Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Swifthand 03-07-07, 04:17 PM	Hey all- I had a random thought today concerning skill synergies and I wanted to get your opinions. Why do skills that oppose one another not give each other a synergy bonus? As far as I know, core has 3 sets of opposing skills: Hide/Spot Listen/Move Silently Bluff/Sense Motive It seems to me, that if you generally are great at using good hiding spots, you would be better at spotting them as well. If you know how to mask the sound you make, or are very good at being quiet, you know the telltale sounds of someone try to be silent. It also makes sense that if you know how to fool someone, you would better know the "tells" of someone trying to fool you. All these cases can easily be argued in reverse as well. So what do you guys think? -Swift
jameswilliamogle 03-07-07, 04:20 PM	That's a really good idea, I think. Great house rule, along w/ Dodge applies to everyone (but further improvements apply to 1 enemy only), Toughness = Improved Toughness, and Skill Focus: Concentration qualifies as Combat Casting.
tarkin 03-07-07, 04:59 PM	Swifthand's idea makes a lot of sense to me. If you can tell good from bad, then you can know what you are doing is good/bad and correct it. jameswilliamogle, your ideas is a common, bad one. It demonstrates ignorance of the pre-req system and are really bad ideas, not appropriate for most games. Some feats were intentionally made to suck, as part of game balance. For example, when the game designers said "Pre-req = Toughness", they already knew about the feat Improved Toughness. They were not morons saying "hm, you know, I think they should take toughness, it is so cool, I wish I could have toughness." They conciously choose to NOT let you take Improved Toughness. They were saying that this particular ability is so good that we need to force the player to take a really sucky thing to pay for it. That is what you are trying to blindly power up is the EXACT thing that the professional game designers said don't do. If you think a particular game desinger is wrong and want to over-ride them for a particular feat, that is one thing. For you to blindly state ALL game desingers are WRONG ALL THE TIME and they should ALWAYS let the player take the better, more powerfull version is foolish, greedy, and rude.
jameswilliamogle 03-07-07, 06:02 PM	jameswilliamogle, your ideas is a common, bad one. It demonstrates ignorance of the pre-req system and are really bad ideas, not appropriate for most games. Some feats were intentionally made to suck, as part of game balance. For example, when the game designers said "Pre-req = Toughness", they already knew about the feat Improved Toughness. They were not morons saying "hm, you know, I think they should take toughness, it is so cool, I wish I could have toughness." They conciously choose to NOT let you take Improved Toughness. They were saying that this particular ability is so good that we need to force the player to take a really sucky thing to pay for it. That is what you are trying to blindly power up is the EXACT thing that the professional game designers said don't do. If you think a particular game desinger is wrong and want to over-ride them for a particular feat, that is one thing. For you to blindly state ALL game desingers are WRONG ALL THE TIME and they should ALWAYS let the player take the better, more powerfull version is foolish, greedy, and rude. You are putting words in my mouth, and thats obnoxious, and rude. Notice I said they were good HOUSE RULES. When the heck did I say game designers were "WRONG ALL THE TIME"? And where do you get that I'm trying to blindly power up? Dodge applying all the time is easier to keep track of. I've never met anyone that took Toughness outside of LG, and Imp Toughness is so closely related that it should count. Why the heck couldn't you have written that in a PM, instead of spraying across a public forum? Just to discredit my opinion? edit: ya know what, nm. I'm not really interested in any further response.
Swifthand 03-07-07, 07:38 PM	Ooo...prior bad blood. Anyway, I agree, it's seems like a no-brainer, but I'd love to hear from some dissenters. -Swift
MourninStar 03-07-07, 07:49 PM	Anyway, I agree, it's seems like a no-brainer, but I'd love to hear from some dissenters. -Swift Okay.:) The list of synergy bonuses given in Chapter 4 of the PHB is pretty well laid out, and it doesn't really seem to include any oppositional skill synergies. It seems that synergies should exist between complimentary skills.
jameswilliamogle 03-07-07, 07:56 PM	Ooo...prior bad blood.Not that I'm aware of, at all (maybe on his end? I sure don't ever try to offend anyone when I post.) The synergy bonuses for opposing skill checks seems like it might work; but there's quite a few synergy bonuses already. It does seem pretty realistic, to me. You also are putting more power in the hands of skill rich classes, so that could be a concern (its very minor, though, so probably wouldn't need correcting). I'd say try playtesting it, and see how it goes!