Each new book, you have new Feats, new Powers, new Equipment, magical or mundane, new Weapons, new Rituals, even new Classes.
How come they never write new Skills? I mean, they can come out with hundreds and hundreds of new Feats, and not even a meager Skill, just for variety's sake?
Some might say "they already wrote all the existing skills", but come on! If they come out with one more different Arcane Striker, or Archery Feat, or Dual-wield Power, there must be someone that comes out with an idea for a new Skill.
And I'm not even referring to Profession or Craft skills, but something cool, I don't know... Geography, or Navigate (maybe they're part of History now?)
Professional game-designers can sure come up with something, I think.
It's not that the game NEEDS them, I was just wondering how come they manage to come up with everything else... bah?
Possible reasons:
It alienates previous classes and races. This happened in 3.5 where Psionic classes had nifty options with Autohypnosis, but everyone else was left out.
No reason for them. Really, what other kind of skill do you need for adventuring? Nearly anything you want to do can easily be covered by the other skills in various combinations.
Why? You always have Ability Mod + Half your level in any skill. And if you want to be Trained in a new skill, you just re-train an old skill next level. Just like you do when a new cool power or feat comes out.
No reason for them. Really, what other kind of skill do you need for adventuring? Nearly anything you want to do can easily be covered by the other skills in various combinations.
Well, I also don't NEED any more Feats or Powers, it's just cool to have more options. Why doesn't that apply to Skills?
Well, I also don't NEED any more Feats or Powers, it's just cool to have more options. Why doesn't that apply to Skills?
You're looking at this from a very backwards perspective. Feats and Powers are completely different from the skill system and I can sum it up in a single sentence:
There are feats and powers that give bonuses to skills and it's never the other way around.
How do you mean?
Feats and Powers are completely different from the skill system
Sure, they're also different from each other, and they're different from Classes, and from Rituals, and from Magic Items. Everything is different from anything else. Still, I don't get why we have more options for all the above mentioned, and not for skills
I mean, even WotC would profit from ore skills. They take space in a book, so they can write more books. What's not to love? :D
Things like feats, powers, etc can never be logically complete, there can always be some other way to do something or some new thing to do. With skills you only want there to be one way to do it, with classes there are never too many (well, within reason).
You simply cannot compare a skill to a feat, power, or class, apples and oranges.
The first set of skills wasn't really written to allow future expansion of the list. It was made up to leave as few significant gaps as possible. While you could probably squish some more knowledge-like skills in there, unlike the other systems, it wasn't built for easy expansion. It's also less amenable to it; there's tons of ideas for classes, feats, races and powers floating around, but you never see anybody's homebrew skill. (And when you do, it's always just a port of the 3.5 CraPPer skills, which were very intentionally left out to begin with.)
Why? You always have Ability Mod + Half your level in any skill. And if you want to be Trained in a new skill, you just re-train an old skill next level. Just like you do when a new cool power or feat comes out.
If they come out with a new skill, classes that come out after that can use that skill. The classes that were there before won't have support for it. If the skill is a shoe-in for a Wizard, they can't really go back and say "Oh, yeah, this is a class skill for the Wizard now."
Well, I also don't NEED any more Feats or Powers, it's just cool to have more options. Why doesn't that apply to Skills?
The feats and powers give you more options to do stuff you couldn't do before. There is nothing adventure-worthy that can't be covered by the skills we already have.
I don't see how skills overcomplicate the game more than more and more Feats
don't get me wrong, I like and want more Feats, more Classes, more EVERYTHING!
that's why I wouldn't mind more Skills.
The first set of skills wasn't really written to allow future expansion of the list. It was made up to leave as few significant gaps as possible.
I wonder why. I mean, aren't they limiting themselves like this? It's lke saying "that's it, 8 classes is all we'll ever make". Thank god, they made more classes, and more to come.
Take for example adding Open Lock. Now Rogues all need to have an extra skill, and everyone who wants to multi Rogue needs an extra skill. And you have to make a list of all the classes that get that new skill as a class feature. So now you've unbalanced the classes skill allocations and had to redo your rules set, all to add in a skill that could have been tossed under thievery.
To use your examples, Navigation is part of wilderness survival, meaning Nature. If you split off navigation now people would need a different skill to find there way at sea instead of on land, making everyone who wanted to have a sea campaign be forced to spend another feat. All for something already covered in current rules.
In a similar fashion one could patch together Autohypnosis, but I can't think of anything that wouldn't be better covered under Endurance. Such that including the skill would devalue one or both.
(For an actual game example look at L5R 2nd ED. Whenever a new book came out someone decided to show off some cool thing he had seen in a Japanese period movie and a new skill got made. Which meant there were all sorts of options right? Except that each new skill had a new rules set attached, so there were 12 skills a courtier needed, each opposed by 5 other skills, and no one could afford all of them at a joke level much less enough to actually be a good courtier. And none of the skills you needed were the COURTIER skill. That one was worthless.
So when they did their edition shift they made all of those different applications of the Courtier skill, so that the skill actually did something, and Courtiers didn't need 20 more skills to play the game then anyone else.)
If you designed your skill system right in the first place every time you add a skill you devalue every other skill in the game.
Take for example adding Open Lock. Now Rogues all need to have an extra skill, and everyone who wants to multi Rogue needs an extra skill. And you have to make a list of all the classes that get that new skill as a class feature. So now you've unbalanced the classes skill allocations and had to redo your rules set, all to add in a skill that could have been tossed under thievery.
This is some pretty weird logic, that it seems every 4e'r has bought into. How does a rogue need to put points in "open lock" anymore then he needs to take a new feat? The assumption that a class has to be good at everything is what lead to all the skills being removed, why can't a theif be good at disarming traps but not at opening doors?
I do agree that it wouldn't make sense to add a skill for something that is already covered (like opening locks), but there are still many things that are not covered (please don't mention p. 42) and new skills do not invalidate my characters any more then new feats do.
And even if they do, I can always retrain right?
There is nothing adventure-worthy that can't be covered by the skills we already have.
When you use the term adventure in this example it makes me think, of the boring room by room kill, jump chasm, kill, find loot repeat adventures that WOTC seems to encourage. Your statement might be true for your adventures, but definitely not mine.
but there are still many things that are not covered (please don't mention p. 42)
What is skill-worthy that is not covered yet?
Example: the geography and navigate ideas given in the first post. If they're in a city maybe streetwise or history. If they're in the wilderness, it'd probably go with nature. Underground, go with dungeoneering. There are also, IIRC some examples of navigation skill challenges given in the DMG, though I don't remember where, so you might want to check that out.
My point is, most things can work with the set of given skills. Give me a character action you think wouldn't fit, and I'll tell you how it could.
This is some pretty weird logic, that it seems every 4e'r has bought into. How does a rogue need to put points in "open lock" anymore then he needs to take a new feat? The assumption that a class has to be good at everything is what lead to all the skills being removed, why can't a theif be good at disarming traps but not at opening doors?
The base generic thief can open locks and steal things. Thus to crete the generic class the base Rogue would need an extra skill. To see why this is bad see my explanation on how L5R killed it's 2nd ED.
I do agree that it wouldn't make sense to add a skill for something that is already covered (like opening locks), but there are still many things that are not covered (please don't mention p. 42)
Why can't I use the argument that specifically invalidates yours? Page 42 is the answer for most 'not skills.' And I don't believe there's an adventuring skill not covered that actually needs to be rolled and is universal enough to be considered a skill instead of a power.
and new skills do not invalidate my characters any more then new feats do.
There are some feats that are analogous to adding new skills. Weapon/Implement Expertise for one was a "all players lose one feat" feat that added nothing to the game. It's just ALL skills are that bad, because adding a skill makes everyone who doesn't have the skill suddenly lose competence in that field.
And even if they do, I can always retrain right?
At the cost of one of your other skills. Every skill in the game has been devalued. Your character will never be as skilled as he was ever again.
Add enough and no character will ever be skilled enough to be a good at anything, because the number of skills you start with will be too few to make a character good at a field.
The base generic thief can open locks and steal things. Thus to crete the generic class the base Rogue would need an extra skill. To see why this is bad see my explanation on how L5R killed it's 2nd ED.
Why can't I use the argument that specifically invalidates yours? Page 42 is the answer for most 'not skills.' And I don't believe there's an adventuring skill not covered that actually needs to be rolled and is universal enough to be considered a skill instead of a power.
There are some feats that are analogous to adding new skills. Weapon/Implement Expertise for one was a "all players lose one feat" feat that added nothing to the game. It's just ALL skills are that bad, because adding a skill makes everyone who doesn't have the skill suddenly lose competence in that field.
At the cost of one of your other skills. Every skill in the game has been devalued. Your character will never be as skilled as he was ever again.
Add enough and no character will ever be skilled enough to be a good at anything, because the number of skills you start with will be too few to make a character good at a field.
-yes but he won`t necessarily be good at both of them, hell everyone can do those actions but the difference is how good they are at each one of them...
-unless you want to roleplay a character/adventure on the lines of thousand arms, where dates and smithing plays a major role... page 42 is a decent guideline but since people seems to use pg 42 for everything why the hell we have all those 200+ pages of rules?
-s basically your arguments comes down to "my char is not as powerful"...
Why can't I use the argument that specifically invalidates yours? Page 42 is the answer for most 'not skills.' And I don't believe there's an adventuring skill not covered that actually needs to be rolled and is universal enough to be considered a skill instead of a power.
Because it's a cop out. The only answer you've provided is that we don't need more skills because it is possible to play without them. If that's true in every case, why do we need more than the core rulebooks? The question at hand is a "if new skills were possible, would you want them?" Answering "I don't need them, so it doesn't matter one way or another, regardless of what the skill is, and whether or not I could benefit from it's use" doesn't help anyone. It's like saying you don't want a hover car because we have regular cars and there's nothing truly useful a hover car can do that a regular car can't.
It's just ALL skills are that bad, because adding a skill makes everyone who doesn't have the skill suddenly lose competence in that field.
At the cost of one of your other skills. Every skill in the game has been devalued. Your character will never be as skilled as he was ever again.
Add enough and no character will ever be skilled enough to be a good at anything, because the number of skills you start with will be too few to make a character good at a field.
You say that like it's impossible to errata skill lists, or create skills for a certain class only (like Autohypnosis for Psionic classes), or any other alternative to "add a skill to the list". They might release a set of skills in the PHB4 that come with a list of what previous class gets what skill, and which classes gain an extra skill point accordingly. (like, "if you use this list, the Rogue gains access to these 2 skills, and gains 1 extra trained skill") That wouldn't even screw up those that choose not to use them. They could be added to the game seamlessly, as a group, or not at all. (personally, I think a list of "extra skills" with rebalanced lists like that would make a GREAT entry in a 4E UA, especially if they could integrate Craft/Profession somehow)
They could also add racial skills. (like, an in-depth "metallurgy" skill for a cave dwelling race that excels at harvesting metals from the earth and forging them into their own weapon; it would be like a unique mechanical effect for fluff, like giving Elves a "Forestry" skill, that might double/replace Nature/History/Perception for forest-related stuff; the Elf Rogue trained in Perception wouldn't differ from the party in or out of the forest, but IN the forest he suddenly becomes the expert at history, and can go toe-to-toe with the Ranger for surviving and navigating in the wild; in effect, you get training in multiple skills that only apply under a certain circumstance, such as "in a forest")
Personally, I too think that the initial skill list was designed to cover "everything". I would also agree that we have Page 42 to help with the "what happens when nothing rules-based covers something?" But I don't go as far as to say "That means no new skills ever, not no way, not no how!" If they can justify it, I'm all for it. Introducing new skills one at a time might not be very fun for balancing/rebalancing characters (adding 6 skills might give every class a new trained skill or two, but adding 1 skill might just give someone more options they can't pick)
(note: I can't really think of any "pure" new skills past an AutoHypnosis/Psionic skill, and do realize that a "Forestry" skill could become a feat or a line on a race that says "You may treat these skills as trained if you are *insert restricted conditions*"; calling it a "Forestry skill check" would add confusion in skill options, while reducing the confusion of being untrained in a skill, and then trained, and then untrained again, and then trained again, as you zig-zag in and out of the forest)
However, it would be interesting if they did it like in the SAGA splatbooks, ie new uses for existing skills.
Or even more simple, new skill challenges (which they are already currently doing)
1) The problem is that introducing any new skills is also very likely to introduce new mechanics or principles into the game. Each time we add in a new skill we either devalue existing skills (by narrowing them to provide sustenance and purpose to the new skill), waste space by creating a redundant skill (see point 2), create a super skill that alters the power curve, add a new mechanic to the game, or create a false necessity issue.
2) Trap option problem. One of the stated design goals of 4th edition was to move away from the trap option problem. For those unfamiliar, the trap option was either an option that was bad and players were meant to feel smart about not taking it (see a lot of the 3.5 PHB feats) or feats that were overspecialized (I get +4 to hit, on guys named steve, on mondays, when the wind blows northeast, and the birds in the area whistle dixie). New skills are likely to hit the trap options point either being redundant which means that taking them is fairly pointless (especially if the skill it's copying is already on your known list), or in being so narrowly focused that taking it only matters when X variables are in play or if you're playing a very specialized type of game. In either case the skill ends up being an issue.
3) New Mechanic, a new skill, if introduced, is likely to be linked to a certain mechanic or principle if it doesn't fall under the trap option issue. This is where we add some new feature/mechanic that I need the new skill for, let's say that my new skill is tied to my class features like powers or general abilities. First off this can create some issues in power balance (addressed later) but it also begs the question why it would be needed, why not just modify the existing abilities? It also means that the new class functionally will always have one less skill than its brethren. Part of the problem with this is that it also breaks another one of design principles that every class be playing the same game, all the classes work on similar principles, their powers work similarly, give one class or power source a weird mechanic and we could start seeing some of the problems we saw back in previous editions. But let's try it another way, what if it adds a new mechanic? At that point the problem is then either altering the power curve or we're creating something that falls into the previous point. The other problem is that doing so also eats up page space, playtest time, etc. that could be better used for feats, powers, classes, races, items, etc.
4) Power Balance: In the aforementioned case, if I link said new skill to a class feature we face some power balance issues. Let's say that using the skill can increase the oomph or duration of a power. In doing so we're likely now dealing with a case where the skill in question is now far more powerful/useful than the other skills available (with the possible exception of perception). The other possible problem is that soe new feat can suddenly be used in combat to grant combat edges, like some special skill called battle dancing where I can now move around the battlefield without ever provoking opportunity attacks. Or something similar to the Iajitsu tricks from oriental adventures in 3rd edition. In either case we're breaking the power curve again, making a skill far more useful or powerful than the others.
5) Weakening existing systems; this is my big objection to it. We're likely to end up with new skills that merely take from existing ones, narrowing those that are already here to make the new skill useful. All this does is subtract from what we already have because, by the nature of the skill system each skill is fairly exclusive on domains, while I might be able to use several skills to get to a similar end each one covers a very different means of doing so. Adding new skills makes the older ones less valuable.
6) Ultimately, it's unnecessary, the skills are there to give us a benchmark, but by and large the out of combat areas are far less restricted because they don't really require the same level of standardization and restriction that combat rules do. More skills probably means more restrictions on what the existing skills can do which is more likely to create problems and frustrations than anything else.
Now, with that said, there's potential for one or two new skills in a 4E game that takes place largely beyond the default assumptions for the campaign. For example, if two-thirds of your campaign takes place at sea or underwater, a good case could be made for adding a "Marine" skill as a water-based environment skill, kin to Nature and Dungeoneering for their respective environments. Alternatively, if your campaign takes place in a world with a lot of high-technology, there might be room for some kind of "Computers" knowledge skill, similar to Arcana.
The issue is that the current skill list already covers almost all of the conceivable skill-actions in a typical D&D game, and ability checks cover the rest. In the typical D&D game, new skills would either be too circumstantial to be worth choosing, or too useful to be without. Consider this before you add any new skills to your game.
The useful/not useful argument is a bit moot.
By the same argument, we could say we don't need new Feat, new Classes, new Rituals (and I do agree on the "don't need" argument, I just think that more options is always better)
They could have "grouped" feats into BIG feats, or Classes into CONTAINER classes (a Divine Class, a Martial Class, etc), heck, they culd have made "the big ritual of transporting stuff from A to B", instead of several different teleportations (just as an example).
But, luckily for all of us, they split all these things in many (and more) feats, classes, rituals, longsword, shortswords, greatswords, averageswords, etc, to have more options and variety. And that was good.
But only skills got he shaft... I just pity them (the skills, I mean)
- It's a retroactive modification: additional feats and classes do not modify the way older classes could already play, they simply give you more things to do should you wish to use them, and have no effect if you decide otherwise. New skills do not do that. They further delineate the things you do with skills, modify the existing template for skills that classes can gain (potentially forcing alterations to all released classes, as to which ones can train in the skill), and it becomes one more statistic on everyone's character sheet they have to keep track of.
- It is an as-of-yet unnecessary modification: Everything we need is already covered. I'm sure that at some point down the line somebody might come up with something new that might need a skill... but why force it until it comes up?
Adding more uses for skills, I could see that happening very soon. Adding more skills in itself, doubtful.
My point is only one. How come the only thing that is DOGMA in the PHB1 are skills, and all the rest gets more and more additions with each book?
The useful/not useful argument is a bit moot.
By the same argument, we could say we don't need new Feat, new Classes, new Rituals (and I do agree on the "don't need" argument, I just think that more options is always better)
They could have "grouped" feats into BIG feats, or Classes into CONTAINER classes (a Divine Class, a Martial Class, etc), heck, they culd have made "the big ritual of transporting stuff from A to B", instead of several different teleportations (just as an example).
But, luckily for all of us, they split all these things in many (and more) feats, classes, rituals, longsword, shortswords, greatswords, averageswords, etc, to have more options and variety. And that was good.
But only skills got he shaft... I just pity them (the skills, I mean)
New options are good, but new skills aren't always new options. A player can literally do whatever the DM allows him to do in-game, and the skills represent your statistical capability at achieving whatever the DM allows you to do. The things a DM can potentially allow you to do are infinite, and adding skills will not change that. All it will do is force what might have fallen under one skill to fall under the new skill instead.
It is an as-of-yet unnecessary modification: Everything we need is already covered..
This makes me wonder. "Everything we need is already covered". Can you imagine the drama if they had designed Classes, Feats, Powers, Rituals, and Equipment in the same way, straight in PHB1?
No more rules-books... maybe only fluff books...
But maybe this will be the design plan for 5E (that's why they moved this to "Future Releases").
Because it's a cop out. The only answer you've provided is that we don't need more skills because it is possible to play without them. If that's true in every case, why do we need more than the core rulebooks? The question at hand is a "if new skills were possible, would you want them?" Answering "I don't need them, so it doesn't matter one way or another, regardless of what the skill is, and whether or not I could benefit from it's use" doesn't help anyone. It's like saying you don't want a hover car because we have regular cars and there's nothing truly useful a hover car can do that a regular car can't.
No, it is not a cop out. The issue has been addressed. There are perfectly good system design reasons for a restricted list of general skills and that was the design decision that formed the basis of the 4e skill system. The reasons for why this design decision was made have been amply expounded dozens of times on these boards, and touched on in this thread as well to some extent. I won't go over them again because I've done it a dozen times already. I suggest doing some reading.
You say that like it's impossible to errata skill lists, or create skills for a certain class only (like Autohypnosis for Psionic classes), or any other alternative to "add a skill to the list". They might release a set of skills in the PHB4 that come with a list of what previous class gets what skill, and which classes gain an extra skill point accordingly. (like, "if you use this list, the Rogue gains access to these 2 skills, and gains 1 extra trained skill") That wouldn't even screw up those that choose not to use them. They could be added to the game seamlessly, as a group, or not at all. (personally, I think a list of "extra skills" with rebalanced lists like that would make a GREAT entry in a 4E UA, especially if they could integrate Craft/Profession somehow)
No, requiring you to go through five different books in order to roll up your character is not acceptable. 4e has not added a single rule which in any way changes or extends any existing class description. They are not about to start doing that and I completely and heartily agree with that decision.
CraPPer skills are not going to be added to the game. They are unneeded and have negative effects on the game which were deliberately avoided. They will never be official. There are ample reasons for this, and again I suggest reading other threads on the subject since it has been explained so many times already.
A skill which is specific to only one class is not a skill, it is a feat. Autohypnosis would be a bad skill because it is only useful to a few characters. It would be a fine feat, it just isn't a skill.
They could also add racial skills. (like, an in-depth "metallurgy" skill for a cave dwelling race that excels at harvesting metals from the earth and forging them into their own weapon; it would be like a unique mechanical effect for fluff, like giving Elves a "Forestry" skill, that might double/replace Nature/History/Perception for forest-related stuff; the Elf Rogue trained in Perception wouldn't differ from the party in or out of the forest, but IN the forest he suddenly becomes the expert at history, and can go toe-to-toe with the Ranger for surviving and navigating in the wild; in effect, you get training in multiple skills that only apply under a certain circumstance, such as "in a forest")
No, again this is not needed. PCs are not miners and don't need a mining type skill. If you want to have this knowledge, put it in your character background. It isn't something you will ever have to roll against directly anyway. Skill Checks are intended to resolve conflicts in-game. Mining doesn't resolve a conflict. If you need to know something about mining, then the existing knowledge skills, possibly with a background modifier are the way to do that. The same argument would hold for other racial background stuff. Its background, not unique skills.
Personally, I too think that the initial skill list was designed to cover "everything". I would also agree that we have Page 42 to help with the "what happens when nothing rules-based covers something?" But I don't go as far as to say "That means no new skills ever, not no way, not no how!" If they can justify it, I'm all for it. Introducing new skills one at a time might not be very fun for balancing/rebalancing characters (adding 6 skills might give every class a new trained skill or two, but adding 1 skill might just give someone more options they can't pick)
(note: I can't really think of any "pure" new skills past an AutoHypnosis/Psionic skill, and do realize that a "Forestry" skill could become a feat or a line on a race that says "You may treat these skills as trained if you are *insert restricted conditions*"; calling it a "Forestry skill check" would add confusion in skill options, while reducing the confusion of being untrained in a skill, and then trained, and then untrained again, and then trained again, as you zig-zag in and out of the forest)
Again, the decision was to make the skills list a fixed and closed list where you would simply use the appropriate skill, adding a modifier if you have a background that gives you some advantage (like being an elf in a forest or a sea captain on a ship, or a dwarf in a mine, etc). I would advise instead of making up new skills which will only detract from existing ones and be useful in only the most obtuse situations that you instead create a group of backgrounds to use in your setting which give appropriate bonuses in those situations on existing skills. It works much better and I can pretty well guarantee you 4e will never officially do it any other way.
I'd be marginally OK with something like craft and profession backgrounds. I don't think they're really needed all that much, at least in any kind of elaborated form that has significant mechanics, but if it simply HAS to be done, that would be the only approach that doesn't severely compromise the intent of the skill system. Even so I think what we have now is the best of all worlds and I really hope this whole part of the game is left as is forever.
But maybe this will be the design plan for 5E (that's why they moved this to "Future Releases").
No they moved it here(damn them!) because the main point of the thread is essentaily "should there be new skills in future products". Therefore it is discussing future releases.
I was re-reading my many books one more time, and I noticed something that made me think.
Each new book, you have new Feats, new Powers, new Equipment, magical or mundane, new Weapons, new Rituals, even new Classes.
How come they never write new Skills? I mean, they can come out with hundreds and hundreds of new Feats, and not even a meager Skill, just for variety's sake?
Some might say "they already wrote all the existing skills", but come on! If they come out with one more different Arcane Striker, or Archery Feat, or Dual-wield Power, there must be someone that comes out with an idea for a new Skill.
And I'm not even referring to Profession or Craft skills, but something cool, I don't know... Geography, or Navigate (maybe they're part of History now?)
Professional game-designers can sure come up with something, I think.
It's not that the game NEEDS them, I was just wondering how come they manage to come up with everything else... bah?
Give an example of what skill you would like to see. I can bet that it would be covered by a skill that has been established. Too many skills kind of muddle down the flow of the game and also take up way too much character sheet space. The thing WoTC was trying to stray away from was the whole "wanna get better at performing your lute? go kill some orcs!". The system they made pretty much greatly reduced the amount of skills and made us wondering why there where so many in the first place. :D
Although we do need a few more knowledge options. Planar knowledge would work with arcane knowledge I guess. More examples of situations/actions for opposed checks would also be nice.
This makes me wonder. "Everything we need is already covered". Can you imagine the drama if they had designed Classes, Feats, Powers, Rituals, and Equipment in the same way, straight in PHB1?
No more rules-books... maybe only fluff books...
But maybe this will be the design plan for 5E (that's why they moved this to "Future Releases").
That is a perfectly valid game design space, and numerous systems use it. Find any small RPG that only has a single book--there you go. Even a system like Saga (produced by WotC) leans towards there--there are only the 5 classes introduced in the first book. Each gets new abilities with new books yes, but the system was designed in a way that the 5 classes filled the area they needed to. The expansion is in what what the classes do, not what the classes are.
Similarly, skills are designed to to fill the area they needed to. There could be expansion in what the skills do (as others have said, fairly likely--show how Nature can be used for Navigation, rather than inventing Navigation), rather than what skills there are.
Of course, adding defined rules for skill uses breaks down some of the idea by Skill Challenges as solving particular problems (like navigation) and WotC satisfaction with their "guideline" mode of running skills (as with page 42).
No, it is not a cop out.
But it IS! And you then preceded to go and type a paragraph without answering the question that was being dodged.
The issue has been addressed. There are perfectly good system design reasons for a restricted list of general skills and that was the design decision that formed the basis of the 4e skill system. The reasons for why this design decision was made have been amply expounded dozens of times on these boards, and touched on in this thread as well to some extent. I won't go over them again because I've done it a dozen times already. I suggest doing some reading.
The initial question was "Why don't they create more skills?", to which I continued with "If new skills were possible, and fit the current system, would you want/use them?" All you've done is reiterate the basis of the 4e skill system. Move past that. How about you don't treat me like a troll (re-reference that last sentence there) and let's have a thought-provoking discussion. Instead of, you know, regurgitating the core stuff that we ought to know by now in an effort to squash any type of discussion.
No, requiring you to go through five different books in order to roll up your character is not acceptable. 4e has not added a single rule which in any way changes or extends any existing class description. They are not about to start doing that and I completely and heartily agree with that decision.
Then why don't you put down those 3 books you conjured out of thin air to refute my argument. For skills, you'd need the book with the class you want, and then the book with the expanded skills set, if you choose to use it. Of course, you could go with the PHB3 for the Monk, pick Drow from the FRPG, PHB2 for background, and PHB for starting feats. That's 4 books right there, possible with what we have now (Psionic Power adds to the count). If it's not acceptable, why is it possible already? What I'm suggesting would be little different than tossing the background section into the PHB2. An extra set of rules that can be used, put in a PHB, available to all characters, but not so drastically important that you can't play without them.
CraPPer skills are not going to be added to the game. They are unneeded and have negative effects on the game which were deliberately avoided. They will never be official. There are ample reasons for this, and again I suggest reading other threads on the subject since it has been explained so many times already.
Which is why I mentioned putting them in a 4E UA. Extra skills available to those that want them, not in the way of those that don't. I wouldn't be surprised to see them in a Dragon article so you don't even have to buy a book to add them to your game. I would even go as far as to dare say you don't have the authority to announce that they will "never" be official. Climb off the high horse, bud. (I don't know why I bothered with this paragraph, as you started off with the term "CraPPer", immediately notifying me that you had made your decision on these mechanics and would not be reasoned with, even if that reasoning was "let's discuss a hypothetical situation")
A skill which is specific to only one class is not a skill, it is a feat. Autohypnosis would be a bad skill because it is only useful to a few characters. It would be a fine feat, it just isn't a skill.
I could see that holding true for the racial examples I used. It might do better to add a Feat for Elves that make them "more forest-y in all ways", and make it a modification of the skills as opposed to new skills. (would work better retroactively for each race, to boot) But Autohypnosis as a feat? Shenanigans. First, what makes you think it wouldn't be useful to all characters? Obviously more useful to Psionic characters (if it functions anything like in the past), but auto-defaulting to a feat makes it sound like "My Fighter can't use it, so he should have to spend a feat to use it". If that's the case, then make it a feat all Psionic classes get, that requires you to be a Psionic class to get it. Feat status might make it more fair to those that can't use it, but it's like you're trying to punish those that CAN use it instead.
No, again this is not needed. PCs are not miners and don't need a mining type skill. If you want to have this knowledge, put it in your character background. It isn't something you will ever have to roll against directly anyway. Skill Checks are intended to resolve conflicts in-game. Mining doesn't resolve a conflict. If you need to know something about mining, then the existing knowledge skills, possibly with a background modifier are the way to do that. The same argument would hold for other racial background stuff. Its background, not unique skills.
See, I would say that here, you're looking at it wrong. I'm partially to blame here, because of my description. You're shoehorning it into the same category as "craft" or "profession". It doesn't have to be that. A "prospecting" check mid-combat with a high DC could give a bonus vs enemies with metallic armor. Make a simple check to sharpen a weapon, or reinforce a piece of armor. (I vaguely remember reading about whetstones from the AV or something; kinda like that, but it comes from character skill, not a purchased item) Allow them to better use terrain where minerals/metals are found due to their innate understanding of it. Combine it with gem craft. That 100g sapphire you found? With the assistance of an Arcana check, you can turn it into a type of "frost-grenade". For both (armor/weapons and gems), you could enhance the sell value by modifying it with your expertise before the sale.
Sure, it's a large chunk background, but that doesn't mean you couldn't set it up with skill-like mechanics. It doesn't even have to be interchanagble with regular skills, really. (that is, you can't forgo being trained in Athletics to pick up Metallurgy, as they are on separate, unrelated lists; but you might be able to swap Metallurgy for something like, I don't know, Military Training?)
Again, the decision was to make the skills list a fixed and closed list where you would simply use the appropriate skill, adding a modifier if you have a background that gives you some advantage (like being an elf in a forest or a sea captain on a ship, or a dwarf in a mine, etc). I would advise instead of making up new skills which will only detract from existing ones and be useful in only the most obtuse situations that you instead create a group of backgrounds to use in your setting which give appropriate bonuses in those situations on existing skills. It works much better and I can pretty well guarantee you 4e will never officially do it any other way.
This is more of that "It has to be this way because I say so!" bullcrap. I know the skill list was created to not change. I get that it might work better as a background addendum to an existing skill check. I get that you are convinced that it'll never ever be useful, regardless of setting or even the cost to acquire it. I even get that you've posted twice now that you have the authority to declare what Wizards of the Coast will and won't do with 4e. (I'll go as far as to agree it's very unlikely, but a year ago no one would have agreed that the Monk could be Psionic. Now that's an accepted fact. Just because it's extremely unlikely now, or has been, doesn't mean it is 100% impossible in the future)
I'd be marginally OK with something like craft and profession backgrounds. I don't think they're really needed all that much, at least in any kind of elaborated form that has significant mechanics, but if it simply HAS to be done, that would be the only approach that doesn't severely compromise the intent of the skill system. Even so I think what we have now is the best of all worlds and I really hope this whole part of the game is left as is forever.
Okay, more reiteration of your dislike for craft/profession, refusing to acknowledge them as even potentially being a skill of some sort, and stressing that "if it simply HAS to be done" and so on.
If it wasn't obvious from reading my post, I was brainstorming. You know, brainstorming? That thing where you record and share any idea that comes to mind, even if it might be debunked with a cursory overview of what you're actually looking for, on the off chance you discover something brilliant? Could yous top telling me how the 4e skill system works and try that, maybe? Or at least acknowledge that I'm doing that, instead of treating my every word as blasphemy. (I mean seriously, 4e hasn't been around long enough to have a sacred cow of it's own, has it? I mean, you say it shouldn't change, "forever", and I for one would immediately question the validity of a skill like "Streetwise". Personally, I can't see a reason it and Insight are separate skills, unless there's some need to not let the Fighter and the Cleric/Paladin have the same skill; Streetwise is a "public Insight" check, and there's nothing I would use Streetwise for that I wouldn't let a character trained in Insight attempt)
The first set of skills wasn't really written to allow future expansion of the list. It was made up to leave as few significant gaps as possible.
I wonder why. I mean, aren't they limiting themselves like this? It's lke saying "that's it, 8 classes is all we'll ever make". Thank god, they made more classes, and more to come.
Sure, they're limiting themselves like this. It's a tradeoff; on one hand, they can publish a skill system with intentional holes in it to fill in later. Or they can publish a relatively gap-free system off the bat. The benefits of the latter outweigh the benefits of the former.
Skills are fundamentally different from feats, powers, paragon paths and classes because the design space for them is dramatically smaller. There are a jillion ways to permute different numbers and combat effects or give bonuses to this or that. There are a limited number of broad D&D-game-relevant competencies.
Finally, skills are far from the only thing that they're unlikely to introduce more of. They're unlikely to introduce additional stats. They're unlikely to introduce additional defenses. They're unlikely to introduce new weapon groups* or equipment slots* or explicitly defined non-power combat options* (like second wind, grab or bull rush). New core setting languages don't seem like something they're rushing to do. Skills seem like feats and powers because you go through a stage in character creation where you select some, but the design behind them is very different.
*These are examples I may eat later.
Skill consolidation is much better than skill proliferation; in 3E for example, there was a wide variety of skills that were frankly useless to the typical adventurer. Most new skills wouldn't add enough to the game to be worth including.
Now, with that said, there's potential for one or two new skills in a 4E game that takes place largely beyond the default assumptions for the campaign. For example, if two-thirds of your campaign takes place at sea or underwater, a good case could be made for adding a "Marine" skill as a water-based environment skill, kin to Nature and Dungeoneering for their respective environments. Alternatively, if your campaign takes place in a world with a lot of high-technology, there might be room for some kind of "Computers" knowledge skill, similar to Arcana.
The issue is that the current skill list already covers almost all of the conceivable skill-actions in a typical D&D game, and ability checks cover the rest. In the typical D&D game, new skills would either be too circumstantial to be worth choosing, or too useful to be without. Consider this before you add any new skills to your game.
QFT.
If they come out with new skills, then they also have to establish which new skills are on the class skill lists of the classes that came out in previous books. This is IMO annoying (flipping through multiple books just to find out the available skills for one class), but not actually difficult.
However, new skills that they come out with will also never be on the list of racial skill bonuses (for example, Dragonborn get +2 to History and Intimidate), even though some of these hypothetical new skills would have been more appropriate, had they been available. This is unfair. (Almost. The Devs did come out at one point and say they were trying to address the Small size issue. This suggests that errataing existing races to fix concept problems and not just balance issues is still a possibility.)
Personally, I think the most they'd do is expand applications of existing skills (i.e., previously, Thievery was only capable of disarming traps, opening locks, and pickpocketing, but with this new addition, it is also the skill check that governs creating a lock in the first place (a nonritual version of Arcane Lock)).
It would make sense that psionics are only class skills for psionic classes so all classes made before hand don't need it on their list.
Wait, I'm not done yet. We also need new dice. Not adding a d92 and a d38 would be like not adding any more classes ever again...
And then we can add new defenses like quickness. It's exactly the same as an existing mechanic, but we need it anyway, because we have new feats.
And we need new measurements. Lets add triangles and stars on top of the squares just to blur the existing system behind a bunch of wasted ink...
And I'd like to see some more character genders. I can't exactly come up with any, but I'd like to see them anyway, because we have other new stuff.
Oh, and alignments. We need more than the good/evil-law/chaos axis. We need smelly/fragrant-sour/spicy alignments.
Then we can make new character sheets to fit all of this new stuff. And next month when more new stuff that actually makes sense comes out, I'll put out more ideas that don't make sense, for reasons that don't make sense even to me...
While we're at it, why don't we add some new abilities too... The six we have work perfectly and cover everything, but I just want more because we have new powers...
Wait, I'm not done yet. We also need new dice. Not adding a d92 and a d38 would be like not adding any more classes ever again...
And then we can add new defenses like quickness. It's exactly the same as an existing mechanic, but we need it anyway, because we have new feats.
And we need new measurements. Lets add triangles and stars on top of the squares just to blur the existing system behind a bunch of wasted ink...
And I'd like to see some more character genders. I can't exactly come up with any, but I'd like to see them anyway, because we have other new stuff.
Oh, and alignments. We need more than the good/evil-law/chaos axis. We need smelly/fragrant-sour/spicy alignments.
Then we can make new character sheets to fit all of this new stuff. And next month when more new stuff that actually makes sense comes out, I'll put out more ideas that don't make sense, for reasons that don't make sense even to me...
Ah, a rational reply, how nice.
I would think that they at least need to add psionics when you have psionic player classes. Other than that I don't think any other skills are needed.
It would make sense that psionics are only class skills for psionic classes so all classes made before hand don't need it on their list.
Based on the psion article, they are just using arcane to cover it.
But it IS! And you then preceded to go and type a paragraph without answering the question that was being dodged.
I'm not dodging any questions. I addressed your point directly. The design of 4e's skill system is antithetical to general expansion. It would not be an improvement to the system to add more skills. That's my argument and its a direct response to your desire to have more skills.
The initial question was "Why don't they create more skills?", to which I continued with "If new skills were possible, and fit the current system, would you want/use them?" All you've done is reiterate the basis of the 4e skill system. Move past that. How about you don't treat me like a troll (re-reference that last sentence there) and let's have a thought-provoking discussion. Instead of, you know, regurgitating the core stuff that we ought to know by now in an effort to squash any type of discussion.
I think you may not have understood what I was saying. My entire post was a response to "why don't they create more skills" and the answer is because it will not make the game better, it will make it more difficult to roll up a character, etc. It simply isn't good game design to have more skills. If I happen to agree with the 4e designers on this subject that is no reason for you to dump on me and say I'm "regurgitating core stuff that we ought to know". For one thing if you already know it then why are you asking for more skills? Obviously you failed to understand the object of the 4e skills system design if you want more skills!!!! What other argument would I use except the same arguments that the 4e designers have used?
The onus is on you to explain to us why more skills are needed and will make the game better, not on us to prove that there shouldn't be more. Its your idea.
Then why don't you put down those 3 books you conjured out of thin air to refute my argument. For skills, you'd need the book with the class you want, and then the book with the expanded skills set, if you choose to use it. Of course, you could go with the PHB3 for the Monk, pick Drow from the FRPG, PHB2 for background, and PHB for starting feats. That's 4 books right there, possible with what we have now (Psionic Power adds to the count). If it's not acceptable, why is it possible already? What I'm suggesting would be little different than tossing the background section into the PHB2. An extra set of rules that can be used, put in a PHB, available to all characters, but not so drastically important that you can't play without them.
And why SHOULD we have more books we have to wade through? Explain to us what the reason why we DO need more skills is. Why will the cost be worth it? What is to be gained? I understand you have a pet idea that you have decided you like, but you need to make a solid logical argument which addresses all the objections. Its all nice for you to try to make my objections sound silly and bad simply by using hyperbole, but why not actually factually address them?
Which is why I mentioned putting them in a 4E UA. Extra skills available to those that want them, not in the way of those that don't. I wouldn't be surprised to see them in a Dragon article so you don't even have to buy a book to add them to your game. I would even go as far as to dare say you don't have the authority to announce that they will "never" be official. Climb off the high horse, bud. (I don't know why I bothered with this paragraph, as you started off with the term "CraPPer", immediately notifying me that you had made your decision on these mechanics and would not be reasoned with, even if that reasoning was "let's discuss a hypothetical situation")
I don't care what book they are in, their very existence is the problem. When I say something will never be published I obviously mean that it is my opinion, based on what the 4e designers have publicly stated, that they have no intention of doing so. Pardon my "high horse" but if you want to complain to someone about it go talk to Mike Mearls then!
But Autohypnosis as a feat? Shenanigans. First, what makes you think it wouldn't be useful to all characters? Obviously more useful to Psionic characters (if it functions anything like in the past), but auto-defaulting to a feat makes it sound like "My Fighter can't use it, so he should have to spend a feat to use it". If that's the case, then make it a feat all Psionic classes get, that requires you to be a Psionic class to get it. Feat status might make it more fair to those that can't use it, but it's like you're trying to punish those that CAN use it instead.
Huh? Why would something specific to one class of character need to be a skill? Furthermore how do you acquire skills? Oh, you take the Skill Training feat! Wow, then maybe we should you know, just make this a blinking feat!!!! That's all I said. If its something that is worth having mechanically, then it can be a feat. It would be FAR different from any existing skill anyway. Its much narrower in scope, applies only to certain classes, and in fact isn't even a knowledge or general physical skill, its a specialized discipline that only does specific things. Even the narrowest of existing 4e skills is far more general (Thievery, Streetwise might be good examples). My point is it can be done with other mechanics than the skill system and probably done just as well or better.
See, I would say that here, you're looking at it wrong. I'm partially to blame here, because of my description. You're shoehorning it into the same category as "craft" or "profession". It doesn't have to be that. A "prospecting" check mid-combat with a high DC could give a bonus vs enemies with metallic armor. Make a simple check to sharpen a weapon, or reinforce a piece of armor. (I vaguely remember reading about whetstones from the AV or something; kinda like that, but it comes from character skill, not a purchased item) Allow them to better use terrain where minerals/metals are found due to their innate understanding of it. Combine it with gem craft. That 100g sapphire you found? With the assistance of an Arcana check, you can turn it into a type of "frost-grenade". For both (armor/weapons and gems), you could enhance the sell value by modifying it with your expertise before the sale.
But I don't see a need for a bonus vs enemies with metallic armor. If such a bonus is for some reason desired, then use perception and give a situational background bonus to the guy with metallurgy or whatever. When you talk about all of these things in the above examples as skills it makes me think maybe you don't really grasp the 4e skill systems point. Those should not be part of the skill system, they should be other things, like Alchemy or rituals or situational modifiers to existing skills. I think you're understanding of skills IMHO is based on the way they were thought of in 3.x and you haven't really entirely digested the very large philosophical difference between the design of the two editions. Skills are supporting abilities, they can help you accomplish things, but they are not intended to add new powers to characters. At the most a couple of skills have trained only functions to do some very advanced stuff like land on your feet or detect magic. That really is as far as it should go before something becomes a power, feat, class feature, ritual, etc.
Sure, it's a large chunk background, but that doesn't mean you couldn't set it up with skill-like mechanics. It doesn't even have to be interchanagble with regular skills, really. (that is, you can't forgo being trained in Athletics to pick up Metallurgy, as they are on separate, unrelated lists; but you might be able to swap Metallurgy for something like, I don't know, Military Training?)
I'm not against more backgrounds. I'd honestly rather not see them with complex mechanics attached to them.
This is more of that "It has to be this way because I say so!" bullcrap. I know the skill list was created to not change. I get that it might work better as a background addendum to an existing skill check.
[...]
If it wasn't obvious from reading my post, I was brainstorming. You know, brainstorming? That thing where you record and share any idea that comes to mind, even if it might be debunked with a cursory overview of what you're actually looking for, on the off chance you discover something brilliant? Could yous top telling me how the 4e skill system works and try that, maybe?
I was pointing out why it might not be what we want to do. Brainstorming is fine. I really have no intention of criticizing YOU because of what ideas you put forward. I only criticize the ideas inasmuch as I find some problems with them. In this case I just honestly believe that the core idea you put forth is fundamentally not a good idea. Its OK to have ideas that other people don't like. I don't think it makes you a bad person or an idiot or something. If I didn't care one bit I would not bother to post at all. I value my time as I'm sure you do to. Nothing in my critique is directed at you personally. Don't take it like it is.
PS: We don't need a Psionics skill -- Arcana's got it covered. However, if your D&D campaign's got a lot of high-tech stuff for some reason, I think there'd be a good case for adding some kind of Computers skill.
Upthread, someone made a really good point: There is potential for new skills in 4E, just not in most games. I really liked the example about a Marine skill for nautical and underwater campaigns (as an ocean-based counterpart to Dungeoneering and Nature), though obviously that skill wouldn't be suitable for a campaign that didn't occur mostly in, on, or under the sea.
PS: We don't need a Psionics skill -- Arcana's got it covered. However, if your D&D campaign's got a lot of high-tech stuff for some reason, I think there'd be a good case for adding some kind of Computers skill.
I think its reasonable to say that a game which takes place in a totally different environment might reasonably have different skills. Technology skill for instance would work for a game that has some crossover tech elements in a mainly D&D style fantasy. If you had something like d20 modern you'd probably want to change around most all of the skills.
I'm not totally sold on the idea of say a "seamanship" skill. Nature + background can handle it. I'd say it is probably the best candidate for an 18th skill, but here's my objection (and kind of illustrates the whole deal with skills). What happens when your guy with nature and your guy with seamanship are wandering around out on a boat and want something to eat? Which skill works for this? Now lets suppose they're in a big lake, now which skill is it? On a river? Fishing from shore? Over provision of skills inevitably leads to this "what skill is it?" syndrome. And the more of them you have, the worse it gets. The really bad part is not the DM having to figure it out when the PC uses the skills. The bad part is the player can't make a logical decision about which ones to take.
But it would be a very.. very... minor effect :/
If new skills were possible, and fit the current system, would you want/use them?"
I'll answer that one for you: No.
Broad skills with situational background bonuses is a very flexible system that can expand to meet the needs of anything mentioned in this thread so far. In my opinion, adding more skills would muddy the waters.
My point is only one. How come the only thing that is DOGMA in the PHB1 are skills, and all the rest gets more and more additions with each book?
The useful/not useful argument is a bit moot.
For the same reason we don't get more defenses in each book, or a new saving throw mechanic. That's why. Its a fundamental part of the game engine.
There are a limited number of skills for the fundamental reason that you have four characters in the party, each has about four skills, 4x5 = 20, so you can reasonably expect for every skill to be covered by at least one person with some doubling up. Moreover, a limited number of skills are used in traps, for various environmental hazards, ect.
Moreover, they ALREADY cover everything which needs to be covered. What new skills could be added which would be as meaningful as the ones already in the game?
That's right, there aren't any.
But only skills got he shaft... I just pity them (the skills, I mean)
Only because you don't understand. At all.
They didn't "get the shaft". See... you want very few skills. Why? See above. Fundamentally adventures assume you have certain skills, and if no one in the party has them, and they're very important, it is rather awkward. The more skills you have, the less likely you are for any of them to matter, which makes them LESS meaningful.
That means that, in the end, limiting the number of skills is a valuable way to make sure that someone in the party can always do it.
This makes me wonder. "Everything we need is already covered". Can you imagine the drama if they had designed Classes, Feats, Powers, Rituals, and Equipment in the same way, straight in PHB1?
Frankly, had they had all the mundane equipment we'd ever need in the PHB1, it would have been better.
But here is what you don't understand.
Classes, feats, powers, rituals, and magical equipment are modular. Roles, skills, defenses, ect. aren't. You cannot expect every party to have a member of any particular class, or have a particular piece of magic equipment. You can expect every party to have a member of every role and to have practically every skill covered (if not every skill). Rituals are unnecessary for a party to succeed.
Note, incidentally, that roles COULD HAVE been turned into classes, but weren't in order to create more variety. In which case, you wouldn't see new classes in new books, because they would already cover everything.
Well perform and craft were cool back in 3e because it promoted and opened certain non combat events.
Nope. They didn't. They were garbage.
Why? Because they didn't matter.
The initial question was "Why don't they create more skills?", to which I continued with "If new skills were possible, and fit the current system, would you want/use them?" All you've done is reiterate the basis of the 4e skill system. Move past that. How about you don't treat me like a troll (re-reference that last sentence there) and let's have a thought-provoking discussion. Instead of, you know, regurgitating the core stuff that we ought to know by now in an effort to squash any type of discussion.
Except you obviously don't understand it, as exemplified by "If new skills were possible".
You have to understand - that, right there, is the garbage.
You see... there aren't new skills to be had.
Which is why I mentioned putting them in a 4E UA.
Ah, but you see... you don't understand.
They shouldn't exist at all, because they actually detract from the game and are a trap for people who don't understand that.
See, I would say that here, you're looking at it wrong. I'm partially to blame here, because of my description. You're shoehorning it into the same category as "craft" or "profession". It doesn't have to be that. A "prospecting" check mid-combat with a high DC could give a bonus vs enemies with metallic armor. Make a simple check to sharpen a weapon, or reinforce a piece of armor. (I vaguely remember reading about whetstones from the AV or something; kinda like that, but it comes from character skill, not a purchased item) Allow them to better use terrain where minerals/metals are found due to their innate understanding of it. Combine it with gem craft. That 100g sapphire you found? With the assistance of an Arcana check, you can turn it into a type of "frost-grenade". For both (armor/weapons and gems), you could enhance the sell value by modifying it with your expertise before the sale.
Ah, I see.
See, the problem is, all of this paragraph is utter garbage.
Yeah...
See, you don't understand skill checks.
1) Knowledge checks give you the "bonus" of knowing what the monster does.
2) See, there's a reason they're items. Namely, it would be broken as a skill because it would be too good, so everyone would have to have it. We simply assume you already keep your armor and weapons in good repair.
3) "Better use terrain" (really, better understanding it) is already covered by extant knowledge checks, in this case, dungeoneering.
4) Enhancing the sell value is bad. The economy works the way it does for a good reason. You may not understand it (well, you obviously do not), but there's a reason for it. WBL isn't something which should be changed by a "skill check".
This is more of that "It has to be this way because I say so!" bullcrap. I know the skill list was created to not change. I get that it might work better as a background addendum to an existing skill check. I get that you are convinced that it'll never ever be useful, regardless of setting or even the cost to acquire it. I even get that you've posted twice now that you have the authority to declare what Wizards of the Coast will and won't do with 4e. (I'll go as far as to agree it's very unlikely, but a year ago no one would have agreed that the Monk could be Psionic. Now that's an accepted fact. Just because it's extremely unlikely now, or has been, doesn't mean it is 100% impossible in the future)
This is exactly what cranks say. "Well, MY idea is insane, but they called HIS ideas insane and he was right!" You aren't Albert Einstein or Copernicus. Yes, we can tell.
Finally, skills are far from the only thing that they're unlikely to introduce more of. They're unlikely to introduce additional stats. They're unlikely to introduce additional defenses. They're unlikely to introduce new weapon groups* or equipment slots* or explicitly defined non-power combat options* (like second wind, grab or bull rush). New core setting languages don't seem like something they're rushing to do. Skills seem like feats and powers because you go through a stage in character creation where you select some, but the design behind them is very different.
They will not introduce more stats or defenses. The only major weapon group which is not represented by the extant ones is guns; I can't think of any other sort of weapon which doesn't fall under one of the weapon groups or unarmed attacks. Equipment slots have already been introduced, but adding new ones is actually a very bad idea, as witnessed by solitaires. It is safe to say there won't be new non-power combat options, as you could always write them as a power.
I would think that they at least need to add psionics when you have psionic player classes. Other than that I don't think any other skills are needed.
Not at all. They're already covered by arcana. Psionics are just another form of magic, much like divine magic, arcane magic, shadow magic, elemental magic, ect.
By contrast, you are never penilized specifically because no one in the party has a barbarian rage, power attack, an animal companion, Unicorn's Touch, Oath of Enmity, or an Ornithopter. Each of these things is only one of many ways to accomplish various ends, and adding new means to accomplish those ends does not interfere with the abilities of the existing characters. The only partial exception to this is the 'arms race' effect; for example, the balance of 4e PCs vs monsters leads to about a 4 point drop from level 1-30 in PC attack/defense vs monster attack/defense, but at the same time leader bonuses increase by about the same. A DM who notices this, and that all monsters above I believe it was level 28 are Solo might conclude that non-solo monsters are intended to slowly fall from PC level +2 (give or take) to PC level -2 (give or take), leading to larger battles at higher tiers, further reinforced by the growth of multitarget engagement abilities for most classes. Leader bonuses make up the difference in Solo fights. But with the new PHB 2 expertise feats and the epic defenses feats the gap can be closed (to 1 point from level 1-30 on attack, nothing on defense). If the PCs chose to take those feats, the DM will be more inclined to continue fielding above PC level monsters into late epic (perhaps leveling the level 28s to 32s at the end for example), an act which makes those who do not take expertise + epic defense feats much worse off (as for them, fighting a level 32 monster at level 30 is much like fighting a level 7 monster at level 1: possible, but frustrating as it basically auto-hits while you auto-miss).
Aside from those handful of things that may pressure a DM to up the ante to compensate, new options in terms of new classes, new items, new feats and new powers do not create new vulnerabilities for the PCs. New skills, new attributes, new defenses do create new vulnerabilities for PCs. (A new role might possibly, but I would at this point expect adding a new role to make a sort of fifth wheel that any party could do without. It might be like the 3.5 bard which was a great addition to any party that otherwise had all its bases covered, but still left the party hurting if it had a major hole.)
Ah, a rational reply, how nice.
"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them."
This is exactly what cranks say. "Well, MY idea is insane, but they called HIS ideas insane and he was right!" You aren't Albert Einstein or Copernicus. Yes, we can tell.
They laughed at Galilleo. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them."
I like this; I'm storing it in my memory lobe for later use.
And to this:
While we're at it, why don't we add some new abilities too... The six we have work perfectly and cover everything, but I just want more because we have new powers...
Wait, I'm not done yet. We also need new dice. Not adding a d92 and a d38 would be like not adding any more classes ever again...
And then we can add new defenses like quickness. It's exactly the same as an existing mechanic, but we need it anyway, because we have new feats.
And we need new measurements. Lets add triangles and stars on top of the squares just to blur the existing system behind a bunch of wasted ink...
And I'd like to see some more character genders. I can't exactly come up with any, but I'd like to see them anyway, because we have other new stuff.
Oh, and alignments. We need more than the good/evil-law/chaos axis. We need smelly/fragrant-sour/spicy alignments.
Then we can make new character sheets to fit all of this new stuff. And next month when more new stuff that actually makes sense comes out, I'll put out more ideas that don't make sense, for reasons that don't make sense even to me...
Thank you.
If you want to add a skill, it means there is Something out there that adventurers need to be able to do that they cannot currently do.
Now, out-of-combat/adventuring stuff, that's different. But I've got a shameless plug for that. Wrote up a knack/technique system for all that other stuff, give it a look. Long read, sorry about that.
The skill system works because it covers the Stuff Adventurers Do.
If you want to add a skill, it means there is Something out there that adventurers need to be able to do that they cannot currently do.
Now, out-of-combat/adventuring stuff, that's different. But I've got a shameless plug for that. Wrote up a knack/technique system for all that other stuff, give it a look. Long read, sorry about that.
Its interesting. Certainly a vastly more palatable option than an endless skillsplosion of nearly-useless new skills.
I think its reasonable to say that a game which takes place in a totally different environment might reasonably have different skills. Technology skill for instance would work for a game that has some crossover tech elements in a mainly D&D style fantasy. If you had something like d20 modern you'd probably want to change around most all of the skills.
I'm not totally sold on the idea of say a "seamanship" skill. Nature + background can handle it. I'd say it is probably the best candidate for an 18th skill, but here's my objection (and kind of illustrates the whole deal with skills). What happens when your guy with nature and your guy with seamanship are wandering around out on a boat and want something to eat? Which skill works for this? Now lets suppose they're in a big lake, now which skill is it? On a river? Fishing from shore? Over provision of skills inevitably leads to this "what skill is it?" syndrome. And the more of them you have, the worse it gets. The really bad part is not the DM having to figure it out when the PC uses the skills. The bad part is the player can't make a logical decision about which ones to take.
This Marine skill would be more than just seamanship, although that would be a big part of it. However, you make a good point about the importance of defining such a hypothetical skill's exact role. It would also be very important for the DM to be very aware of the campaign he's adding it to.
All I can say is that you've made a good case for the pitfalls of even adding one new skill.
This Marine skill would be more than just seamanship, although that would be a big part of it. However, you make a good point about the importance of defining such a hypothetical skill's exact role. It would also be very important for the DM to be very aware of the campaign he's adding it to.
All I can say is that you've made a good case for the pitfalls of even adding one new skill.
Yup. Which is why I've always advocated not adding any more skills, at least ones that are general. I can see where it makes sense for specific settings. I mean realistically the dungeoneering skill IS an example of that. In a pirate campaign seamanship might make more sense as a core skill. I could imagine a generalized d20 core based on 4e that would only provide a smaller subset of the 4e skills that work everywhere and let each genre plug in a roughly equal number of extra ones for its domain. Within the fantasy domain I think we pretty much have what we need.
Yup. Which is why I've always advocated not adding any more skills, at least ones that are general. I can see where it makes sense for specific settings. I mean realistically the dungeoneering skill IS an example of that. In a pirate campaign seamanship might make more sense as a core skill. I could imagine a generalized d20 core based on 4e that would only provide a smaller subset of the 4e skills that work everywhere and let each genre plug in a roughly equal number of extra ones for its domain. Within the fantasy domain I think we pretty much have what we need.
I completely agree. For probably 95% of D&D games (and certainly all the ones fully supported by official 4E material) the assumptions about the kinds of things characters do are the same, and are covered by the existing skill set. Any gaps in the skill system of the typical 4E game are covered by ability checks.
At any rate, I think we're on the same page: the only time there's potential for another skill in 4E is when the basic assumptions about the game change dramatically, and even then it might only be one new skill.
Given what I have heard about Darksun, do you think it would be unreasonable if they split Endurance into subcatigories? In most campains, it comes up rare enough that it should be one skill... but in Darksun?
Are you kidding? In most campaigns, Endurance is so rare it should be a part of athletics (Not that I'm advocating that). In Dark Sun, it might actually be worth taking over something else.