3.5e skill modification (peach)

[Ashtagon]

Max ranks in class skill is (level + 3).

Max ranks in a cross class skill is (level +3) / 2.

Purchasing a rank in a skill costs the same, whether a class skill or a cross-class skill.

Purchasing ranks 1-10 costs 1 point per rank, for a total cost of 10 skill points at rank 10.

Purchasing ranks 11-20 costs 2 points per rank, for a total cost of 30 skill points at rank 20 (including the 10 points spent to reach rank 10).

Purchasing ranks 21-30 costs 3 points per rank, for a total cost of 60 skill points at rank 30 (including the 30 points spent to reach rank 20).

The goal here is to eliminate teh extreme levels of specialisation characteristic of most 3e characters. Are there any obvious pitfalls in this idea?

[MeklorIlavator]

How about that it won't work. The specialization is due to the fact that it's needed to be effective. That, and one lacks the resources to diversify, and this only make what resources one has all the more valuable.

Oh, and it really screws over skill monkeys.

[lesser_minion]

I think capping the number of ranks you can have in any particular skill and then raising the cost of skill ranks at higher levels is probably too much. I agree with removing the increased cost of cross-class skills, however.

On the whole "is specialisation a problem" question, I think I'm going to stay silent.

[RandomFellow]

The way to fix skill specialization is to promote generalization rather than carrot & stick, imo.

The only real pitfall I see is you will need to lower monster skills (if you play them intelligently, as written, the players would have no chance to spot ambushes past level 12 or so, for monsters with decent hide/move silently checks). Also trap search/disable DCs.

[Ashtagon]

My problem with high ranks in skills is that at the extreme levels, it promotes actions that are not only superhuman (50-foot long-jumps) but downright game-breaking (hey BBEG, my friend, could you possibly join my party and wipe out your minions kplzthx). I wanted to remove the worst excesses of these from the game. Increasing the costs to specialise to a silly level seemed like a simpler approach than revising the DCs of every checks upwards.

Incidentally, this has no negative effect on a character's potential at all until level 7. Coincidentally, level 7 happens to be the highest level of any realistic human (olympiad or nobel-winning research scientist) when stated out in D&D terms.

I don't think skill monkeys are screwed over. On the contrary, this actually encourages them to become true experts of all trades. 10 ranks is already at the upper levels of believable human achievement anyway. This just encourages them be world-famous at more than one schtick.

[MeklorIlavator]

This doesn't really fix diplomacy, as it's all the small bonuses you get from associated skills that make it great. Well, that and the fact that the fixed dc system is bad.

As for being superhuman, well, why shouldn't superhumans be able to be superhuman? The logic doesn't really make sense there.

Now, on two skill monkeys. The problem is that most of the important skills assume that you're really going to focus on them: Listen, spot, move silently, hide, search, UMD, etc, all are either opposed checks, or have DC's high enough that you need max ranks. Normally Rouges lack the skill points needed to keep up all of these, and your method only makes it worse. Also, this is DND we're talking about. It follows the "jack of all trades, master of none" rule very closely, so forcing people to do this or become overspecialized is really cruel.

[RandomFellow]

My problem with high ranks in skills is that at the extreme levels, it promotes actions that are not only superhuman (50-foot long-jumps) but downright game-breaking (hey BBEG, my friend, could you possibly join my party and wipe out your minions kplzthx). I wanted to remove the worst excesses of these from the game. Increasing the costs to specialise to a silly level seemed like a simpler approach than revising the DCs of every checks upwards.

It is the wrong approach for that goal. Diplomancy doesn't rely on skill ranks to work. Neither do any of the other game-breaking ones.

If that is your concern you are better off sitting Player X down and saying 'Hey, this is too much for the group's level of rollplaying.'



Incidentally, this has no negative effect on a character's potential at all until level 7. Coincidentally, level 7 happens to be the highest level of any realistic human (olympiad or nobel-winning research scientist) when stated out in D&D terms.

You can get game breaking skill ranks at level 1-6 easily enough.



I don't think skill monkeys are screwed over. On the contrary, this actually encourages them to become true experts of all trades. 10 ranks is already at the upper levels of believable human achievement anyway. This just encourages them be world-famous at more than one schtick.
o0

The problem with this logic is when the Lich shows up with +20 to Hide you are facing TPK. And that is the Lich just having 14 Dex and taking 10 ranks in Hide.

You would need to either play the monsters stupidly or lower their skill levels.


Personally, I don't see how this fixes any problems as written.

[grautry]

My problem with high ranks in skills is that at the extreme levels, it promotes actions that are not only superhuman (50-foot long-jumps) but downright game-breaking (hey BBEG, my friend, could you possibly join my party and wipe out your minions kplzthx).

This is a problem with Diplomacy, not the skill system in general. I suggest that you look here (http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/advanced-rules/diplomacy.html). This is based on Rich Burlew's fix of Diplomacy and corrects some minor issues with his(already excellent) Diplomacy fix.


I don't think skill monkeys are screwed over. On the contrary, this actually encourages them to become true experts of all trades. 10 ranks is already at the upper levels of believable human achievement anyway. This just encourages them be world-famous at more than one schtick.

Why is taking what real life humans can accomplish into consideration a good thing?

A, say, level 10 Fighter can defeat dozens if not hundreds of normal human beings(aka level 1 commoners). If he's a couple of levels higher and has a Cleric buddy that can Persist one of the Vigor spells for him, then he can go on an endless rampage against opponents like that. He has clearly superhuman combat abilities despite being a "mundane" class(that is, he doesn't overtly use magic, like a druid or a wizard; aside from magic items, naturally).

Why is him(or any other character) having superhuman skills a problem?

This is a fantasy game. Those characters are supposed to be able to do stuff like that. If you want a game where the characters are still bound by somewhat human limitations then I suggest you look at the E6 variant. Otherwise you'll be forced to change every single DC for a skill that a lvl 7+ character is expected to make.

[Telonius]

Tried posting this all day yesterday, but the forums seemed to refuse...

Anyway, a Fighter, Sorcerer, or (non-cloistered) Cleric with an INT below 12 will never be able to reach max ranks in anything. Members of those classes with INT of 12 or 13 will only be able to have this progression. (Skills are assumed to be class skills).

Level 1-7
Skill A: 10 ranks
Skill B: 10 ranks
Skill C: 10 ranks

Level 8-17
Skill A: 20 ranks
Skill B: 15 ranks
Skill C: 10 ranks

OR

Skill A: 20 ranks
Skill B: 10 ranks
Skill C: 10 ranks
Skill D: 10 ranks

Level 18-x.
Skill A: 20+(x-17) ranks
Skill B: 15 ranks
Skill C: 10 ranks

OR

Skill A: (20+(x-17) ranks
Skill B: 10 ranks
Skill C: 10 ranks
Skill D: 10 ranks


Whether you consider this a problem or not, it's a fact about the change. Wizards will have the issue as well, though it won't be as pronounced (since they typically have high intelligence).

[Telonius]

(And, of course when it finally goes through, it goes through twice. :smallyuk:)