashion that isn't intimidating. That's just not true. It's never been true. People now have to stop claiming this. It's not not not true at all. There are no class-exclusive skills in 3.5 (unlike 3.0). It is merely harder for a Fighter to learn Diplomacy. If you choose not to take it, at all, ever, because you don't want to have to spend more on it than a Rogue, then that's your choice. Personally, my Wizards often take Tumbling 'cause that stuff is useful, even if it's expensive. It's factually inaccurate to say that any class "can't" have any skill. What's actually happening is that certain mindsets, certain ways of looking at the world, certain personalities (i.e., all the things that "class" represents) are better at some things than others. Someone who thinks like a fighter (i.e., see the target, attack the target) isn't as good at bending and manipulating language as someone who thinks like a rogue (i.e., evade the target, sneak around behind it). The only flaw in this aspect of the system is that class skills should be "half price," and cross-class "full price." Then people couldn't whine about the cost. But the math is way easier the way it's written right now.
Solaria 03-03-08, 12:10 PM	Well, I think it's O.K., except for two major issues, both of which have already been pointed out. 1. Too many skills, too few skill points. I think Iron Heroes handled this nicely, allowing characters to put ranks in "skill groups" which were basically groups of related skills who all rose at the same time when you put ranks into that group. Each class would have its own "groups", so you could just sink a rank every level into a certain group so your character would have its essentials down and still put ranks into other skills as according to your concept (cross-class skills don't exist in that system). 2. Too many ways to raise skill ranks. This shouldn't matter if your DM isn't stupid, but skill-boosting items are extremely cheap and you can always use skill-boosting feats, and so it's ridiculously easy to get a Hide modifier of +20 at level 5. Who's going to have a Spot modifier to beat that at that level? It gets especially ornery if said character has Hide in Plain Sight... You can get a spot modifier of +20 just as easily as a hide modifier.
Malchius 03-03-08, 12:54 PM	I don't think so, Solaria. Just for instance Whisper Gnome(overpowered but frequently played), 20 Dex, max rank for fifth level; so far that's 8 from Race(& size) IIRC, 5 from Dex and 8 from ranks for a total of 21 and then I could have a Cloak of Elvenkind, for 26, then for overkill Skill Focus and Stealthy bumping it to 31 at Fifth level, would you care to match Spot with that? That's my main gripe with the current skill system, opposed skills seem really lobsided Hide>Spot, Move Silently>Listen, Bluff>Sense Motive, I think it makes sense that the hero should succeeed but sometimes there's never any risk involved. EDIT: Reconsidering Bluff and Sense Motive are probably = because bonuses to each are really hard to come by.
Beckettvampire 03-04-08, 09:10 AM	I don't like the fact that there is no max for skill ranks or that it does not become harder for characters to learn their skills when they already know so much. But thats more just a realistic view. I've played in games that combined many of the skills and it does work a lot better, but it also takes some work to distinguish which classes get what new skills. There are some problems also, like the Barbarian whch gets Listen (I think) but not spot. Do there loose both or gain both? Is that fair? I've always rulled that since it makes them better against rogues they recieve both and effectively get the perception skill (spot+ listen). Knowledges do not apply, each is seperate, but since appearantly Know: Arcana covers everything, does it matter?
larry_the_titan 03-04-08, 10:23 AM	I don't think so, Solaria. Just for instance Whisper Gnome(overpowered but frequently played), 20 Dex, max rank for fifth level; so far that's 8 from Race(& size) IIRC, 5 from Dex and 8 from ranks for a total of 21 and then I could have a Cloak of Elvenkind, for 26, then for overkill Skill Focus and Stealthy bumping it to 31 at Fifth level, would you care to match Spot with that? That's my main gripe with the current skill system, opposed skills seem really lobsided Hide>Spot, Move Silently>Listen, Bluff>Sense Motive, I think it makes sense that the hero should succeeed but sometimes there's never any risk involved. Well have you considered that the character with that mod might need to do something besides standing still in the shadows out of sight. If he does anything besides that he takes penalties. That 31 mod can become something like 10 when dealing with creatures with good eyesight and against multiple targets hiding can get pretty difficult. Plus you really can't hide from certain spells and abilities unless you are using magic items yourself. The main ability you have to worry about hiding from to my knowledge is scent. Hiding normally covers only visual detection in my book and scent would by pass any and all bonuses you got for hiding alone. I would allow a person to use Disguise to cover there scent but that isn't something a normal DM does. EDIT: Reconsidering Bluff and Sense Motive are probably = because bonuses to each are really hard to come by. I don't know any off the top of my head that gets bluff but I do know that Goliaths get a +2 to Sense motive.
Malchius 03-04-08, 10:57 AM	The feat out of lords of madness that blocks even blind sight with no prequisites covers most of thme bases, not sure about scent though? that would drop their hide to +29 And with a +31 to Hide, they can afford to snipe at fifth level and take the -20 penalty because the majority of people won't see them. That's a good point, I don't think there are any races that get a bonus to bluff, their might be though, Changelings perhaps?
larry_the_titan 03-04-08, 10:59 AM	I don't like the fact that there is no max for skill ranks... I guess I didn't make it clear that the other rules weren't changing. Max ranks and Cross class ranks have limits as before. I've played in games that combined many of the skills and it does work a lot better, but it also takes some work to distinguish which classes get what new skills. There are some problems also, like the Barbarian whch gets Listen (I think) but not spot. Do there loose both or gain both? Is that fair? The list at the bottom of my second post covers all of these questions. Everything except the 'Is it fair?' part. That would be left up to you. Knowledges do not apply, each is seperate, but since appearantly Know: Arcana covers everything, does it matter? Where did you get the idea that Knowledge Arcana covers everything? I have never seen anything that states that. Knowledge Arcana definately doesn't cover undead or Architecture. Reading the the skill description in the PHB might help you know what you are talking about in the future.
Beckettvampire 03-04-08, 11:29 AM	That was sarcastic, but unfortionatly, partially true. And yes, Know: Arcana does infact now also cover undead. There are like 4 or 5 items now that frant you a +2 Know Arcana relating to undead. I know one is in Libri Mortis, one is in that crappy Item Compendium book, on is in Complete Divine (I think) and one is in Exp. to Castle Ravenloft (which may also be the item from Libri Mortis. . .). As for max ranks, I was litterally meaning a maximum a mortal character could achieve in a skill, not max ranks per level.
larry_the_titan 03-04-08, 11:40 AM	The feat out of lords of madness that blocks even blind sight with no prequisites covers most of thme bases, not sure about scent though? that would drop their hide to +29 What is the name of the feat? And with a +31 to Hide, they can afford to snipe at fifth level and take the -20 penalty because the majority of people won't see them. Yeah not many people in that characters CR range might be able to see him. but the ones that can will be able to quickly end his career as a master of stealth. That's a good point, I don't think there are any races that get a bonus to bluff, their might be though, Changelings perhaps? The ability of Changling to shapeshift I think only applies to Disguise but it is pretty large.
larry_the_titan 03-04-08, 11:51 AM	That was sarcastic, Smilies should be used in the future to clear up any possible confusion over Sarcasm. It is a mistake I had to learn from myself. Knowledge Arcana's description in the PHB states it covers Ancient Mysteries, Magic Traditions, Arcane Symbols, Cryptic Phrases, Constructs, Dragons and Magical Beasts. Knowledge Religion's description states it covers Gods and Goddessess, Mythic History, Ecclesiatic Tradition, Holy Symbols and Undead. I see nothing listing Undead being covered by Knowledge Arcana. If its stated in another book, can you post your source?
Selgard 03-04-08, 12:01 PM	Just be wary of "skill balanace" when you fold multiple skills into one. While many do not tend to like it, it was intentionall that nearly no character can "max out" each and every one of their class skills. This wasn't a mistake, it was a design decision to help ensure that each character is a little more unique. Wizards get 2/level and have half dozen knowledge skills plus spellcraft and concentration. Rogues get 8/level and have half a zillion class skills, etc.. If you fold skills, be sure you go back to the classes that are effected and modify their skill point allotment as well- otherwise you will end up with less "unique" characters- at least where skills are involved. just my .02 -S
Malchius 03-04-08, 12:17 PM	What is the name of the feat? I can't remember, but it has no prerequisites and maybe be called Dark something, I can't find my copy of Lords of Madness either. Yeah not many people in that characters CR range might be able to see him. but the ones that can will be able to quickly end his career as a master of stealth. Yer, that is a liability but keep in mind this character may also be very skilled in combat, as they could be a Ranger or Swordsage or to a lesser extent Soulknife or Dragon Shaman(with one of the evil dragons, this would give them skill focus for free as well leaving a feat open.) The ability of Changling to shapeshift I think only applies to Disguise but it is pretty large. Yes, that's just disguise, and it's a mighty +10 which is nigh-unbeatable, up until mid-level you need not but any ranks into it. Wow Changelings also get bonuses to Bluff, Intimidate and Sense Motive, just checked.
Asurya 03-04-08, 01:01 PM	@Selgard: in fact, that's not entirely true. Taking the Rogue as an example, his archetype is skill monkey, so he is required (by design) to have plenty of skill... useful to the party. So, like the old Cleric who were forced by their parties to memorize only healing spells 'in case of', the party will urge the Rogue to max out several skill 'in case of' {Search + Disable dev. + Open lock} is the bulk of it, but as they often need to scout also... or the party face, thats {Spot + Listen + Move silently + Hide} or {Appraise + Bluff + Diplo + Sense motive + Gather info + Knowledge[local]} so depending on your role you already ate 7 to 9 from your 8 base point, better not dump Int to have a chance at being "unique" :P
Wheldrake 03-04-08, 01:39 PM	Although I don't dislike the DD3.5 skill system, it is horribly complex for new players, and slows down the character creation process a lot. IMHO the DD4.0 skill-folding doesn't go far enough, though. Why not try this: - make all skills become a simple stat check: roll d20 + wisdom, or intelligence, or dexterity, or whatever depending on the relevant stat. - allow characters to add their class level to any skill check deemed to be class-relevant, more or less equivalent to the current list of "class skills". - allow characters to add half their class level to any skill check deemed to be outside their class areas, more or less equivalent to the current list of "non-class skills". Sure, this would remove the advantage to skill use from high intelligence. But it would also greatly simplify the character creation process, and skill usage in general. Remember in the first version of D&D, the only characters with skills were thieves, who had to consult a table of thieves skills, consult another table with their dexterity bonuses, and roll percentile dice for success. Cumbersome. The current DD3.5 skill system is better, IMHO, but is also cumbersome. Why not just give players class-based level bonuses and make all skill checks into stat checks? I'm seriously considering suggesting this to my gaming group. Cheers, --- Wheldrake
PurinaDragonChow 03-04-08, 02:05 PM	I like that idea, Wheldrake. I might adopt something along those lines. Honestly, the idea of streamlining the skills system is one of the things I really hate about 4e. The idea of folding multiple skills into a single skill check doesn't do it for me. I had problems with the skill system, but that mostly had to do with the idea expressed upthread that the class skills were too limiting.
ravenshrike 03-04-08, 02:06 PM	Darkstalker. Allows you to hide from everything except creatures with lifesense. Or whatever that undead ability is called.
larry_the_titan 03-04-08, 02:57 PM	@Selgard: in fact, that's not entirely true. Taking the Rogue as an example, his archetype is skill monkey, so he is required (by design) to have plenty of skill... useful to the party. So, like the old Cleric who were forced by their parties to memorize only healing spells 'in case of', the party will urge the Rogue to max out several skill 'in case of' {Search + Disable dev. + Open lock} is the bulk of it, but as they often need to scout also... or the party face, thats {Spot + Listen + Move silently + Hide} or {Appraise + Bluff + Diplo + Sense motive + Gather info + Knowledge[local]} so depending on your role you already ate 7 to 9 from your 8 base point, better not dump Int to have a chance at being "unique" :P That entire list becomes; ---------------- Awareness Thievery Stealth Profession Persaude Sense motive Knowledge Local ---------------- in my version of the skill system. Which allows the UMD before even going past there standard Skill Points per level. With a Int of 14 He could afford Max Ranks in Athletics and Acrobatics as well. I don't see him quite running out of skills to buy or not having a party who could use them all.
PurinaDragonChow 03-04-08, 03:07 PM	It seems to me that effectively, all you're doing is increasing the number of skill points players have.
ToastedAmphibian 03-04-08, 04:29 PM	It seems to me that effectively, all you're doing is increasing the number of skill points players have. While reducing player choice in how they spend them.
PurinaDragonChow 03-04-08, 04:55 PM	While reducing player choice in how they spend them. Yeah, and that's where I have a problem with this. I like the flixibility we have now, I don't want to limit those choices. I would generally be okay with more skill points for characters, though, and the ability to spend them more freely.
larry_the_titan 03-04-08, 07:54 PM	Yeah, and that's where I have a problem with this. I like the flixibility we have now, I don't want to limit those choices. I would generally be okay with more skill points for characters, though, and the ability to spend them more freely. How is the equivalent of giving them more skill points not giving them more options. If you don't have to pay separately for Move silently and Hide and Disguise doesn't that give you 2 more skill points per level. What about Spot Listen and Search? When was the last time you were able to take a non Class related Knowledge as a character? What about taking profession Black Smith and getting more then just Income from it or anything at all? I see more options not less.
Dragoncat 03-05-08, 09:54 AM	There are three things that make the skill system functionally whacked. Two of them deal with multiclassing. 1) x4 skill points at first level. It sounds great, until you realize that if you multiclass, you must always start with the most skilled class to be remotely effective. A fighter 1/rogue 1 gets mocked every day on the way to work by a rogue 1/fighter 1. 2) Multiclassing forces you to build characters level by level, which slows down character creation. If you need an NPC of X prestige class, it means taking every single level individually. Try making a rogue/wizard/unseen seer/loremaster. The skills are hellish. Likewise, any situation where you have differing skill points per level is harsh on character creation. 3) INT boosts not being retroactive sucks. Yes, it's unrealistic to suddenly understand how to jump better. Functionally however, if you are going to raise INT, you have to do it as early as possible to have effect. A wizard who puts two points into INT, then two points into CON as he levels is superior to a wizard who raises CON, then INT. And don't get me started about age modifiers. If a young fighter and an old man who has lived until 99 as a commoner both take a level in rogue, the old guy is more skilled. If you wait until venerable age to take your first character level and do your adventuring, more skill points for you.
gixanthrax 03-05-08, 10:10 AM	what i have always considered troublesome is the very limited skill selection most classes have. I don't understand why not every class has certain skills like spot, listen search. Listen? - hello? unless somebody is deaf he should be able to use the listen skill without penalties. Same goes for spot unless somebody is blind. Same for search, even the most absend minded Wizard should be able to find something he lost or to recognise some golden shimmer if he looks for it. Even more so fighter who awaits his opponents. Why does he not have spot and listen? that's just stupid. Why has the ranger knowledge dungeoneering? he is supposed to be out in the wild. Why not give a fighter or the rogue this skill? Onthe other hand, why have to spend points on something like profession? Unless my DM gives extra skill points for spending on things like Perform/craft//profession i won't put more than one rank in it ( except for bards and perform) why the hell are there 7 different perform skill which have to be taken separately( unless you burn one of the rare feats a bard receives ) What are the benefits of 17 or more ranks in Profession: baker ? Or craft? ( except for basketweaving which has been proven to be really powerful) I think a greater number of skills should be acessible for every character, mainl the perception skills( serach spot listen) and the athletic skills (swim, climb jump). And everyone who says that wizards are not fit for running has never heard of Ricewind.
ToastedAmphibian 03-06-08, 06:39 PM	How is the equivalent of giving them more skill points not giving them more options. If you don't have to pay separately for Move silently and Hide and Disguise doesn't that give you 2 more skill points per level. What about Spot Listen and Search? When was the last time you were able to take a non Class related Knowledge as a character? What about taking profession Black Smith and getting more then just Income from it or anything at all? I see more options not less. I say "Less Choice" in comparison to just having more skill points. If you gave more points, you would get teh same effect, except that everyone would benifit from it. Say for instance i was making a character that was going to take spot listen and search as class skills and max them all out. Your system basically just gave me two more skill poins per level. Now suppose i was making a character that wanted hide, spot, and jump (Odd sure, but mabey i want to hide in the shadows and make surprise leap attacks using that feat that lets you use a spot check to make your next strike a touch attack. Flat-footed-touch Leap attacks would be brutal) In this secounds characters case, im forced to spend my "Virtual extra skill points" on skills that i just dont want. Why should I be forced into being skilled at slieght of hands just because i want to be skilled at walking quietly? Just because most people who take the skills fit a certaint theme dosnt mean everyone who wants to take a particular skill should be shoehorned into that theme. In summary: Giving more skill points gives the same benifit to the characters who would have benniffited the most from your system, but also provides an equal benifit to all the poor, odd-ball joes who would get shafted by your system.
larry_the_titan 03-06-08, 09:01 PM	Why should I be forced into being skilled at slieght of hands just because i want to be skilled at walking quietly? Can you try to be more logical. I mean that example wouldn't even happen in my system because Move Silently is part of Stealth and Slieght of Hand is part of Thievery. You don't have to take both. Do you care to point out one of the combos that doesn't make sense? Or have you not even looked over my list in the first place?
elonin 03-07-08, 07:47 AM	@Wheldrake your idea reminds me of nonweapon proficiencies from 2e. It's simpler than what wotc has put out which is good. My main problem is what if I wanna play a rogue who under 3.5 could cross class into spellcraft for use with UMD. Under your system he wouldn't be able to specialize.
ToastedAmphibian 03-07-08, 03:56 PM	Can you try to be more logical. I mean that example wouldn't even happen in my system because Move Silently is part of Stealth and Slieght of Hand is part of Thievery. You don't have to take both. Do you care to point out one of the combos that doesn't make sense? Or have you not even looked over my list in the first place? I tried to respond to this yesteryday. However the boards crashed out from underme. Luckly, i managed to copy what i had typed into a text document: You are correct. I got that lat example wrong, and i apologize. But what about my example character? Why should i have to have move silently because i want hide? Or disguise if i just want forgery? Perhapes i just want to be a counterfitter. (I think thoes are grouped together under your ssytem. Its been quite a while since i read it, and my little work terminal takes forever to load these pages.) And why is it impossible for two diffrent thieves to have diffrent "Specialties" under yoru system? A third level rouge who specializes in pickpocketing, and a third level rouge who specializes in burglaring would be able to switch jobs without any drop in efficency. Mabey someone wants to play a spy, possibly a double agent. They want bluff, sensemotive, upen lock, disable device, and forgery. Why should they have to put "Virtual Points" into disguise or slieght of hand? Your systemis good, it gives people the chance to learn more skills. Just giving everyone more skill points is Better because it gives them more freedom in choosing how to distribute their skills, and takes alot less time to communicate to your players, and still fits perfectly into a standard Character Sheet.
PurinaDragonChow 03-07-08, 04:03 PM	Can you try to be more logical. I mean that example wouldn't even happen in my system because Move Silently is part of Stealth and Slieght of Hand is part of Thievery. You don't have to take both. Do you care to point out one of the combos that doesn't make sense? Or have you not even looked over my list in the first place? How about Awareness, for example - doesn't it include spot and listen? In that case, it's obvious how someone could not excel at both. Vision and hearing are two separate senses. In most cases, D&D skills really ARE separate skills. You can simplify them, of course, if that's what you and your players want. It just isn't my cup of meat.
YamiShinobi 03-07-08, 06:00 PM	what i have always considered troublesome is the very limited skill selection most classes have. I don't understand why not every class has certain skills like spot, listen search. Listen? - hello? unless somebody is deaf he should be able to use the listen skill without penalties. Same goes for spot unless somebody is blind. Same for search, even the most absend minded Wizard should be able to find something he lost or to recognise some golden shimmer if he looks for it. Even more so fighter who awaits his opponents. Why does he not have spot and listen? that's just stupid. Why has the ranger knowledge dungeoneering? he is supposed to be out in the wild. Why not give a fighter or the rogue this skill? Onthe other hand, why have to spend points on something like profession? Unless my DM gives extra skill points for spending on things like Perform/craft//profession i won't put more than one rank in it ( except for bards and perform) why the hell are there 7 different perform skill which have to be taken separately( unless you burn one of the rare feats a bard receives ) What are the benefits of 17 or more ranks in Profession: baker ? Or craft? ( except for basketweaving which has been proven to be really powerful) I think a greater number of skills should be acessible for every character, mainl the perception skills( serach spot listen) and the athletic skills (swim, climb jump). And everyone who says that wizards are not fit for running has never heard of Ricewind. examples of craft's usefulness (non metagame) it's rp oh yeah, craft (Explosives) is good for flavor, and effectiveness, especially if your character was the son/daughter of a pyrotechnician, the most you need is 10 ranks and a 14 int to build a nuclear bomb. (assuming you take 20 in your downtime) maybe you, the 10 year old daughter of said pyrotechnician decides to use these explosives to storm a castle, ( a lot of C4 works a lot better than ballistas) maybe your adventuring, and daddy's gotta prepare the fireworks for the next festival, but has a broken wrist or has a fever and you just came home. flames are also exceptionally good for utter destruction of liches/vampires, assuming they become nuisances. maybe you blow locks up instead of picking them. this is a fun RP way to use craft, Craft is horrible metagame, but excellent flavor (as with the pyrotechnicians adventuring ten year old daughter, protected by 7 dwarves, a warmage, and 2 clerics, secretly she could be a grenadier rogue)
larry_the_titan 03-07-08, 09:44 PM	How about Awareness, for example - doesn't it include spot and listen? In that case, it's obvious how someone could not excel at both. Vision and hearing are two separate senses. In most cases, D&D skills really ARE separate skills. You can simplify them, of course, if that's what you and your players want. It just isn't my cup of meat. Awareness is only equal to to those skills and counts as them for checks but it wouldn't just cover Sight and Hearing. Scent itself and certain Supernatural traits would have checks that fall under this skill. Stealth would be its counter part. You just make one roll to counter the other instead of making several rolls for each skill. Besides I am not only here to discuss my own idea but to discuss yours. All I here is a Flat give them more skill points. I have let to hear a balance fair method of doing so. Are you giving them 2 or 3 per level or so many at one time? Is it fair and balance for all classes? Did you give classes that had a lot of skills to begin with more to or did they have enough?
TheRealOrion 03-09-08, 08:05 PM	If you fold all the skills into a smaller group, I have fewer to choose from. In theory they're all in there somewhere, but I can't specialise in the same way. For example, let's say we have the "Pursuasion" skill (Bluff + Diplomacy + Intimidate). I can max out my ranks in Pursuasion, which effectively means I'm equally good at lying, sweet-talking, and scaring the bejesus out of people, but I can't specialise in any of those things. Therefore, I can't make someone who's espcially good at scaring the bejesus out of people but not particularly good at trying to sweet-talk them. If I'm playing a big, dumb thug, I want access to Intimidate, but Bluff and Diplomacy feel inappropriate. If I'm playing a rackish huckster who talks his way out of fights, then Intimidate is inappropriate, but Bluff and Diplomacy make sense. I can see the appeal of simplifying the system, but I think you lose a lot of texture, and I like texture. As for a per-level bonus, that'll lead to even more generic characters. Instead of picking skills to fit a personality, my skills are now granted automatically by class and level. Every member of every class would all have exactly the same skill set. Fast and easy, yes, but boring as all heck.
Nathreet 03-09-08, 08:08 PM	I think it's plenty clear enough if you flip to the right page and check the DC. What it really needs is a table of all the uses & the DC on one handy printable-or-photy-copy-able reference page. I think there's similar issues with other things in 3.5, and I hope their solution isn't to just hack it all out. As for the original points: 1) Often true, but not always and it's not nearly so bad. The fighter 1 / rogue 1 has 2 more hitpoints. And if you're multiclassing to fighter then either way you're a flanking combatant, not a good skillmonkey. Having ~15% more HP is worth much more. 2) If a skill is a class skill for any of your classes, your max #ranks is character level + 3. You still pay 2 skill points per rank when getting the 2nd class that doesn't have the skill. And most people have only 2-3 classes, making it even easier to figure out. In real life there is hardly ever any problem with doing your skills all at once. 3) Int boosts from magic items don't give bonus skill points either. So we're talking about 1, maybe 2 skill points per level lost here. And only for past levels. And only in a class that doesn't really need the extra skills.
larry_the_titan 03-10-08, 12:11 PM	If you fold all the skills into a smaller group, I have fewer to choose from. In theory they're all in there somewhere, but I can't specialise in the same way. For example, let's say we have the "Pursuasion" skill (Bluff + Diplomacy + Intimidate). I can max out my ranks in Pursuasion, which effectively means I'm equally good at lying, sweet-talking, and scaring the bejesus out of people, but I can't specialise in any of those things. Therefore, I can't make someone who's espcially good at scaring the bejesus out of people but not particularly good at trying to sweet-talk them. If I'm playing a big, dumb thug, I want access to Intimidate, but Bluff and Diplomacy feel inappropriate. If I'm playing a rackish huckster who talks his way out of fights, then Intimidate is inappropriate, but Bluff and Diplomacy make sense. That kind of choice is a Role-Playing Effect. The way you approach a problem determines how and what skills you use. If you want to be Intimidating and not being a diplomat all you have to do is be Intimidating and not use the other parts. I can see the appeal of simplifying the system, but I think you lose a lot of texture, and I like texture. My method was meant to be a simple solution. It worked for something that reduces the complication of the current list of about nearly 40 skills. It also based on some of what I have seen about the 4E system. Some of which never get use. My system uses 15 base skills and 11 knowledges. The reduced skill list means the players might be able to spare a few points of their build for knowledges. Knowledges which they normally metagame they have and yet don't have and skill points in. Your 'Texture' is making players give up options because they can't afford them in standard play. I am still waiting to see anyone else's system or method to fix the restrictiveness of the current system. I also found another skill. Control Shape in the Monster Manual, a skill that I have yet to see used, in my system it is a Concentration check. It probably should of been a Concentration check to begin with but they wanted to put it in the Monster Manual.
Naderion 03-10-08, 12:25 PM	I increased the number of skill points by 2 for all classes, and kicked some useless skills like forgery and use rope out. But I wouldn't really call that percieved shortcommings of the "system". The system is great.
TheRealOrion 03-10-08, 12:41 PM	Your 'Texture' is making players give up options because they can't afford them in standard play. I am still waiting to see anyone else's system or method to fix the restrictiveness of the current system. No, it's making them make choices. What you're basically saying here is "I want more skill points," which isn't a flaw in the system. It's a balancing factor. It amazes me how many complaints on this forum about "broken" rules really come down to "I want a more powerful character." I also found another skill. Control Shape in the Monster Manual, a skill that I have yet to see used There's a reason for that: those are skills for monsters.
larry_the_titan 03-10-08, 01:49 PM	No, it's making them make choices. What you're basically saying here is "I want more skill points," which isn't a flaw in the system. It's a balancing factor. It amazes me how many complaints on this forum about "broken" rules really come down to "I want a more powerful character." First off this wasn't just meant for me. The idea was meant for games I run. It wouldn't make my characters more powerful. It would of made the Players characters more versatile. It doesn't increase the power either, it would just allow them to have more skills at max skill level. There's a reason for that: those are skills for monsters. Have you ever really seen that on a monster's skill list. I can't even remember if it shows up on Lycans at all.
TheRealOrion 03-10-08, 04:31 PM	It wouldn't make my characters more powerful. It would of made the Players characters more versatile. What's more powerful: a spell that allows you to do 6d6 of fire damage in a specific radius, or a spell that allows you to lower and raise the damage at will, alter the energy type, and shape the area of effect? Versatility is a major factor in how powerful an in-game ability is. Also, I think you mean "would have." Pet peeve. It doesn't increase the power either, it would just allow them to have more skills at max skill level. Let me see if I understand what you're saying. Instead of, say, 10 skills at 6 or 7 ranks each, you're proposing to have 5 skills at 12 or 14 ranks each. Is that it? Because that's more powerful on two counts. First, each one of those skills is now twice as useful (it's a combination of two skills). Second, each one has a higher bonus. What you're describing is, in fact, much much more powerful. You're just dressing it up other terms so that everyone can pretend otherwise. Most of the chatter on these fora are elaborate excuses to make characters and abilities more powerful than they are. If that's how you get your jollies while gaming, then by all means! Do not let me stop you. Just be so kind as to admit that that's what you're doing.
Death1942 03-10-08, 05:07 PM	it has not failed at my table. The DM is pretty good at making sure nothing fails with the rule book...if that means he gives us information that we might otherwise never know (no one picks knowledge anything for example :D ). as a rogue i have quite a few points to spend so i don't really see any flaws in the system. i got plenty of points to maximize my base skills and chuck a few more into the odd skill that i might need.
larry_the_titan 03-10-08, 06:19 PM	What's more powerful: a spell that allows you to do 6d6 of fire damage in a specific radius, or a spell that allows you to lower and raise the damage at will, alter the energy type, and shape the area of effect? Versatility is a major factor in how powerful an in-game ability is. Sounds like a description of spells vs powers to me. At least the Damage and the Energy type comments. I don't think there were any options to increase the areas in powers but I may of missed that. Versatility doesn't make something more powerful it just makes it more useful. Such as a cold spell vs a troll won't do you much good but a power that allowed you to choose the energy type would still be good on that troll and on a Red Dragon. Does that mean Psionics is more powerful then Magic? Not that I have heard of but that versatility is really useful. Let me see if I understand what you're saying. Instead of, say, 10 skills at 6 or 7 ranks each, you're proposing to have 5 skills at 12 or 14 ranks each. Is that it? Because that's more powerful on two counts. First, each one of those skills is now twice as useful (it's a combination of two skills). Second, each one has a higher bonus. What you're describing is, in fact, much much more powerful. You're just dressing it up other terms so that everyone can pretend otherwise. Most of the chatter on these fora are elaborate excuses to make characters and abilities more powerful than they are. If that's how you get your jollies while gaming, then by all means! Do not let me stop you. Just be so kind as to admit that that's what you're doing. My System was very simular to 4E. So simular in fact that 5 of the skills I had listed that are merged skills are on the 4E list of skills. 4 of which I had concepts before 4E was even a concept and I copied Thievery from there list. You think the choice in my system are restrictive wait till you see 4E. Their list appears to be about 17 or 18 skills. And skill points are completely gone from the looks of it. By the way I will probably split up Bluff, Intimidate and Diplomacy because in 4E they are still seperate. Plus you guys have pointed out that the abilities are probably to different from one another.
TheRealOrion 03-10-08, 09:58 PM	Versatility doesn't make something more powerful it just makes it more useful. In an RPG context, "more useful" is basically the same as "more powerful." You think the choice in my system are restrictive wait till you see 4E. Their list appears to be about 17 or 18 skills. And skill points are completely gone from the looks of it. From what you've told me, yes I do think they're too restrictive and I won't, not to put too fine a point on it, be playing 4e. If I were in change, there are a few skills I'd eliminate. Nobody takes Balance, that I've seen, and it would seem to be a pretty integral part of Tumbling. I can also see the wisdom in combining Diplomacy and Bluff, although I don't have a burning desire to do so. I'm sure there are others. But over-all, I like having a healthy number of skills and lots of options to specialise.
larry_the_titan 03-10-08, 10:52 PM	In an RPG context, "more useful" is basically the same as "more powerful." More useful doesn't mean more Powerful. More useful means you aren't just a one trick pony and can do something outside of combat. More powerful Means more Deadly. Increased skills to pull from doesn't mean your any more deadly then you were before. Higher Mods might make you slightly more powerful but a Higher number of skill points won't do that. The one thing that determines power in my view of character has been the Character Optimization Board and what is broken has been determined by the Theoretic Optimization Board. I can't recall anything broken in skills off the top of my head except the First level creation method for Pun Pun and that wouldn't be allowed. If you would care to point something out as to how having more skills would make some one more powerful then a person with less skills couldn't get to besides that, I would consider any changes that would prevent the problem from arising.
Cifer 03-10-08, 11:50 PM	That's just not true. It's never been true. People now have to stop claiming this. It's not not not true at all. There are no class-exclusive skills in 3.5 (unlike 3.0). It is merely harder for a Fighter to learn Diplomacy. If you choose not to take it, at all, ever, because you don't want to have to spend more on it than a Rogue, then that's your choice. Personally, my Wizards often take Tumbling 'cause that stuff is useful, even if it's expensive. It's factually inaccurate to say that any class "can't" have any skill. What's actually happening is that certain mindsets, certain ways of looking at the world, certain personalities (i.e., all the things that "class" represents) are better at some things than others. Someone who thinks like a fighter (i.e., see the target, attack the target) isn't as good at bending and manipulating language as someone who thinks like a rogue (i.e., evade the target, sneak around behind it). The only flaw in this aspect of the system is that class skills should be "half price," and cross-class "full price." Then people couldn't whine about the cost. But the math is way easier the way it's written right now. Actually, I'd still "whine" about the cost. Every fighter who dabbles in diplomacy is going to be ridiculed by his peers for being pretty much unable to swim and climb unless he's a genius. Gods help him if he dares to also try some bluffing...
navar100 03-11-08, 12:40 AM	3) INT boosts not being retroactive sucks. Yes, it's unrealistic to suddenly understand how to jump better. Functionally however, if you are going to raise INT, you have to do it as early as possible to have effect. A wizard who puts two points into INT, then two points into CON as he levels is superior to a wizard who raises CON, then INT. It does make sense for retroactive skill points. Because your Intelligence increased, you are now better able to remember what you have studied. You notice circumstances that much better. You coordinate yourself better. What might strain credulity is putting those retroactive skill points into a skill you never had ranks in or putting them all into a skill where you had very few ranks. To compensate you can house rule that to put the skills in a previous no rank skill, you have to do it when you level. If your Intelligence increases before then, you have the option of waiting until you level for this; otherwise spend them now on your skills you have ranks. For putting into skills you have few ranks in, these retroactive skill points cannot effectively more than double your ranks. If you have 2 ranks in a skill, you can only put 2 retroactive skill points into it.
TheRealOrion 03-11-08, 04:38 AM	More useful doesn't mean more Powerful. More useful means you aren't just a one trick pony and can do something outside of combat. Seems to me you're working with an extremely limited understanding of "power" in a game context. A high Diplomacy score can avoid a fight entirely, rather than having to go through with fighting it. Same result by different means. More powerful Means more Deadly. Increased skills to pull from doesn't mean your any more deadly then you were before. Higher Mods might make you slightly more powerful but a Higher number of skill points won't do that. Depends where you put them. Factor in Feints (Bluff), Intimidation, Tumble, Concentration (for spellcasting), Perform (for Bards), and the former "thieving skills", and yes, actually, more skills points does mean more powerful, in this extremely limited sense, if you insist upon it.
larry_the_titan 03-11-08, 07:48 AM	Seems to me you're working with an extremely limited understanding of "power" in a game context. A high Diplomacy score can avoid a fight entirely, rather than having to go through with fighting it. Same result by different means. Depends where you put them. Factor in Feints (Bluff), Intimidation, Tumble, Concentration (for spellcasting), Perform (for Bards), and the former "thieving skills", and yes, actually, more skills points does mean more powerful, in this extremely limited sense, if you insist upon it. The thing is none of that is anything a character couldn't do before having more skill points. Diplomacy doesn't always have the chance to work. Most fights I have ever seen rarely give you a round to prepare. Thats only if the DM is nice. The full 10 rounds needed to get the effect of a standard diplomacy. I personally think the set Diplomacy DCs are broken any ways.
TheRealOrion 03-11-08, 01:08 PM	You're dancing around the issue. You claimed, above, that having more skill points doesn't make a character more deadly. I believe I have just demonstrated that it can and does, that skills have many and various combat applications. Do you deny that? If so, on what grounds? Furthermore, where, exactly, do you get this definition that "powerful = deadly"? I have encountered many NPCs in games who were extremely powerful by virtue of a political situation, their force of personality, religious appointment, etc. There's more than one kind of power.
larry_the_titan 03-11-08, 03:38 PM	You're dancing around the issue. You claimed, above, that having more skill points doesn't make a character more deadly. I believe I have just demonstrated that it can and does, that skills have many and various combat applications. Do you deny that? If so, on what grounds? Having more skill points makes you more Versitile. Which to you means more powerful but to me it doesn't matter much. Versitility can be stopped the same way a focus character can be stopped. Remove the option for the character to use there abilities and you can increase the Difficulty to a level that even the most skill focus character can't get past. Its not an option I ever want to use but every skill has its limits. Climb does you no good when Swimming and Diplomacy doesn't work on Mindless Creatures or even Creatures that just don't understand you. You can only become powerful with something if you focus. Furthermore, where, exactly, do you get this definition that "powerful = deadly"? I have encountered many NPCs in games who were extremely powerful by virtue of a political situation, their force of personality, religious appointment, etc. There's more than one kind of power. My of my experience with this game has normally been with stupid DMs with either a God Complex or a Lack of Knowledge. And if you couldn't kill something it meant that you were weak compared to it. The couple of good DMs that I dealt with focused a lot on battle so skill checks rarely came up. Sorry if it has scewed my view on the game. I plan to do my best to show my future players how to enjoy D&D and Roleplaying without them being so limited like the DMs I dealt with in the past. And if this system doesn't break something and makes the system work a little easier I will probably keep it.
TheRealOrion 03-11-08, 09:09 PM	Having more skill points makes you more Versitile. Which to you means more powerful but to me it doesn't matter much. Versitility can be stopped the same way a focus character can be stopped. [...] You can only become powerful with something if you focus. You're still defaulting to this "power = combat" thing, which you've yet to establish in a logical way (sorry if I'm doing my essay-marking voice, here, but you're just not making sense). But even by your definition of "powerful," your argument doesn't take one, minor element of versatility into account: the ability to do more than one thing. Your strategy works fine against a specialised character. Find the one thing that they do well and then obviate it. If someone has a ridiculous AC, throw stuff at them with things that don't require an attack roll. If they have stupid amounts of HPs, then use instant effects that don't rely on damage. Etc. The whole concept of versatility, however, is that you don't have just one of those things. You have several. Someone trying to "go around" your abilities has to do so several different ways, and probably simultaneously. That makes you more powerful. You have also yet to address the extremely simple point that an ability that you can tailor on the fly is more powerful/useful than one that can be employed only one way. The fact that you can choose how many points to trade between AC and attack rolls with Combat Expertise makes it far, far more powerful as defensive strategy than if you could trade only +4/-4. My of my experience with this game has normally been with stupid DMs with either a God Complex or a Lack of Knowledge. And if you couldn't kill something it meant that you were weak compared to it. This, to me, is the heart of the matter. If your DM and the other players are fixated on combat as the only measure of a character, then you'll have games where most of the skills are meaningless, and anyone who doesn't concentrate all their points on combat applications is an idiot. No amount of rule tweaking is going to help that problem. The thing is, it's not a video game. You can't build a table-top RPG that's fool proof. They always, always, always require judgement and thought from the players (including the DM). If the people using the system are, frankly, morons, then the game will be moronic, now matter how smooth the rules are. By the same token, I've played some god-awful rule sets that were fun as all hell because the players were thoughtful, interesting, creative people who made up for the ways in which the system was lacking. In short, it's a poor musician who blames his instrument.
larry_the_titan 03-12-08, 07:39 AM	@TheRealOrion, the reason I connect power to combat in D&D is because its the main focus of the mechanics. The Mechanics are the only way to test anything in this game. The Standard way to determine if something is broken has been to test and see if a 25 pt buy can pull it off first and then check to see what level of numbers on the checks that character can achieve. It is the standard Any other kind of power is normally only DM say so and has nothing to do with the game rules. If you want you can search through the rules of my system and tell me if there is a single skill check that can be achieved at a level that can't be achieved by another character on the standard skill system at the same level. The same rules govern the DCs in both systems so the comparison is fair. The reason I said one skill is because if a character who focuses on a single skill can pull something off then the character who spread himself over several skills won't be able to achieve the same level of success with all of his skills due to limited supplies to spread around.
TheRealOrion 03-12-08, 01:01 PM	I'm not faulting your numbers. This was never about your numbers. It was about the basic game philosophy. Anyway, it seems to me that this conversation is pretty much at an end. You have your way of doing things and that's great. Have fun.
larry_the_titan 03-12-08, 01:21 PM	Being the guy who started this thread about the mechanics and numbers of the skill system, I guess I am left to try and find out how a discussion that was started about mechanics and numbers got into basic game philosophy. Well Orion you have fun to but I have to figure this out.
ToastedAmphibian 03-12-08, 05:25 PM	Being the guy who started this thread about the mechanics and numbers of the skill system, I guess I am left to try and find out how a discussion that was started about mechanics and numbers got into basic game philosophy. Well Orion you have fun to but I have to figure this out. Oh i can tell you how it got to "Basic Game Philosopy". Several people told you taht your system would make characters more powerfull, skill wise. They said that taking 5 skill points and getting 15 ranks was more powerfull than spending 5 skill points and getting 5 ranks. Your argument is that 5 = 5 + 5 +5 because the highest number is still 5. Orion seems to disagree. As do I. Of course, that is only my opinion and im really not trying to speak for orion. Im just saying that, well, thats my opinion. You really shouldnt be getting so defensive about it, as you DID ask for it, afterall. You like your system, so use it. If my not liking it so much somehow offends you, then you have my apologies. You should stop being rude about it though. Its really not very nice of you :{
TheRealOrion 03-12-08, 08:16 PM	You know, rereading my last post, I can see how that came off kinda snippy. Sorry about that. Seriously, I don't mean any ill-will. The reason I started talking about game philosophy is that any time we tweak the rules in one direction or another, we're assuming a certain philosophy but usually not stating it. What I mean is, calling a rule change an "improvement" assumes a particular direction in which the game ought to go. That's not an objective measure. That's a choice. I happen to respectfully disagree with the direction that you implicitly describe as "improvement," and I was trying to explain why and maybe better understand why you define it the way you do. I think that's all I have to say, though. We've both stated our cases and I think we just fundamentally disagree on the basis of game philosophy. So, as you say, you keep doing your thing, I'll keep doing my thing, and we'll both have a good time of it.
larry_the_titan 03-13-08, 02:59 AM	Oh i can tell you how it got to "Basic Game Philosopy". Several people told you taht your system would make characters more powerfull, skill wise. They said that taking 5 skill points and getting 15 ranks was more powerfull than spending 5 skill points and getting 5 ranks. Your argument is that 5 = 5 + 5 +5 because the highest number is still 5. Orion seems to disagree. As do I. Of course, that is only my opinion and im really not trying to speak for orion. Im just saying that, well, thats my opinion. You really shouldnt be getting so defensive about it, as you DID ask for it, afterall. You like your system, so use it. If my not liking it so much somehow offends you, then you have my apologies. You should stop being rude about it though. Its really not very nice of you :{ For the most part my previous post was me returning what I received. You do seem to see my point but not completely understand it. My argument wasn't that 5=5+5+5 but 5=5=5=5. Meaning that as long as the most powerful ability of a character didn't raise then the over all power level of the game doesn't change from having the extra skills. So it wouldn't actually cause a problem. Currently I have been making some character builds to see how this system effects them. When I am done with them I should have my answer about the effects on the game. Thank you guys for posting.
TheRealOrion 03-13-08, 04:06 AM	Meaning that as long as the most powerful ability of a character didn't raise then the over all power level of the game doesn't change from having the extra skills. I'm sorry. I'm a small man in some ways and I can't let this go. What you're arguing is the equivalent of claiming that one house that has 20,000 sq. feet is the same as another house that has 40,000 sq. feet, because they're both just one house. If you reduce the number of skills down to, let's say, 20 from 40, then you must also halve the number of skills points the PCs get. If you do not do that, then you're effectively giving them twice as many skills. Do you see what we're saying, here? 5 = 5, yes, but you're calling something "5" that's actually 10. Combining the skills and leaving the skill points untouched would, in fact, make your PCs much, much more powerful, even just in the limited sense of "would survive a fight better." That's what you're describing. No amount of fancy math will change that.
larry_the_titan 03-13-08, 12:17 PM	I'm sorry. I'm a small man in some ways and I can't let this go. You don't have to consider yourself a small man as I am still willing to discuss this with you. What you're arguing is the equivalent of claiming that one house that has 20,000 sq. feet is the same as another house that has 40,000 sq. feet, because they're both just one house. If you reduce the number of skills down to, let's say, 20 from 40, then you must also halve the number of skills points the PCs get. If you do not do that, then you're effectively giving them twice as many skills. Do you see what we're saying, here? 5 = 5, yes, but you're calling something "5" that's actually 10. Combining the skills and leaving the skill points untouched would, in fact, make your PCs much, much more powerful, even just in the limited sense of "would survive a fight better." That's what you're describing. No amount of fancy math will change that. I went back and checked all the skills in the books that I have found so far that my system covers. My system has 29 seperate skills while the standard system with all the extra skills added from other books comes to 51. Figured we should have a correct count before we discuss this to far. Also most of the combined skills were either combining skills that were closely related and povided only a limited ability or nearly forgotten outside of certain classes or never used of which I collected most of them together into a easy access catch all skill 'Profession'. Not all skill options open up by just having said skill. Having Ranks in Spell craft doesn't directly allow you access to Psicraft and Martail Lore but Ranks in all those skills stack and are baught as if one skill and still limited to a total ranks max per level of the character level +3. I am considering adding a 2 rank cost to open the other part of the skill but I may have to put a limit on that. Also some skills wouldn't open up unless you had certain class features. Trapfinding is the only way to be able to pass DC for disable device over DC 20. While Concentration would also count as having ranks in Control Shape its really not that useful unless you are a Lycan. Autohypnosis wouldn't be open unless you were naturally Psionic or took the Wild Talent feat. Iaijutsu Strike would reguire either Quick Draw feat or a class that already had the skill. All of this really doesn't help casters that aren't Int based much because most casters I know only have 2+int skills per level anyway and still need skills like Knowledge Nature, Religion, Psionics, and Arcane plus Spellcraft or Psicraft and then Concentration before they really consider progressing into other skills. Which unless they have an Int of 14 or higher as a caster you might be stuck casting spells only. I have spent a little time on this so far but I think other changes need to be made anyway. Though I may leave it for Game Balance. I know all of that is Mechanics and Numbers and not Philosophy but you need to understand the Mechanics of both the Standard and My Systems before you really before coming to me about doubling the power of a character. But in short what I just said is the Ratio is about 3:5 for skills which is about 33% less then what you were saying I was doing. On top of that there are restrictions on access to some skill options. Meaning that the change in power is not as great as you seem to think. Plus the system is in flux and I need to consider what to do about synergy bonuses since a lot of skills are gone and i should probably seperate Thievery into 2 seperate skills 'Mechanic - Disable Device and Open Lock/ Thievery - Sleight of Hand and Forgery'. Personally none of this ever makes them better at something they are good at it just opens the options to be able to do something they couldn't before without completely hampering themselves.
Justicesays 03-13-08, 12:53 PM	There are three things that make the skill system functionally whacked. Two of them deal with multiclassing. 1) x4 skill points at first level. It sounds great, until you realize that if you multiclass, you must always start with the most skilled class to be remotely effective. A fighter 1/rogue 1 gets mocked every day on the way to work by a rogue 1/fighter 1. Eventually, the Fighter 1 / Rogue 1 snaps and disembowels the rogue 1/ Fighter 1 using his exotic weapon (Spiked Chain) + his extra +3 to hit from weapon finesse and dex , both feats he only qualified for at first level due to a +1 Bab. This is even more valuable benefit for a Human. He also gets +2 Hps of course. If you arnt intending to take combat feats then it isnt optimal, but someone who started as a fighter *would* be taking combat feats... Welcome to +2/+3 levels on the super feat chain above the "Rogue first" guy. 3) INT boosts not being retroactive sucks. Yes, it's unrealistic to suddenly understand how to jump better. Functionally however, if you are going to raise INT, you have to do it as early as possible to have effect. A wizard who puts two points into INT, then two points into CON as he levels is superior to a wizard who raises CON, then INT. Unless the "Int first" Wizard dies from lack of hitpoints or by failing a fortitude save before he manages to buy those precious points of CON. They both get to the same place, and at that point the CON first guy looks a little worse off, but he had an easier time of it through the whole game. Many builds that "optimize" for a certain level, but neglect the power level of the character on their way to that point. And don't get me started about age modifiers. If a young fighter and an old man who has lived until 99 as a commoner both take a level in rogue, the old guy is more skilled. If you wait until venerable age to take your first character level and do your adventuring, more skill points for you. Damn those old people and all their life experiences!
Kursk 03-13-08, 01:20 PM	It seems that the 4E is moving away from the old Skill system entirely. Did it do that bad of a job or was the use of it done poorly? It was fine. The choice to remove it in 4.0 (and other changes) only has to do with making sure there is no backward compatability with 3.X. It only has to do with future revenue stream. NOT workability. Have you done anything to fix it or were you completely happy with the system? Just adjusted a couple of classes and rate of skill point increase.
ToastedAmphibian 03-13-08, 07:39 PM	For the most part my previous post was me returning what I received. You do seem to see my point but not completely understand it. My argument wasn't that 5=5+5+5 but 5=5=5=5. Meaning that as long as the most powerful ability of a character didn't raise then the over all power level of the game doesn't change from having the extra skills. So it wouldn't actually cause a problem. Currently I have been making some character builds to see how this system effects them. When I am done with them I should have my answer about the effects on the game. Thank you guys for posting. Frakly, im just glad everyone has gone back to being civil :} My argument wasn't that 5=5+5+5 but 5=5=5=5. Meaning that as long as the most powerful ability of a character didn't raise then the over all power level of the game doesn't change To me, that kinda sounds alot like saying giving a dwarf +2 Int, +2 Wis, and +2 str dosnt make dwarves more powerfull, as there highest ability mod still isnt any higher than it was before. Personally, ive never really had a problem with the skill system. [aside from some annoying things like monks getting Knowledge religion and Knowledge magic, but not Knowledge Psionics. Unavoidable, but frustrating] It forces you to make hard choices when making your character, and i think you should have to make choices like that. Damn those old people and all their life experiences! Iife experiences=experience=the reason why hes gaining a level. An Experience level. Same as the young guy. Everyone knows you get better at learning new things as you age though right? Just like it improves your senses, and makes you more appealing to the ladies!
TheRealOrion 03-13-08, 07:56 PM	Sorry for the generalisations, Larry. I was working with the general idea, not the specifics. I didn't realise you were building in ways that you have to pay for access to progressing in skills. I actually think that's an interesting idea. It makes the system more complex, not less, but I can see the logic in it. As soon as you have something complete enough to look at, please post it! PS: we were being civil the whole time. It just happens that we disagreed. I don't think disagreement should be mistaken for rudeness.
larry_the_titan 03-13-08, 09:05 PM	Frakly, im just glad everyone has gone back to being civil :} I try my best but sometimes it helps to show you can throw punches if need be. Plus besides that we had only been bickering for a few pages. :D To me, that kinda sounds alot like saying giving a dwarf +2 Int, +2 Wis, and +2 str dosnt make dwarves more powerfull, as there highest ability mod still isnt any higher than it was before. Your right that would be imbalanced but giving them a +2 str and -dex wouldn't be. The overall system change doesn't just benefit players it also benefits NPCs and monsters if you want. Animals primarily benefit from the change because now you don't have to spend there few skill points on 3 skills then stack on scary amounts of racial bonuses. Dogs can effectively have ranks in swim. Personally, ive never really had a problem with the skill system. [aside from some annoying things like monks getting Knowledge religion and Knowledge magic, but not Knowledge Psionics. Unavoidable, but frustrating] It forces you to make hard choices when making your character, and i think you should have to make choices like that. If you think monks are screwy look at Favored Souls. They have full Divine casting let only Have Knowledge Arcane and not Knowledge Religion. This is a full caster who without multiclassing or taking a feat out of the Eberron Campaign setting can't even get epic spells when it gets to 21 level. Sorry for the generalisations, Larry. I was working with the general idea, not the specifics. I didn't realise you were building in ways that you have to pay for access to progressing in skills. I actually think that's an interesting idea. It makes the system more complex, not less, but I can see the logic in it. As soon as you have something complete enough to look at, please post it! Glad to hear you want to see the system when its done. I tend to want to follow an idea out to the end. I also post big ideas here so I can get even the most common protests out of the way before I show it to my friends. Give me a day or 2 and I will try to add all the changes to my write up and Update my original post and post it again at the end so we can start discussing it.
mplindustries 03-14-08, 03:45 AM	Since everyone seems to be against folding the skills together, I decided to post just to show not everyone is agaisnt you. I'm sure it is because of a different game philosophy, but I really don't think giving everyone more skills is unbalanced at all. I think folding the skills together is absolutely called for, because there are basically a list of skills everyone needs and there's no room for the otherwise useless roleplaying skills like forgery or appraise. Now, of course, I'd even go the extra step and remove class skills, too. I hate class skills. I am well aware what they represent, but I still see no reason why, when class mechanics are so abstracted and generalized anyway, someone who wants a bonus feat and a full BAB can't be sociable as well. (The common response here is "But they can, it just costs more," and my counter-response is, "It becomes clear pretty quickly that only people with max ranks have any chance of succeeding against similarly skilled individuals, so half ranks might as well be no ranks.") Anyway, I fully support shoving skills together. Skills have always been all about roleplaying anyway, so giving people more effective skills gives them more tools to roleplay. No powergamer in the history of D&D has ever done anything to get more varied skills. They may of course try and boost a few to crazy high levels, for example, a diplomonster, but more or less ranks available won't change those builds. In fact, it might let them diversify and be more interesting, by giving them the skill slack to be a Basketweaver or Forger or something like that. So yeah, just wanted to throw my support to the "more varied skills is not necessarily more powerful" bandwagon, since the powerful skills are already being taken. Its the usually extraneous skills that benefit.
TheRealOrion 03-15-08, 03:24 AM	I think there's some truth to what you're saying. There are some skills that just never seem to come up. I've never seen someone roll a Balance check. Never. Skills like that, especially if they logically could fall into a different umbrella skill (i.e., Tumbling), should be swept away. The trouble is that I can't think of that many skills that are truly that useless.
larry_the_titan 03-15-08, 12:42 PM	The trouble is that I can't think of that many skills that are truly that useless. Getting rid of useless shouldn't be the only goal of changing the system. Finding skills that should of gone together to begin with but with this system aren't together. Look at Profession and Craft. Profession doesn't allow you to make anything of value but still only allows you to make money. If you have Profession Blacksmith you don't get the ability to make any Weapons, or Armor, or even make a Horseshoe. You can't appraise anything either so that crafty adventurer can come in and bluff the Blacksmith into buying the most worthless cursed item and the blacksmith would never know any better. Craft has its own problems. There is one craft for weapon and another for Armor and it doesn't even cover have the stuff that was normally needed in the past. So lets look at this system in effect on a commoner. So this commoner will be Dwarven Black smith and will be treated as a Commoner 2 level with an Int of 12. To do his chosen profession he is required to have ranks in Profession (Blacksmith), Appraise, Craft (Weapons), Craft (Armor), and Diplomacy. Thats still 2 more skills then he gets skills per level and he still couldn't leave the shop and be of any use to an adventuring party. I know that the Ranks in Diplomacy can go but how will he discuss the price fairly with the Adventurers? I know you could also remove the ranks in Profession but without them he isn't a Professional. In my system this is all included in Profession (Blacksmith). Not completely. Profession (Blacksmithing) in my system covers Appraise for only Weapons, Armor and tools, it also covers making those items and bartering for those items. Another benefit of my system is that similar skills don't have to be restricted to skills of the same Ability mod. Making a Profession (Blacksmith) Int or Cha would be used to create, Cha or Wis during Bartering, and Int or Wis to Identify the value of an item. The changes that this system has is not so much focused on getting rid of useless skills but making a list of usable and useful skills. Similar uses are capable from Athletics. You need to jump a far distance that would use a Str mod, Spend a few hours climbing a wall would use a Con mod, need to hold you breath under water is now an Athletics Con check and keeping you balance on a storm tossed ship at sea is an Athletics Dex check. If your wondering why I put balance as part of both Acrobatics and Athletics is because the Balance aspect of Athletics is for keeping your balance in extraordinary circumstances while the Balance aspect of Acrobatic is for staying balanced when trying complex actions and progressing across narrow platforms.
TheRealOrion 03-15-08, 07:09 PM	See, where you perceive a problem, I perceive a design choice. Profession is a skill basically thrown in to cover people who don't want to actually make stuff, but to have a job on the side that brings in X number of dollars (gold pieces). It's one big skill with no specifics because it's assumed you're just using it as a source of income and you're not interested in the bits and pieces. Craft is a skill designed to actually build specific things within a game world that would be useful to an adventurer. That's why it's kinda tough to craft a soup-tureen. The rules asume you're not going to want to. I agree that it's a bit sloppy and could bear improvement, but once again, I don't think slapping five skills into one--Profession (blacksmith), Appraise, Craft (weapons), Craft (armour), and Diplomacy (???)--is the answer. If you want to just have a job and make some money, then take profession. If you want the ability to make your own weapons and armour, then take Craft (weapons) and Craft (armour). There's a reason they're separate. With all due respect, and I do respect you, you're still just talking about getting more bang for your buck. It's not an improvement to the rules. It's an increase in power-level, even in your limited definition of "power." If you can make your own Mastercraft weapons, especially at lower levels, then that does increase your power. You can use them in combat or you can sell them and use the cash. And adding Diplomacy to a profession that happens to involve customer service is really inappropriate, considering what Diplomacy allows you to get away with.
larry_the_titan 03-15-08, 09:38 PM	And adding Diplomacy to a profession that happens to involve customer service is really inappropriate, considering what Diplomacy allows you to get away with. Diplomacy is a problem in itself and Profession (Blacksmithing) getting the ability to barter wouldn't be treated as full Diplomacy. I think I would allow for a up to a 20% increase in cost for Weapons and Armor and a 20% decrease in cost decrease in cost for Weapons and Armor. It would be a resisted roll and the difference up to so far would determine the change in price. A shady sells person might try to get the most for his money for the items he is selling. Now at the moment I am considering making a change to Diplomacy itself. Maybe adding some conditional modifiers that will raise the DCs and maybe removing the fanatic part all together. Any Ideas on how to fix the broken abilities of that skill would be greatly appreciated. The skills that you get are still restricted to uses related to the focus of the skill of this system. Appraise from Profession (Blacksmithing) is limited to things you can make and you use in your profession. Its not even the Full skill as you can see. So its more like getting 3 skills and 2 parts of to separate skills. Profession is still to limited in the game and having half a dozen craft skills that could be better covered by other skills is kind of a waste. Besides Profession (Blacksmithing) still requires a shop and supplies to use and is a waste in your standard dungeon. Abandoned Dwarven Strongholds may have what you need but that pounding hammer will probably draw some hungry guests.
TheRealOrion 03-16-08, 01:47 PM	And that's why very, very few PCs ever take a profession, except as flavour. That said, a creative thinker can make an interesting character background out of a profession. My friend Liz designed an archer (Ranger) who was also a glass-blower. His arrows (the character is male) are tipped with glass heads of his own design. It's a little silly, sure, but it's also six kinds of awesome.
larry_the_titan 03-16-08, 05:58 PM	And that's why very, very few PCs ever take a profession, except as flavour. That said, a creative thinker can make an interesting character background out of a profession. My friend Liz designed an archer (Ranger) who was also a glass-blower. His arrows (the character is male) are tipped with glass heads of his own design. It's a little silly, sure, but it's also six kinds of awesome. While the idea sounds neat, had no mechanical effect unless the DM gave it one. I like everything to have a point. I also like all rules to be written down even House Rules, so the Players know the rules and can reference them. Your friend probably had one of the few classes in the game that has enough skill points per level to spend some on RP. They pay for it with a focus on 2 weapon fighting or Ranged combat and a lack of armor choices. But arguing about the balance of classes, its about a system change for the skill system. My main point to all that is that I don't think you should have to take something is Mechanically useless for RPing purposes. Profession at higher level is completely useless to make money because as written the skill takes a week to and you only get half you check in gold pieces over a week. Compared to spending a week in a dungeon which you may find a +1 sword at a low level which is worth more money then you can make in a year. At higher levels the change in price for everything increases and even if you cheesed out your mod some how you still gained less then what you could gain from spending a day in a crypt destroying some undead lich. So while your friend had something cool it still failed to do anything. Its like having a Master work Loin Cloth. It doesn't succeed in doing anything but RPing Tarzan.
TheRealOrion 03-16-08, 07:11 PM	What if role-playing is the point? What if that's the part that is interesting and fun? You're treating the game as if the only goal of it were to be the most able to deal damage in combat. That's one style of play. Just one. The rule system cannot, should not, and I hope will not be designed for that one style. If you want to power-game, then don't take the Profession skill, but why take it away from others if they find it useful for their style of play?
Brownie 03-16-08, 08:10 PM	What if role-playing is the point? What if that's the part that is interesting and fun? You're treating the game as if the only goal of it were to be the most able to deal damage in combat. That's one style of play. Just one. The rule system cannot, should not, and I hope will not be designed for that one style. If you want to power-game, then don't take the Profession skill, but why take it away from others if they find it useful for their style of play? :cookie: Bravo!
larry_the_titan 03-16-08, 10:15 PM	What if role-playing is the point? What if that's the part that is interesting and fun? You're treating the game as if the only goal of it were to be the most able to deal damage in combat. That's one style of play. Just one. The rule system cannot, should not, and I hope will not be designed for that one style. If you want to power-game, then don't take the Profession skill, but why take it away from others if they find it useful for their style of play? Because D&D for the purposes of RPing on its own is a terrible system and doesn't benefit a True RP at all. Every last rule for D&D 3.5 is nearly always focused on Combat. You should already know this. There are a great deal of other systems which lend themselves to RPing a great deal better then D&D at the moment. But for some idiotic reason a majority of the people RPers I know prefer Playing it. Because of the systems I have learned (a total of 9) through out my short Time RPing D&D is the only game that seems to have a Public image. I just wanted the skills to be useful so no matter how screwy some one is when they pick theirs, they could still do something even if it was just for RPing. On top of every thing you pointed out earlier that there is a few skills that you haven't seen rolled ever and a couple that you would merge. About every other person who said my system wasn't what was needed still pointed out that they add skill points to classes that are fairly restricted. I am just trying to make a system that works with every class in the game with out having to go through the list looking for what classes just need extra skills. Trust me that with the number of classes out there this is probably the most direct and easiest way to fix the skill issues with that many classes.
mplindustries 03-16-08, 11:01 PM	What if role-playing is the point? What if that's the part that is interesting and fun? You're treating the game as if the only goal of it were to be the most able to deal damage in combat. That's one style of play. Just one. The rule system cannot, should not, and I hope will not be designed for that one style. If you want to power-game, then don't take the Profession skill, but why take it away from others if they find it useful for their style of play? Roleplaying is always the point, or at least should be. Your attitude on this is completely bizarre to me, but seems to be echoed across the forums. I will never understand. Your basic argument here, is that you are not really roleplaying unless you are mechanically penalized for your roleplaying choices. Lets take the example of the glassblower. Why should someone who wants to be a glassblower who makes glass-tipped arrows that provide absolutely no mechanical benefit be forced to spend skill points on that ability? In what sense is the ability to have no game effect equivalent to the ability to hide or tumble or almost anything else? Why can't said person roleplay having glass-tipped arrows without wasting mechanical advantage? She was mechanically punished for roleplaying. This is a dangerous way of thinking. It actually teaches people not to roleplay, because the people in the group who don't, end up performing consistently better in every measurable way. When it comes down to it, rolling dice is part of the game, and succeeding feels like winning. If you keep failing because you had to spend your points on something you never roll and gives you no benefit, you're not going to want to do that anymore. All rules should have a noticeable mechanical effect. If it has no mechanical effect, it should not impair your mechanical effectiveness either. Now, I don't totally agree with larry, here. I don't think "Profession: X" should cover a dozen different things. I think "Profession: X" should be a roleplaying choice and shouldn't cost skill points at all. Who cares who is a better farmer? Nobody, all that matters is that you are indeed a farmer. I don't know, I feel like I'm rambling now, and I think I used the word "mechanical" way too much. I'll reply again later.
TheRealOrion 03-16-08, 11:28 PM	It seems to me that we're going around in circles again. Larry: The Profession skill does provide something useful right now: half the Profession check in GPs per week. That's lots and lots of money for anyone other than a noble or a PC. Players might not take it all that often, but it's very useful to have it in the system. That people on these fora want to increase skill points doesn't surprise me. Posters here are, by and large, power-gamers, so of course they want more of everything. MPL: No one is being "punished" for anything. I have only ever heard that complaint from power gamers who are trying to sneak something into a game that is, in fact, over powered. People are simply making different choices based on different priorities: power-gaming vs. role-playing (not that the two are mutually exclusive, of course). When you have a table of role-players who aren't particularly concerned about tactical builds, this problem just never comes up.
mplindustries 03-17-08, 12:07 AM	MPL: No one is being "punished" for anything. I have only ever heard that complaint from power gamers who are trying to sneak something into a game that is, in fact, over powered. People are simply making different choices based on different priorities: power-gaming vs. role-playing (not that the two are mutually exclusive, of course). When you have a table of role-players who aren't particularly concerned about tactical builds, this problem just never comes up. And yet, I don't believe it should be a choice at all. As you said, power-gaming and roleplaying are not mutually exclusive, and the rules should not support them being exclusive. As is, they do, because while the question may not come up among a table of people who don't care about being "good at the game" or a table of people who just want to kill as much as possible, it does come up constantly for those who like both. Do you remember way back when you were a little kid and you were playing with your friends? You'd say, "Bang! I shot you!" (Or "I stabbed you" or whatever else you wanted), and your friend would say, "Nuh-uh! I dodged it!" (or "I blocked it" or something else relevant). Thats what roleplaying systems are for. They are there to dictate who "wins" when this stuff comes up. If there is no conflict (be it with a player, an npc, or the environment), there should be no system to handle it. It should just be. Making glass arrows that have no system effect, farming, dressing stylishly, etc., should not really be covered by a system, since there is no inherent drama in the activity. Its never important to determine whether someone knows how to correctly plant fields or who makes nicer glass arrowheads. Skill points are there to limit someone's capabilities to influence the mechanics of the game. You use Bluff to say "I lied, but you don't know it so I have to believe it!" without hearing "Nuh-uh!" in reply. You use Hide to say, "You can't see me!" Tumble is to say, "I flip out of the way." If you say, "I make really nice arrowheads." Nobody is going to complain and say, "No way! You can't do that!" unless you try to claim you can get lots of money for them or that they can cut stuff better than regular arrowheads. In other words, if you don't use the mechanical benefits of crafting something (ie making money and/or getting a masterwork bonus from having nice gear), then you don't really need to roll anything and thus don't need the skill. Anyway, as far as sneaking something over-powered into a game goes...I don't really see how roleplaying while at the same time being an effective player of the game aspect of a roleplaying game is a bad thing... I'm sorry, but your statements once again came across as "You can't really be roleplaying without also being less effective."
TheRealOrion 03-17-08, 02:35 AM	I don't care about being what you call 'effective' as much as I care about playing a character that I like and have fun with. I'll happily be 'less effective' if I enjoy the character's personality and background. So, yeah, I'll sacrifice 'effectiveness' for role-play. I honestly don't understand what's wrong with that. Unless you're actually prioritising 'effectiveness' over role-play, then why is it so bad to exchange one for the other on occasion?
mplindustries 03-17-08, 09:27 AM	I don't care about being what you call 'effective' as much as I care about playing a character that I like and have fun with. I'll happily be 'less effective' if I enjoy the character's personality and background. So, yeah, I'll sacrifice 'effectiveness' for role-play. I honestly don't understand what's wrong with that. Unless you're actually prioritising 'effectiveness' over role-play, then why is it so bad to exchange one for the other on occasion? There is nothing wrong with you picking one over the other. The point is that you should not need to pick. "I'll sacrifice 'effectiveness' for role-play." You should never have to. There should be no choice. It should always be possible to do both. If there is a construct in the rules that make this impossible, I think thats a problem. You should be able to make a character that you like and can have fun with, without having to waste precious skill points in "flavor" skills. It doesn't matter how willing you are to do it. It doesn't matter if you don't think "wasting" skills points is a poor way to describe what's happening. The fact is, if a skill does, effectively, nothing, you should never feel like you need to take it to justify a roleplaying concept. If your concept for a character is "Sorcerer who is also an unlikable jerk," (or something similar that is obviously more fleshed out than just that) do you purposefully take a low Charisma? I seriously doubt it, and if you do, again, you shouldn't have to. I am continuously shocked by how alien a concept this is to most. I believe the rules should never get in the way of roleplaying, and if you are "less effective" for any reason other than a desire to be "less effective," the rules have done you a disservice.
larry_the_titan 03-17-08, 10:40 AM	Larry: The Profession skill does provide something useful right now: half the Profession check in GPs per week. That's lots and lots of money for anyone other than a noble or a PC. Players might not take it all that often, but it's very useful to have it in the system. The problem is that it is useless for PCs to have, and according to you Skills PCs don't use shouldn't be in the PHB. Which by that statement Profession should be in the same boat as Control shape and for some reason I don't recall ever seeing either skills on any NPCs character sheet. Control Shape is absent from Lycans and I am having a hard time finding a NPC character with Profession anything. That people on these fora want to increase skill points doesn't surprise me. Posters here are, by and large, power-gamers, so of course they want more of everything. The issue is a great deal of the rules experts on the Boards are Optimizers. You are right though a great deal of the posters here are either Optimizers, Min/Maxers or Munchkins. Which are all forms of power gamers. They can raise the power of a character to levels near or beyond game breaking within or outside of the rules in the case of a Munchkin. And to them getting something for everything that is on there character sheet is only fair. And yes I do not deny the fact I am fairly Educated with the Knowledge of the Optz Boards. I am also very proud of the fact that I am not the one that has ever broken any of the games I have ever been in, when the games did break for it was normally an effect of a shotty DM who didn't know not to allow what he allowed or enforced something that I or atleast now wouldn't allow or enforce. I don't care about being what you call 'effective' as much as I care about playing a character that I like and have fun with. I'll happily be 'less effective' if I enjoy the character's personality and background. So, yeah, I'll sacrifice 'effectiveness' for role-play. I honestly don't understand what's wrong with that. Unless you're actually prioritising 'effectiveness' over role-play, then why is it so bad to exchange one for the other on occasion? The Problem is that you shouldn't have to. Its already been proven that you can be both a Power Gamer and a Good Role Player and there is no reason to actually hamper a character with the goal of being a better RPer. I just hope you don't intend to argue that it actually helps to actually hamper a character so the Player can Role Play better as I have let to see a case where this is true. Edit: Darn in the time it took me to write my post MLP basicly said the same thing.
Wheldrake 03-17-08, 12:08 PM	The main advantage of the DD3.5 skill system is that it provides vast opportunities for specialization, and it gives non-wizards a good reason to want (and need) higher INT scores. Two rogues may wind up with totally different skill sets, one specializing in social skills, another in stealth, locks and traps. Unless he has a sky-high INT score, he has to give up *something*, and accept non-max skill ranks in many skills that he could in theory be good at due to his class. The main disadvantage is the system's complexity for new players creating new characters. This can be a major drawback, and IMHO it can easily double the time required for character generation. The skill system also puts the onus on DMs to create situations that require a wide variety of skill checks, especially if the players go out of their way to take some lesser-used skills. Like I said in an earlier post, I'm tempted to just chuck out the skill system altogether, and make all skill use depend on stat checks, perhaps with a level bonus to a limited list of class skills. If all skill checks were a simple stat check (vs WIS or DEX or whatever) with characters allowed to add their character level to (2+INT bonus) skills selected from their class skills, and half their level to the rest of their class skills, the effects would not be that different from the current overcomplexities of the skill system. This said, my current group is fairly well used to the DD3.5 skill system, so odds are we'll stick with it. Nothing I've seen from DD4 sounds like an improvement, and experienced players tend to like the opportunities for specialization. Cheers, --- Wheldrake
TheRealOrion 03-17-08, 12:33 PM	I have a feeling we're talking past each other, here, because I cannot honestly make sense of what you're saying. It sounds like you're saying that role-playing is great as long as you never ever ever have to sacrifice power for it. Is that right? Because that's implicitly a power-gamer's attitude, to me, almost to the exclusion of role-play. It's like someone who says "Yeah, I'd be happy to promote environmental clean-up, but only if I have to sacrifice nothing for it." I also really don't understand obsessing over a few skill points here and there. Lots of things happen over the course of a character's "career." You'll make some bum decisions and you'll make some good ones. Why don't we all just unclench our butt-cheeks and play? It's just a game, after all. And I think that will have to be the last I say about that because I'm just repeating myself now and I sense that my posts are getting annoying. It's been fun (really!), but I'm going to lurk until Larry posts his new rules. Feel free to get in the last word.
larry_the_titan 03-17-08, 02:49 PM	And I think that will have to be the last I say about that because I'm just repeating myself now and I sense that my posts are getting annoying. It's been fun (really!), but I'm going to lurk until Larry posts his new rules. Feel free to get in the last word. Sorry for the Delay in the new rules posting. I have been busy at work a lot lately and hadn't been able to get the complete Write up finished as well as all the testing. I will try to get a Preliminary Write up before to long. Though I really think I need to work out the DC for using Profession to Barter to decrease the cost of Goods. I am thinking at the moment probably 1/2 the difference for a resisted check limited to a range of +20% to a -20%. Though I might just remove that all together.
mplindustries 03-17-08, 08:12 PM	I have a feeling we're talking past each other, here, because I cannot honestly make sense of what you're saying. It sounds like you're saying that role-playing is great as long as you never ever ever have to sacrifice power for it. Is that right? Because that's implicitly a power-gamer's attitude, to me, almost to the exclusion of role-play. It's like someone who says "Yeah, I'd be happy to promote environmental clean-up, but only if I have to sacrifice nothing for it." This really sounds like you're saying its a dichotomy and my whole point all along has been that its not. Roleplaying and power-gaming are both valid ways to play and should not be mutually exclusive. The fact is, a character actually should never have to sacrifice power to roleplay. They should of course be able to if they so choose, but they should never be forced to do it. Its actually more like saying, "I actively want to promote cleaning up the environment, but I think its wrong to make me pay a special tax so that I am allowed." (NOTE: This is for example purposes only. I hate environmentalism.) I also really don't understand obsessing over a few skill points here and there. Lots of things happen over the course of a character's "career." You'll make some bum decisions and you'll make some good ones. Why don't we all just unclench our butt-cheeks and play? It's just a game, after all. I agree that a few skill points is not really that big a deal. I think I was more disagreeing with the general attitude that its ok to penalize people mechanically if they roleplay, because most of them don't really care. Its an attitude that does not seem to have gone away. Instead, it seems to use (admittedly brilliant) debate strategy to make it seem like its point is innocuous and wholesome. Nobody is going to go against the harmless roleplayer. Its all the evil power-gamer's fault, of course, and they are obviously never one in the same. :rolleyes: And I think that will have to be the last I say about that because I'm just repeating myself now and I sense that my posts are getting annoying. It's been fun (really!), but I'm going to lurk until Larry posts his new rules. Feel free to get in the last word. I also feel as though I repeated myself, not just from post to post, but even within the posts themselves. Anyway, I do respect your debate skill, even when you started playing dirty ;) Hooray for the last word!
Legdiwena 03-17-08, 08:51 PM	The problem is that it is useless for PCs to have, and according to you Skills PCs don't use shouldn't be in the PHB. Which by that statement Profession should be in the same boat as Control shape and for some reason I don't recall ever seeing either skills on any NPCs character sheet. Control Shape is absent from Lycans and I am having a hard time finding a NPC character with Profession anything. Most NPC lycans are evil and don't care about controlling their morphing, hence lack of skill. PC lycans on the other hand are much more likely to take Control Shape.
larry_the_titan 03-17-08, 10:18 PM	Most NPC lycans are evil and don't care about controlling their morphing, hence lack of skill. PC lycans on the other hand are much more likely to take Control Shape. My Question is then, does it hurt the game if I merge Control Shape with Concentration a skill commonly used to keep your mind right and focused?
Legdiwena 03-18-08, 12:25 PM	I don't see a problem with it. Just beware it removes one of the balancing features of lower LA lycans.
larry_the_titan 03-18-08, 01:44 PM	I don't see a problem with it. Just beware it removes one of the balancing features of lower LA lycans. Well considering the lowest ECL of an Afflicted Lycans can be is Werebear 8 or 9 with a class level Wereboar 5 or 6 with a class level Dire Wereboar 9 or 10 with a class level Werewolf 4 or 5 with a class level Dire Werewolf 8 or 9 with a class level Weretiger 8 or 9 with a class level Dire Wererat 3 or 4 with a class level Which makes it kind of hard to still travel with your old party. Plus those blasted Racial HD that you gained from becoming a Lycan can pop your ECL right into epic without an increase in any of your class abilities.
Legdiwena 03-18-08, 02:06 PM	I forgot about the racial HD. It could probably be balanced without a LA at all and just use Concentration in place of Control Shape.
larry_the_titan 03-18-08, 03:11 PM	I forgot about the racial HD. It could probably be balanced without a LA at all and just use Concentration in place of Control Shape. See now you are getting it. If you see any other issues with the system please point them out.
Divisionbyzer0 06-12-08, 01:19 PM	I thought the system was good but a little complex. I mean the physical skills were to many and the classes got way to few skill points. I think the worst part was there were just to many skills. I found that the easiest way to fix the issues with the system was first to cut down on the number of skills. Why have five skills to represent evry thing you exersize daily to become better at? Tumble Swim Climb Balance and Jump can easily be represented with 2 skills called Athletics and Acrobatics. Too many skills in 3.5? Does anyone remember the vast number of NWPs in 2E? I think the number of skills is fine in 3.5, however I think some classes (every one except the rogue and scout really) don't get enough skill points. They have 5 skills like that because in real life a long jumper may not be a skilled climber or swimmer. Acrobatics is usually more uniformly distributed with the people who actually do parts of that skill. Second get rid of the stat mod related part. Athletics Str to see if you can jump really far but Athletics Con to see if your endurance holds out while climbing the cliffs behind the castle so you can sneak in. Knowledge skills would benifit as well with remembering being related to Int, Discussion of the subject checks get Cha and Using the Knowledge to for your survival and tactics is Wis. This was somewhat in 2.5 with the concept of subabilities. I remember handle animal could be based off of leadership or intuition but I don't think both or as per a situation which is a good idea. I like the idea of using different stats for different situations. We usually let the barbarian use his str for intimidate if he's doing displays of his physical prowess in the process.
larry_the_titan 06-12-08, 02:55 PM	First, thx for digging this out of the back as I wasn't going to do it after it went dead last time. And I have currently updated the first post by adding a sblock with the current system I wrote up. Too many skills in 3.5? Does anyone remember the vast number of NWPs in 2E? I think the number of skills is fine in 3.5, however I think some classes (every one except the rogue and scout really) don't get enough skill points. I never played 2E D&D like several other people in the history of D&D. It has no effect on what I think of 3.5. You are right though about most classes not having enough skill points. There is 2 ways to fix this. 1.) Increase the number of skill points that any given class recieves on a case by case basis, which can take a lot of time. 2.) Decrease the over all number of skills in the game which leaves classes with the same balance between classes as before. They have 5 skills like that because in real life a long jumper may not be a skilled climber or swimmer. Acrobatics is usually more uniformly distributed with the people who actually do parts of that skill. First off this is a game not real life. Second these are supposed to be adventurers with extraordinary skills. Unless the setting for the game is predetermined by the player it is likely that any Athletic skill he choses will be useless 80 percent of the time. With 2 skills instead of 5 a character's skill selection with determine more about him. Athletics determines how physicaly fit a character is from his travels and training. (Meaning chiseled Abs are now a benefit of max ranks in Athletics and not juct from high charisma and good strength) Acrobatics determines just how nimble and capable of complex movements a character is. (Meaning that doing flashy moves into battle isn't restricted to the Ninja and Swashbuckler) This was somewhat in 2.5 with the concept of subabilities. I remember handle animal could be based off of leadership or intuition but I don't think both or as per a situation which is a good idea. I like the idea of using different stats for different situations. We usually let the barbarian use his str for intimidate if he's doing displays of his physical prowess in the process. Glad we agree on that. Removing the ties to stats does infact make your example possible with out taking a feat.
AaronDireBear 06-12-08, 03:08 PM	Well, I think it's O.K., except for two major issues, both of which have already been pointed out. 2. Too many ways to raise skill ranks. This shouldn't matter if your DM isn't stupid, but skill-boosting items are extremely cheap and you can always use skill-boosting feats, and so it's ridiculously easy to get a Hide modifier of +20 at level 5. Who's going to have a Spot modifier to beat that at that level? It gets especially ornery if said character has Hide in Plain Sight... And this is a problem HOW? Fighters are brutish armor monkeys trained to kill things, not sneaky rogues trained to not be seen. This is a big peeve I have with 4E Defenders, you guys want everyone to be as good at everything as everyone else with NO weaknesses for ANYONE ANYWHERE.
Divisionbyzer0 06-12-08, 03:17 PM	PS: the name of feat which makes foes with extraordinary and supernatural senses roll listens and spots as normal to detect you is "darkstalker" (http://realmshelps.dandello.net/cgi-bin/feats.pl?Darkstalker,all): Awesome feat. Re: everybody should get access to spot, search, and listen. I agree on this. This never made sense, especially why the fighter doesn't get access to them. However I would give some of the more "perceptive" classes simple bonuses. Ranger would get bonuses to all three, as would scout. Barbarian would get bonuses to spot and listen, same with druid. Wizards clerics and sorcerers would get bonuses to search. The same could work for other skills as well, or perhaps even all of them. A lot of the classes skill lists are also too small, specifically thinking of the fighter. I never understood why a fighter shouldn't have knowledge geography, diplomacy, survival. They had similar NWPs in 2E. Again maybe everyone should get access to diplomacy (well maybe not the barbarian :P), but paladins, clerics, marshals, knights, and others associated with forceful personalities get the bonuses to diplomacy. I have yet to read this entire thread so if stuff I'm saying's been said before forgive me. I gotta go mail some packages now, but will return to this one later.
Legdiwena 06-12-08, 03:29 PM	Barbarians do get diplomacy, it's called intimidate.
LimaBeanMage 06-12-08, 03:48 PM	I think the skill system under 3.5 is decent enough. I have an issue with class skills, but I also understand their purpose. They're just there to enforce a class persona. I think what many people don't like, but is perfectly reasonable, is that when you pick a class you are giving up parts of your character's personality. If you pick a wizard then you are going to be more knowledgeable than the fighter. While the skill system doesn't force you to put points into knowledge, it sure is trying to by limiting the possible efficient uses of your skill points. What we have to remember is that classes are nothing more than templates for your character, and that class skills are not what you do in the spare time, but what you gain by acting out the main theme of your class. When you pick a class, you force yourself into its image. A fighter, for example, isn't good at diplomacy not because he doesn't practice it, but because he practices cutting people in half and intimidate just naturally follows with that. As for grouping skills together, I think that can work, but I also think it reduces the depth of characters. The individual skill points on the other hand, are complicated and drawn out, but they can add more depth to a character.
elonin 06-12-08, 06:43 PM	Barbarians do get diplomacy, it's called intimidate. Yes they do but being a cha based skill is playing away from their forte. Also, don't forget about the old arguements about other stats being used to modify intimidate.
the overlord 07-11-08, 09:40 AM	To be truthful I do not know if the skill point system has failed. However I do know that I (with help of a friend) am working on a new package of house rules to be tried out in our next campaign (we play 3.x no fourth edition). The skill changes as we are proposing through our house rules are something as following: -class skills: You get an insight bonus in your class skills equal to half your character level (this may probably replace the synergy bonuses). - combining skills: Move silently + hide = stealth and more of those combinations as found in this topic. - Languages: This is where we are 'radically changing the system' (well sort of). Aside from your racial language (and apparent bonus language. Both of these will be referred to as automatic languages). You may spend skill points to learn other/ new languages (unless those restricted). Your automatic languages have a standard level of (2 in speech and 2 in reading (in this system reading is considered the same as writing)). All new languages have to be given new 'levels'. The higher the skill points assigned towards a language, the more fluent you are in this particular language. We already changed our character sheet to depict the changes. And because of this changing two new skills have been added: speak languages and read languages. Plus the languages have their own place on the sheet with enough room to write down your known languages, and the relevant level in this language speech or written word. For example: a level 4 human fighter: Known languages: Common (speech 2, written word 2) Learned languages: Elven (speech 2), Dwarven (speech 1, written word 1). Total level of skills: Speak languages: Int mod=0 skill level=3 other mod=2 Read languages: Int mod=0 skill level=1 other mod=2 When making a skill check for Elven speech: add result of speak language skill and skill level in particular language. So in this case 5+2= level of 7. Relevant combined checks are used with skills as forgery, diplomacy and other creative use of skills/ role-playing. One is considered fluent in a language if one has at least 3 assigned skill points in a skill. This has more to do with the role-playing aspect. Nobility or scholars are considered to have at least 4 assigned skill points in the relevant skill and language. For the most part I think that the skill system used in 3.X offer enough diversity for role-playing. Our reason for combining certain skills (e.g. spot and search) is just because we see these skills being used in the same circumstances. We’d like to use these skill points to improve other much wanted skills. Furthermore as stated before we are still working through the proposed house rules, so changes are still possible, our new campaign will start at the earliest around winter 2008. Comments, remarks and ideas are all welcome, With kind regards, the overlord
Spikes01k 07-11-08, 10:19 AM	They just changed it because it complicated it too much for those they are targeting now; the ones with more than two brain cells to rub together. I also imagine they wanted to eliminate convertibility.
DaveoftheRave 07-11-08, 11:04 AM	I started a thread about this topic b/c I keep coming across people discussing it. This is probably a better place for it though. A lot of people feel that characters don't get enough skills. I tend to agree, it is a great system but often it is hard to actually use. I've seen the idea of consolidating skill lists, but I don't like it. For example, collapsing Tumble and Balance into 1 skill. This effectively gives +1 skill pt per level for those wanting to take both of those skills. Of course if you do this a lot then you end up giving a lot of skills. This would be an acceptable method if only 'useless' skills were combined. There are other issues though, the game wasn't designed for it. Tumble is a trained only skill while Balance is not for instance. I like the specific nature of the skills and I like that there are many different ones. The only ones I don't like are Balance and Use Rope. The other option is to increase skill pts per level. A global 2 pts per level could work. There are 2 main problems with this approach though. Fighters/Wizards/etc. double their base skill pts while rangers/bards/rogues get a much smaller increase by percentage. Skills become much less special. The weird skills can be more easily purchased and the skill intensive classes lose power. Ultimately I think I would just end up giving the Fighter and Sorcerer 4+ per level and leave it at that. Of course it is still frustrating that my Human Rogue with 16 int. still cannot take all the skills that he wants. Though that may be a sign of a well designed system. Any thoughts on how to properly tweak the skill system or should we leave it alone? Overall I'd like to do a small tweak but combining skills just unbalances the system too much. I don't like having multiple 16-18 stats and I don't want to have all the skills either. I like being limited, b/c that means my character is special for having those skills.
aelryinth 07-11-08, 10:42 PM	The Main way the skill system is broken is because of Fixed DC's. Class imbalance as access to skills is a class issue, not a skill system issue. Problem 1) Ranks in a skill are next to useless. Bonuses to a skill are much more important in the long run. ---This is BAD. Ranks stand for stuff you actually LEARN relative to a skill. BONUSES build on ranks...they help you do stuff better/faster/sooner, but they don't give you the ability to make something you have no knowledge of...they don't spin knowledge out of thin air. 2) Fixed DC's cater to low level campaigns, and are laughable in high level ones. ---This is BAD. Diplomancers and Combat Fascinators prove this with unbelievable mods to those two skills. You can easily set Skill DC's higher then any save, and you can trash any Skill DC set in stone with bonuses. So, the easiest way to fix the Skill System is to take a nod from the Feat system, and don't let much of the ability of the skill system rely on DC's. Have it rely on Feat Ranks. As an example, lets take the Crafting skill. What's the numbers here? Oh, DC 20 for masterwork. -10 penalty, double your speed. Um, so with one rank of Crafting skill, I can make Adamantium Mechanus plate? Sure, it's just a DC 20 check. Fabricate away, boyo. Just use a Divine Insight spell for the bonuses you require! That is just Wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong. Anyone who knows anything of smithing knows that making full plate armor is NOT a simple feat. You learn basic armor techniques and build up from there. having 1 rank of Armorer means you know all those techniques? REALLY?!? AND how to work ADAMANTIUM, which you can't even AFFORD til you are 9th+ level or so???? Furthermore, you can make armor even if you don't know how to wear it? Especially masterwork armor, customized to each customer's specific style of combat, body shape, and needs? REALLY? ---DC of Armor: 15+1 per point of Armor granted. Masterwork: requires 5 ranks of Craft (Armorer). +10 to DC of armor. (this makes you level 2, no longer an apprentice, btw.) Uncommon Metal (Fine steel): 8 ranks of Craft Armorer required. +5 to DC of Armor. Rare Metal (Mithral): required, 10 ranks of Craft Armorer. +10 to DC of armor. Very Rare/Expensive Metal (adamantium): Required, 13 ranks of Craft (armorer). +15 to DC of armor. Exotic/Strange metal (planar): 15 ranks of armorer, +20 to armor DC. Racial/exotic Armor styles: Proficiency in armor (exotic & Heavy) required. +5 to base DC. Applies to 1 style of armor only. Furthermore, you could say: Each rank of armor crafting allows you to make 1 AC bonus of armor, beginning with the lowest AC one you are proficient with (the simple armors) and progressing upwards. Without Armor Proficiency, you could simply say you can't make masterwork armor of that level...which also rules out all the other things you can do. Thus, it would take Light, Medium and Heavy Armor Proficiency, and 7 skill ranks (1 per point of AC granted) for an Expert to make Full Plate armor, and to make it masterwork. The DC check would be a 33 for truly masterwork plate...with no special metals. Making it mithral would jack it up to a 43...a job for only the best of smiths, and require 10 ranks just to know how to work mithral, i.e. a 7th level smith! Now getting those bonuses from feats, magic items, synergy bonuses, stats, and tools becomes very important, almost neccessary. The 7th level smith with a 16 Int (+3), skill focus (armorer) +3, masterwork tools (+2), 3 aides (+6, max), 10 ranks, ten ranks ina synergy skill (knowledge/mining or craft/weaponsmith?) for +3 synergy has a +27 to his check. A Dwarf could add +2 racially, +4 if he's a paragon, and use another feat (Master Craftsman?) for an affinity bonus of +2 to two skills, and just hit that 43 taking 10. he'd probably want to invest 10k into a ring with +10 Competence to Armor (smithing) to double his speed. If he's a magewright, the spell that grants a +5 to a skill check would be helpful too. But he's already a 7th level NPC. To make full plate, he'd also need Light, Medium, and Heavy armor prof, probably from a level of Fighter. a mage trying to make masterwork full plate via Fabricate will still need to invest skill ranks and proficiencies, and the DC will also be quite high. === You can do the same thing with, say, Diplomacy checks. Base DC to shift an opinion = 10+ level of opponent, or opponent Diplomacy check, whichever is higher. 5 ranks to shift attitudes one level. 10 ranks to shift attitudes 2 levels. 15 ranks to shift attitudes 3 levels. 20 ranks to shift attitudes 4 levels. 25 ranks to shift attitudes 5 levels. Speed penalty is -10, or -1/level of opponent. Hostile/Threatening/Combat impose penalties of -10 per stage. Thus, Diplomancers won't work unless the person is at least neutral, at least until you are very high level (Hostile to Fanatic definitely is nearly impossible). Bonuses just help you overcome negative conditions like hastiness or starting negative conditions, etc. ========= Another minor effect you could introduce is that certain skill bonuses don't stack with their opposites. Insight (law, predicting the future and taking advantage) doesn't stack with luck (things working out in your favor without choosing) Sacred (good) does not stack with profane (evil) Competence (ease of skill) does not stack with morale (you think you are better then you are). Inherent bonuses don't stack with Enhancement bonuses...they are basically enhancement bonuses made permanent (pop the limit to +6, perhaps?) ============ The trick is to move what you need away from fixed DC's to fixed Skill ranks, so that what you can make scales by level. 4E handled this nicely with armor...look at the armor tables, and you see the good armor, and the stuff it's made from, is only attainable if it's been enchantd, and enchanted stuff isn't available until very high levels. The best armor is only found enchanted to +6, and you can't get it until 21+ levels. Well, turn this kind of thinking around, and use it to limit what can be MADE until certain levels, and you can start taking control of the skill system. That's really all there is to it. ===Aelryinth
Legdiwena 07-12-08, 10:56 AM	There's no reason to require armor proficiency to make the armor. This is a game not a reality sim.
Nathreet 07-12-08, 11:07 AM	Here's my own consolidated skill system: http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1017161 Steal whatever you want. As it happens, I like the skill system almost exactly as it stands. I just think it's too complicated. Hence the consolidation into a fewer number of skills. I also have rules "cheat sheets" which are especially useful for skills and special attacks: http://www.geocities.com/pleasespamme2004/dnd/tangibles/action_cards_and_rule_sheets.zip Hmmm... I really need to just sig these.
larry_the_titan 07-12-08, 11:48 AM	The skill changes as we are proposing through our house rules are something as following: -class skills: You get an insight bonus in your class skills equal to half your character level (this may probably replace the synergy bonuses). This right here can cause huge balance issues unless you address them. It either ends up giving you large and unneeded bonuses when you get above 10th level to any class skill you put max ranks in. I assume your goal was to allow a Player Characters the ability to have effective max ranks in more skills or to give them a chance to use class skills they wouldn't normally put ranks into. Not a bad plan but as I pointed out it can generate a problem if you haven't plan for more powerful characters. It gets worse if you mix it with the following. - combining skills: Move silently + hide = stealth and more of those combinations as found in this topic. This is the action I took first. It makes sense but should never be mixed with your previous suggestion as after I tested my system a shorten skill list is enough to remove the lack of skills issue for a majority of classes. - Languages: stuff.... This suggestion reminds me of the High Adventure RolePlaying System (HARP). It used effectively the same language system as that but there it made a huge difference as spell casting wasn't as prevalent as it is in D&D. There was no simple speak any tongue spell, well there was but if you couldn't make the skill check to cast it you might of blown off your own toe or worse or maybe you could of turn yourself purple and glowy. But that wasn't a huge problem as everything was done through a skill system in that game. I liked it and recommend that you look into it. Just give it a web search.
larry_the_titan 07-12-08, 01:48 PM	Stuff... ===Aelryinth That was a lot to take in there. I will be reviewing it for use in my system for future games. I have one suggestion instead of making it just harder to make the armor you should also add a Knowledge (The Planes) check DC 15. Other then that you might want to drop the checks a little as you made it harder just for someone to make the armors at all and the skill isn't that useful as it is as most heavier armors don't really balance out that well compared to Dex bonuses that a High Dex rogue can achieve. Sorry I fear Touch attacks more then I fear Sneak attacks. My suggestion 10+AC Additional modifiers include +4 Master work +2 for Dwarven craft or another races Craft such as feycraft +5 for weird material +10 for increased speed Everything else is being reviewed.
aelryinth 07-13-08, 01:46 AM	Knowledge the planes would tell you the armor exists, not how to MAKE it. Making it cost more would mean that spells could NOT duplicate skills...which is the entire focus of why you do it this way. Touch Attacks devaluing armor is a HIGH level argument, not a low level one. At Low level, armor kicks ass. Unlike a Mithral shirt, you don't NEED a high Dex to make great use of it. It's also comparing a magical effect to a mundane one. If you're using Touch Attacks (presumably via magic), shouldn't I be equally entitled to use +1 Energized Armor, which gets its bonus to TOuch AC? Mundane masterwork armor is also worth a crapload of money with one Fabricate spell. == The key point of the whole thing was the REQUIREMENT of the skill ranks. Just adding the bonuses to the DC means NOTHING...DC's are static and too easy to hit. Requiring some bonuses and optimization to hit those DC's is not a wrong thing. Technically, you can't afford mithral full plate armor until level 7+...why should a smith be able to make it sooner? That stuff is worth +4k a pop JUST for the metal it's made of! But, ALL heavy armor costs the same...so you aren't paying for the metal, you are paying for the rarity of a person who actually knows how to make mithral armor, and backing it up! Just adding +2 to the DC for stealing the racial secrets of their armor smiths? Uh, what? I wouldn't even allow them to make it without spending at least a skill rank on it. making dwarven craft certainly shouldn't be any less difficult then, say, learning how to write the dwarvish language, right? And you have to spend skill ranks on that, right? After you know how to make it, maybe the DC is only +2. BTW, the Proficiency is required to make MASTERWORK armor...which means all the good stuff. You can make normal, non-masterwork generic suits perfectly well. But if you don't intimately know how armor works and moves, i.e. by wearing it yourself and seeing how it all comes together, I wouldn't let you make truly great armor. You just don't know enough about it. And given how easy it is to pick up the profs, this shouldn't be an issue...except to spellcasters who might be annoyed they can't Fabricate Masterwork Full Plate with a DC 20 roll and 1 skill rank. The ones who make the best armor are the ones who invest in knowing the armor best, not the chutzpah who can get the highest DC check by subbing bonuses for actual knowledge. I.e. Consider it a REWARD for having the armor profs. People who know how to wear armor SHOULD be better at making it, all other things being equal, yes? ====Aelryinth
larry_the_titan 07-15-08, 02:27 PM	Knowledge the planes would tell you the armor exists, not how to MAKE it. Without knowing something exists how can you make it without inventing it yourself. Last time I checked Wizards don't get to make up new spells when they level. They only learn pre-existing spells or game balance is likely to vanish. Additionally Knowledge (The Planes) is a trained only skill. Meaning with out ranks in it, you wouldn't be able to make skill checks for it at all. Making it cost more would mean that spells could NOT duplicate skills...which is the entire focus of why you do it this way. Wait, that statement confuses me a little. You either mean increasing the difficulty of the check or increasing the actual cost of the item. If you meant the first, the increased DC does make it harder for a wizard to make it but as before it would make it down right impossible for a player to make it. If you meant an increase in price, which makes no sense, would prevent a wizard from making an item, then you need to also consider that a more complex item does come with an increased cost already. Master work armor cost more to make then require armor and takes longer to make by the standard method. Mithral adds to the price and Mechanus armor cost a pretty hefty price as well. Even though it is the cheapest for that level of ac and has the least restrive rules. Touch Attacks devaluing armor is a HIGH level argument, not a low level one. At Low level, armor kicks ass. Unlike a Mithral shirt, you don't NEED a high Dex to make great use of it. It's also comparing a magical effect to a mundane one. If you're using Touch Attacks (presumably via magic), shouldn't I be equally entitled to use +1 Energized Armor, which gets its bonus to TOuch AC? Mundane masterwork armor is also worth a crapload of money with one Fabricate spell.. Fabricate's Material Component: The original material, which costs the same amount as the raw materials required to craft the item to be created. First though I am curious as to what level a wizard would have to be to cast a 2nd level personal Cleric/Paladin spell? Your combo earlier in this thread requires a caster to cast both a 5th level wizard (meaning atleast 9th level wizard) and a 2 level cleric spell( meaning 3 level Cleric). Overall the character is either 12th level before casting that combo or is doing a dual progression of some sort which I can't think of any that doesn't atlest require second level divine spells first. The key point of the whole thing was the REQUIREMENT of the skill ranks. Just adding the bonuses to the DC means NOTHING...DC's are static and too easy to hit. Requiring some bonuses and optimization to hit those DC's is not a wrong thing. Technically, you can't afford mithral full plate armor until level 7+...why should a smith be able to make it sooner? That stuff is worth +4k a pop JUST for the metal it's made of! But, ALL heavy armor costs the same...so you aren't paying for the metal, you are paying for the rarity of a person who actually knows how to make mithral armor, and backing it up! Higher DCs and increased material cost are both enough to keep lower level characters from getting loads of powerful Items. On another note not all heavy metal costs the same. Additionally Mithral is rather light compared to most materials. It is the increased rarity of and preference for an item that drives up the price. The craftsmanship of the item normally just reminds people to be a repeat costumer. Just adding +2 to the DC for stealing the racial secrets of their armor smiths? Uh, what? I wouldn't even allow them to make it without spending at least a skill rank on it. making dwarven craft certainly shouldn't be any less difficult then, say, learning how to write the dwarvish language, right? And you have to spend skill ranks on that, right?. The +2 difficulty was the number set down in Races of stone for Dwarvencraft items. I liked the numbers anyway so applying it accross any racial craft made sense to me. Personally though I would still require learning the secrets first as just knowing them makes no since. And I am sure stealing them from the dwarves is enough to tick them off. I call that a story hook myself. I.e. Consider it a REWARD for having the armor profs. People who know how to wear armor SHOULD be better at making it, all other things being equal, yes? ====Aelryinth Know how to make something and know how to use it is completely seperate areas.
aelryinth 07-15-08, 06:07 PM	QUOTE=larry_the_titanWithout knowing something exists how can you make it without inventing it yourself. Last time I checked Wizards don't get to make up new spells when they level. They only learn pre-existing spells or game balance is likely to vanish. Additionally Knowledge (The Planes) is a trained only skill. Meaning with out ranks in it, you wouldn't be able to make skill checks for it at all. Um, so if someone plunked down a suit of Mechanus Plate in front of you, you'd look right at it and say it doesn't exist? Knowing how to make it subsumes knowing it exists. Hence the exotic armor prof, or invest in skill ranks to learn the exotic armor. Wait, that statement confuses me a little. You either mean increasing the difficulty of the check or increasing the actual cost of the item. If you meant the first, the increased DC does make it harder for a wizard to make it but as before it would make it down right impossible for a player to make it. If you meant an increase in price, which makes no sense, would prevent a wizard from making an item, then you need to also consider that a more complex item does come with an increased cost already. Master work armor cost more to make then require armor and takes longer to make by the standard method. Mithral adds to the price and Mechanus armor cost a pretty hefty price as well. Even though it is the cheapest for that level of ac and has the least restrive rules. You don't want to increase the cost. that simply increases the profit level of someone who can bypass the crafting process. You increase the static DC by level so its approrpriate to learn the means to do stuff at the level where people can afford it. So, a 7th level smith is required to make Mithral armor, because 7th level is about the level where people can afford it. It's FAR too easy for a cleric with a spell to hit the DC otherwise, or for +Competency bonus items to do likewise. Fabricate's Material Component: The original material, which costs the same amount as the raw materials required to craft the item to be created. But no time. Just buy up all the raw materials, ignore the fact you need, say, a set of masterwork tools, forges, apprentices, and years of study on metal and armor, and cast the spell. Bing, 10k gp armor. Pay me. Not bad for a minute's work. First though I am curious as to what level a wizard would have to be to cast a 2nd level personal Cleric/Paladin spell? Your combo earlier in this thread requires a caster to cast both a 5th level wizard (meaning atleast 9th level wizard) and a 2 level cleric spell( meaning 3 level Cleric). Overall the character is either 12th level before casting that combo or is doing a dual progression of some sort which I can't think of any that doesn't atlest require second level divine spells first. Seperate instances. The craft rules are abused by having tons of bonuses and minimal need for ranks, and divorcing themselves from level reqs. Clerics do it with Divine Insight. They don't need skill ranks when they can get an insane skill bonus on any skill with just a spell. Wizards abuse this by instantly bypassing the time/tools investment process, and just needing the spell to do the work. They can also acquire the bonuses which means not needing to invest more then 1 rank, and then hitting the fixed DC, usually with great ease because of high Int. With the profit from 1 Mithral Full Plate suit, they can buy a +5 Armor Competency item and hit the DC 20 check EVERY time by taking 10. Then simply churn out the armor. Higher DCs and increased material cost are both enough to keep lower level characters from getting loads of powerful Items. On another note not all heavy metal costs the same. Additionally Mithral is rather light compared to most materials. It is the increased rarity of and preference for an item that drives up the price. The craftsmanship of the item normally just reminds people to be a repeat costumer. Getting pricey items has very little to do with working with expensive materials. However, look at the price for Mithral Heavy armor. It's the same for ALL types of Heavy armor, regardless of weight. Same for adamantine. Thus the increased price for adamantine must be nominal...it's there, but the true cost has to be in the skill taken to get the thing made, because otherwise the price would vary by the weight of how much mithral was actually IN the armor. The +2 difficulty was the number set down in Races of stone for Dwarvencraft items. I liked the numbers anyway so applying it accross any racial craft made sense to me. Personally though I would still require learning the secrets first as just knowing them makes no since. And I am sure stealing them from the dwarves is enough to tick them off. I call that a story hook myself. On this we agree. Know how to make something and know how to use it is completely seperate areas. Knowing how to make something really fine means you must know how it is used, so as to satisfy the conditions of why you are making it in the first place, no? Someone could make a screwdriver, but unless they consider all the thingsa screwdriver is used for, how it is held, ways and means, making it masterwork is just a guessing game. Ditto armor. Unless you know how all that armor moves and works together while someone is wearing it, how are you going to improve on it? Personal experience is very telling. You know what makes good armor because you've worn it...you know what needs to be done to make it great for the wearer. Unlike someone who wears it, you also know how to make it. Someone who doesn't wear the armor is just dealing with 'airy theory', or 'book learning'. Make the skill system a player in the balance equation, not an afterthought. Dump the fixed DC's, replace with Skill Rank Reqs. This insures that you can't get wild results at low levels, that bonuses can't sub for knowledge and experience, and high level characters/NPC's can actually do things that low level ones can only dream of...and can't turn to some magic item to do the same. ==Aelryinth
Legdiwena 07-16-08, 09:20 AM	Book learning would be sufficient to make mw armor. Accounting for a full range of motion could easily be done without training to properly wear it yourself in combat.
Count Arioch the 28th 07-16-08, 11:40 AM	My biggest beef with the skill system is that too much stuff is level dependent. I don't see why that a really good maid should have a +6 BaB.
Thorsbjorn 07-16-08, 12:08 PM	The skill system works pretty well for me. If I were doing it over I might combine Balance and Tumble, as I think they did in Pathfinder, because both use Dexterity. I wouldn't include Jump, as I think they did in Pathfinder, because Jump uses Strength. Few enough feats use Strength as it is. Also looking at gymnasts, while they do jump as well as balance and tumble, they don't jump like high jumpers or broad jumpers. Those are definitely different skills from gymnast skills. I might also combine Listen and Spot into Perception, as they both use Wisdom, but I sort of like having sight different from hearing. I probably would increase the number of skill points, maybe changing from x4 to x5 at first level, or just adding another skill point per level after that, or both. As it is, however, I feel not particular need to make any of these changes, as I like to minimize my house rules, so the system works well enough for me as it is.
aelryinth 07-17-08, 12:13 AM	Book learning would be sufficient to make mw armor. Accounting for a full range of motion could easily be done without training to properly wear it yourself in combat. Book learning would be sufficient to make armor. Making masterwork armor is effectively the rules for customizing stuff. You don't make customized stuff without knowing a lot more then you get off a book. ===Aelryinth
Legdiwena 07-17-08, 09:48 AM	A blacksmith would start as an apprentice and the master would teach him. Part of this could very well be teaching a template for mw armor and showing how to customize it to a customer. All this would be done without having to learn how to fight in it. If you insist on excessive realism, look at history. Apprentices were sent off at an early age and learned the craft, instead of being schooled in the arts of war.
aelryinth 07-17-08, 02:40 PM	A blacksmith would start as an apprentice and the master would teach him. Part of this could very well be teaching a template for mw armor and showing how to customize it to a customer. All this would be done without having to learn how to fight in it. If you insist on excessive realism, look at history. Apprentices were sent off at an early age and learned the craft, instead of being schooled in the arts of war. Um, actually, this makes my argument. "learning the arts of war", such as a soldier's career, is not really the same thing as basic proficiency in a weapon. Actually, your argument is more in support of mine then yours. The apprentice has to invest time and ranks into learning his trade, and learns how to make basic varying templates/stock of armor. But for the really good stuff, the custom stuff, he has to know the armor from a personal standpoint...why it has to be the way it is, what is good, what is bad, what works, what doesn't. And as anyone who does woodworking knows, you don't get that out of a book. you actually do need the personal experience to go along with it. I mean, somethign as simple as taking armor on and off easily. how's he really going to know he's done that right unless he tests it out for himself? For a normal suit of armor, meh. For a masterwork set? He'd best have real hand experience...you can't get that out of a book. ===Aelryinth
Legdiwena 07-18-08, 09:35 AM	Being taught to make armor, mw or not has nothing to do with knowing how to wear it. You would know how to put it on somone and test the fit, but that is not the same as being proficient in its use.
aelryinth 07-18-08, 06:36 PM	Being taught to make armor, mw or not has nothing to do with knowing how to wear it. You would know how to put it on somone and test the fit, but that is not the same as being proficient in its use. We're not talking just 'fit'. We're talking 'masterwork', custom stuff, the best of the best. Takes a bit more then just bookwork. ===Aelryinth
Legdiwena 07-19-08, 10:15 AM	Apprenticing is being taught by the master, not learning from books.
aelryinth 07-20-08, 12:25 AM	Apprenticing is being taught by the master, not learning from books. And to prove you are a master you must do an exemplary peice of work, that is more then rote churning out of normal peices of material, i.e. a masterwork, something done so finely made that it is worth +100 GP. Just for hitting a skill check. That better represent some sort of skill investment, yes? More then just ranks? ===Aelryinth
Kn1ves 07-20-08, 10:09 PM	I thought the system was good but a little complex. I mean the physical skills were to many and the classes got way to few skill points. I think the worst part was there were just to many skills. Ha, try a Palladium game and then tell me D&D has too many skills. D&D has one of the most dumbed down and generalized skill sets of any system on the market. Try Spycraft to see what WoTC should have done with their skill system.
Legdiwena 07-21-08, 09:43 AM	It's obvious you've made up your mind and not listening to the arguments against it. I think I'll stop trying to argue with a brick wall now.