The addition of Listen and Spot to all class skills. [Archive] - Wizards Community

The addition of Listen and Spot to all class skills. [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
syrinth
08-03-06, 12:41 AM Hey, I was just mulling over this and I was wondering about adding listen and spot to all the class skills. I'm afraid of what impact this would have on game balance though, especially for the rogue, so I thought it best to place this here before implementation.
DaveTheMagicWeasel
08-07-06, 12:36 PM Well, it will mean that the classes that depend on stealth will be severely nerfed, and have to invest lots of resources in Stealthy feats, armour of silent moves, etc. And Rogues are far from overpowered as it is.

Also, all those wizards with invisibility and silence will put the rogue to shame.

My advice - don't do it.
Illithid_Tentacles
08-07-06, 01:45 PM It would very thoroughly screw the rogue. I say it's a bad idea.
JulesCARV
08-07-06, 03:13 PM I'd say it depends.

I don't think they should be added to, for example, the wizard or cleric skill list. No real thematic reason they should have them (although they can still buy them cross-class, of course), and they're powerful anyway. I think that adding them to the fighter list makes sense, though, since hand-eye coordination, acute hearing, etc, are all rather important for tactical combat, which is supposed to be a fighter's métier, and fighters are kinda weak anyway.
Dunelord
08-07-06, 03:18 PM How about RIDE?!?! Sorry but in a setting were the main mode of transportation is riding an animal I have a hard time seeing a class without it as a class skill.
Arlowat
08-07-06, 03:52 PM I'd also advise against it. But I'm curious -- what made you consider changing these skills? Did it cause some trouble in your games.

(And you don't need ranks in ride if you're using animals for transportation. The skill only comes into play during combat.)
syrinth
08-07-06, 04:07 PM The main reason is because of the fact that I find it strange that for some reason a rather large portion of classes aint too good at the sight thingy. Meh.
Arlowat
08-07-06, 04:21 PM Shrug. They're good enough *without any ranks at all* to see most things. IMO.
Dunelord
08-08-06, 12:31 AM I'd also advise against it. But I'm curious -- what made you consider changing these skills? Did it cause some trouble in your games.

(And you don't need ranks in ride if you're using animals for transportation. The skill only comes into play during combat.)

There are lots of uses for ride, and it seems that someone who has done it everyday his whole life wouldn't have to treat it as an oddity to be better then average at it.
enlightened
08-08-06, 01:42 AM There are lots of uses for ride, and it seems that someone who has done it everyday his whole life wouldn't have to treat it as an oddity to be better then average at it.

Yeah, they may use a horse everyday, but they're just riding it.

They're not using the horse as cover, they're not suddenly fast dismounting when they reach their destination, nor are they leaping with the horse.

From reading the skill description in the book, it strongly feels like the authors intended for the ride skill to be only for combat.

Having the ride skill represents having taken the time to practice very special things like soft fall, fast mount/dismount, using the mount as cover, guiding with the knees, etc.
stargate525
08-08-06, 02:18 AM We do it in our games all the time, and it doesn't unbalance anything.
syrinth
08-08-06, 02:20 AM which? lol, the ride or the spot and listen :D
Leress
08-08-06, 02:48 AM The main reason is because of the fact that I find it strange that for some reason a rather large portion of classes aint too good at the sight thingy. Meh.

I find that strange too. I also find it strange that commoners are very good at it. :confused: (since they have spot and listen as class skills)
stargate525
08-08-06, 03:03 AM which? lol, the ride or the spot and listen :D
Spot and listen. Search as well, come to think of it.
syrinth
08-08-06, 03:07 AM Ah, lol :D
Dunelord
08-08-06, 01:28 PM Yeah, they may use a horse everyday, but they're just riding it.

They're not using the horse as cover, they're not suddenly fast dismounting when they reach their destination, nor are they leaping with the horse.

From reading the skill description in the book, it strongly feels like the authors intended for the ride skill to be only for combat.

Having the ride skill represents having taken the time to practice very special things like soft fall, fast mount/dismount, using the mount as cover, guiding with the knees, etc.

Let's not high jack this thread.
hiryuu
08-08-06, 06:40 PM I find that strange too. I also find it strange that commoners are very good at it. :confused: (since they have spot and listen as class skills)

Well, yes, that's so the kindly old farmer can be woken up out of a sound sleep because he heard something in his barn, go investigate it, and be eaten by the scifi channel original movie monster waiting for him.
Millennium
08-08-06, 07:43 PM Not only does it unbalance things against the rogue, it's not even all that realistic. Training not only your hearing and eyesight, but also the sense of detail on which Listen and Spot depend, is surprisingly difficult, and it makes sense that some classes would tend more toward this type of training than others.
enlightened
08-08-06, 08:11 PM I think it would be much more realistic to take them away from the commoners instead of giving them to everybody.

Shouldn't the commoner's skill list look more like this:

craft
profession

..............finished. With everything else as expensive cross-class skills.
JulesCARV
08-08-06, 10:38 PM I think, of course, that commoners should have all skills in class, like exemplars (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=657787), but leaving that aside, one needn't take a universalist stance on this. For example, maybe fighters could get spot without getting listen. Barbarians have listen, but not spot, as it is. Or one could give bards ride without giving it to wizards, if you think, for instance, that bards are a tad weaker than wizards and wouldn't be hurt by a little power-up, and that the idea of a bard who's a good horseman is appealing (being a wandering, mobile class and all that, always on the move), go for it.

I don't really like the idea of every class having some important skills as class skills. With something like Craft, it's not a big deal, but with spot or listen, two of the most important skills in the game, it blurs class distinctions and takes away the unique roles classes can play within a party.

In short, I'm open to the idea of shifting a few class skills around, on a case by case basis. I don't find the idea of giving every class a few skills appealing.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
syrinth 08-03-06, 12:41 AM	Hey, I was just mulling over this and I was wondering about adding listen and spot to all the class skills. I'm afraid of what impact this would have on game balance though, especially for the rogue, so I thought it best to place this here before implementation.
DaveTheMagicWeasel 08-07-06, 12:36 PM	Well, it will mean that the classes that depend on stealth will be severely nerfed, and have to invest lots of resources in Stealthy feats, armour of silent moves, etc. And Rogues are far from overpowered as it is. Also, all those wizards with invisibility and silence will put the rogue to shame. My advice - don't do it.
Illithid_Tentacles 08-07-06, 01:45 PM	It would very thoroughly screw the rogue. I say it's a bad idea.
JulesCARV 08-07-06, 03:13 PM	I'd say it depends. I don't think they should be added to, for example, the wizard or cleric skill list. No real thematic reason they should have them (although they can still buy them cross-class, of course), and they're powerful anyway. I think that adding them to the fighter list makes sense, though, since hand-eye coordination, acute hearing, etc, are all rather important for tactical combat, which is supposed to be a fighter's métier, and fighters are kinda weak anyway.
Dunelord 08-07-06, 03:18 PM	How about RIDE?!?! Sorry but in a setting were the main mode of transportation is riding an animal I have a hard time seeing a class without it as a class skill.
Arlowat 08-07-06, 03:52 PM	I'd also advise against it. But I'm curious -- what made you consider changing these skills? Did it cause some trouble in your games. (And you don't need ranks in ride if you're using animals for transportation. The skill only comes into play during combat.)
syrinth 08-07-06, 04:07 PM	The main reason is because of the fact that I find it strange that for some reason a rather large portion of classes aint too good at the sight thingy. Meh.
Arlowat 08-07-06, 04:21 PM	Shrug. They're good enough without any ranks at all to see most things. IMO.
Dunelord 08-08-06, 12:31 AM	I'd also advise against it. But I'm curious -- what made you consider changing these skills? Did it cause some trouble in your games. (And you don't need ranks in ride if you're using animals for transportation. The skill only comes into play during combat.) There are lots of uses for ride, and it seems that someone who has done it everyday his whole life wouldn't have to treat it as an oddity to be better then average at it.
enlightened 08-08-06, 01:42 AM	There are lots of uses for ride, and it seems that someone who has done it everyday his whole life wouldn't have to treat it as an oddity to be better then average at it. Yeah, they may use a horse everyday, but they're just riding it. They're not using the horse as cover, they're not suddenly fast dismounting when they reach their destination, nor are they leaping with the horse. From reading the skill description in the book, it strongly feels like the authors intended for the ride skill to be only for combat. Having the ride skill represents having taken the time to practice very special things like soft fall, fast mount/dismount, using the mount as cover, guiding with the knees, etc.
stargate525 08-08-06, 02:18 AM	We do it in our games all the time, and it doesn't unbalance anything.
syrinth 08-08-06, 02:20 AM	which? lol, the ride or the spot and listen :D
Leress 08-08-06, 02:48 AM	The main reason is because of the fact that I find it strange that for some reason a rather large portion of classes aint too good at the sight thingy. Meh. I find that strange too. I also find it strange that commoners are very good at it. :confused: (since they have spot and listen as class skills)
stargate525 08-08-06, 03:03 AM	which? lol, the ride or the spot and listen :D Spot and listen. Search as well, come to think of it.
syrinth 08-08-06, 03:07 AM	Ah, lol :D
Dunelord 08-08-06, 01:28 PM	Yeah, they may use a horse everyday, but they're just riding it. They're not using the horse as cover, they're not suddenly fast dismounting when they reach their destination, nor are they leaping with the horse. From reading the skill description in the book, it strongly feels like the authors intended for the ride skill to be only for combat. Having the ride skill represents having taken the time to practice very special things like soft fall, fast mount/dismount, using the mount as cover, guiding with the knees, etc. Let's not high jack this thread.
hiryuu 08-08-06, 06:40 PM	I find that strange too. I also find it strange that commoners are very good at it. :confused: (since they have spot and listen as class skills) Well, yes, that's so the kindly old farmer can be woken up out of a sound sleep because he heard something in his barn, go investigate it, and be eaten by the scifi channel original movie monster waiting for him.
Millennium 08-08-06, 07:43 PM	Not only does it unbalance things against the rogue, it's not even all that realistic. Training not only your hearing and eyesight, but also the sense of detail on which Listen and Spot depend, is surprisingly difficult, and it makes sense that some classes would tend more toward this type of training than others.
enlightened 08-08-06, 08:11 PM	I think it would be much more realistic to take them away from the commoners instead of giving them to everybody. Shouldn't the commoner's skill list look more like this: craft profession ..............finished. With everything else as expensive cross-class skills.
JulesCARV 08-08-06, 10:38 PM	I think, of course, that commoners should have all skills in class, like exemplars (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=657787), but leaving that aside, one needn't take a universalist stance on this. For example, maybe fighters could get spot without getting listen. Barbarians have listen, but not spot, as it is. Or one could give bards ride without giving it to wizards, if you think, for instance, that bards are a tad weaker than wizards and wouldn't be hurt by a little power-up, and that the idea of a bard who's a good horseman is appealing (being a wandering, mobile class and all that, always on the move), go for it. I don't really like the idea of every class having some important skills as class skills. With something like Craft, it's not a big deal, but with spot or listen, two of the most important skills in the game, it blurs class distinctions and takes away the unique roles classes can play within a party. In short, I'm open to the idea of shifting a few class skills around, on a case by case basis. I don't find the idea of giving every class a few skills appealing.