PDA

View Full Version : (4e) Dumbing down skills



Ozreth
2010-01-05, 07:06 PM
Im barely scratching the surface of 4e right now, but If I am correct a lot of character individuality has been taken away.

For example, athletics now encompasses swim, climb, jump, tumble etc. I can no longer have a character that is horrid at swimming but a master jumper, he will have to be good at every single one of those, which is odd.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-01-05, 07:28 PM
Im barely scratching the surface of 4e right now, but If I am correct a lot of character individuality has been taken away.

For example, athletics now encompasses swim, climb, jump, tumble etc. I can no longer have a character that is horrid at swimming but a master jumper, he will have to be good at every single one of those, which is odd.
Yes you can.

Well, not "horrid" but you can make master jumpers through Skill Focus, Utility choices, and the upcoming Skill Tricks.

I mean, if you define your characters solely by their ability to climb and not jump, I guess you lose that option. Look at it this way - in 4E you choose what to be really good at, instead of looking at skills you can afford to be really bad at.

Ozreth
2010-01-05, 07:33 PM
Yes you can.

Well, not "horrid" but you can make master jumpers through Skill Focus, Utility choices, and the upcoming Skill Tricks.

I mean, if you define your characters solely by their ability to climb and not jump, I guess you lose that option. Look at it this way - in 4E you choose what to be really good at, instead of looking at skills you can afford to be really bad at.

Could you expand on skill focus, utility choice, and the upcoming skill tricks? Don't know much about anything, but it sounds like enough to satisfy my hunger. Thanks : )

Weimann
2010-01-05, 07:36 PM
It is also possible to just say that she's bad at swimming despite a decent Athletics skill. The limits go up, not down.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-01-05, 07:36 PM
Could you expand on skill focus, utility choice, and the upcoming skill tricks? Don't know much about anything, but it sounds like enough to satisfy my hunger. Thanks : )
Skill Focus is a Feat - it gives you +3 to a Skill that you are Trained in.

Utilities are useful powers that all characters get; many of the martial ones get powers that enhance their Skills in certain ways.

Other Feats let you get more out of a particular Skill use than normal. Sure Climber, as an example, lets you move at full speed when you climb, rather than half.

Skill Tricks are Utility Powers that any class can choose, provided they are Trained in a particular Skill.

Sir_Elderberry
2010-01-05, 07:37 PM
It is also possible to just say that she's bad at swimming despite a decent Athletics skill. The limits go up, not down.

Yeah, there's not a DM in the world who won't let you declare yourself to take a -10 to Athletics checks to swim. (Well. Probably.)

oxybe
2010-01-05, 07:39 PM
to quote myself from another board, a long time ago which sums up my thoughts on this:

because D&D is not a skill-based game. skills are part of the package, but not it's entirety. a long list of separate non-associated skills in a game where they are a feature will dilute it's purpose, especially the distribution method is limited.

i'll use 3rd ed D&D as an example for this, but it applies to any game where your skills are a limited resource. the 2+int skill points classes in a game with 36 individual skills, some like "knowledge" is actually 8 individual skills with one main header while perform/craft/profession are just placeholder for other skills. that 2+int will get somewhere between 46 and 92 points probably, or 4 skills by level 20. it sounds like a lot of points, but it's really maxing out less then a tenth of the possible individual skills. or you can split them up between a fifth of them but you'll be weak in those skills and if you need to do a task that should normally only be difficult for a character of your level it might prove itself too great...

D&D & other such games, since you have a very finite number of skills points to use, it's usually best to max out 2-3 skills and have another 3-4 with a few points in it... usually enough to score the minimum required for a task or to get some synergy bonuses.

in games like GURPS, which offer a more free-form leveling, you don't have a "limit" other then the amount of XP you gain and it's much easier to be trained in a large variety of skills

while it's very possible to min-max a skill in GURPS (i'll admit, i've done it), you will almost always have a some XP in storage to allocate and it's usually in your interest to spread them out as if you really need that one skill a bit higher. i find this not nearly as debilitating then D&D where you almost have to plan a level or two in advance if you want to spread them out, or just pick X skills and max them, where X = int+class skill points.

what 4th ed did is, IMO, a good thing: condense the skill list into similar groupings and let the players pick X (where X is determined from their class). this allows for characters who are much more skilled as each skill has a subset of things it covers. with 3 levels of training (untrained, trained, focused) possible which is modified by the stat mod, 1/2 level and items/situation, it does allow for variety between characters. it just doesn't bother with minute and individual details and leaves that to the player & gm.

in 4th ed if you want your rogue to be a pickpocket that can't crack safes grab "thievery", ignore the training bonus and tell that to the group & GM. done.

erikun
2010-01-05, 08:04 PM
While I don't necessarily agree with the 4e skill spread, I do think that how 4e condensed and treated skills is very good. Perhaps not as well as a skill-based game would do it, but still fairly well.

4e does have rules for, say, playing a blind character (even though Spot/Listen were merged into Perception) or for playing a race that can't jump. And, as Oracle Hunter said, there will be new options for characters who wish to be particularly skilled at one particular task - although it took a long time to get there. Of course, you are free to not use checks/use them at a penalty for in-character reasons. Perhaps the master lockpicker is nervous about getting caught, and thus doesn't try to pick pockets?

Interesting, why don't I ever hear about applying ability scores to bonuses? I don't recall anyone ever complaining that their high-Wisdom cleric has unusually good Listen checks, after all.

jokey665
2010-01-05, 08:14 PM
Have they made Thri-Kreen for 4e yet? Do they have +30 to athletics?

Dimers
2010-01-05, 08:21 PM
Ask your DM for a trait that grants (e.g.) +4 to jumping, -4 to swimming, -4 to climbing. It's like the "Traits" in 3.5 Unearthed Arcana, which are like a feat combined with a flaw, so you don't have to 'spend' anything on it.

Sinon
2010-01-05, 08:35 PM
Im barely scratching the surface of 4e right now, but If I am correct a lot of character individuality has been taken away.

For example, athletics now encompasses swim, climb, jump, tumble etc. I can no longer have a character that is horrid at swimming but a master jumper, he will have to be good at every single one of those, which is odd.

The flip side of that is I can have a fighter who's a good, all-around athelte without have to to make him a human with a decent Int and multiclassed in rogue.

Mystic Muse
2010-01-05, 08:41 PM
Have they made Thri-Kreen for 4e yet? Do they have +30 to athletics?

not sure but if they have made that specific version they aren't going to be a player race. every race I can think of gets +2 to two specific skills.

oxybe
2010-01-05, 08:42 PM
Have they made Thri-Kreen for 4e yet? Do they have +30 to athletics?

not yet, but i hear they'll be in the Dark Sun Setting Book later this year. like all other LA-type races, they've been toned down and their other abilities can probably be bought off via feats.

taltamir
2010-01-05, 08:42 PM
The flip side of that is I can have a fighter who's a good, all-around athelte without have to to make him a human with a decent Int and multiclassed in rogue.

exactly...
In 3.5e your average fighter cannot jump, cannot run, cannot swim, cannot ride, cannot avoid blows (tumble), cannot climb, cannot etc...
very few classes were "skill monkeys" and they had far more valuable things to spend their skill points on then on the 15 aspects of physical excellence... Combining like skills makes sense, and if you NEED to make a character that cannot swim for example, you just give her/him the trait "cannot swim: this character doesn't know how to swim and sinks like a rock"... optionally make it a -10 to athletics when swimming rather then an absolute failure when swimming.

In 3e you cannot fix that because if you give fighters a ton of skill points they have better things, like UMD, to spend them on. You have to fundamentally break the system by having the DM and player just sit down and decide exactly which specific skills you can have as part of your illegal character.

4e finally fixes this horrible horrible dreck.

Nothing is stopping you from using 3.5 skills in 4e btw, and an alternative fix would just be to alter the COSTS of various skills... that is. hmmm, I am actually on to something here. I will make a specific thread for it later, maybe, if I have the time...

the idea is basically to give various costs to various skills, a rank of UMD can cost 2 points, while 1 point in swim gets you 4 ranks. with in between values for other skills based on their relative usefulness and difficulty.
If you are nice, you can get rid of the stupid "class skills" mechanic, and make skills more dependent on int and less on class (aka, a smart fighter can have lots of skills). Or maybe give a chart per class (aka, going from int 10 to 14 gives a different amount of bonus points per level for a fighter than it does a wizard)

Tengu_temp
2010-01-05, 09:13 PM
I assume that means WoD/Exalted has a dumbed down mechanic with limited character individualization too, in OP's mind? Because it used a single skill for jumping, climbing and swimming, or hiding and sneaking, long before DND. In fact, are there any modern RPGs that don't add use a single skill for such closely-related abilities?

Evard
2010-01-05, 09:31 PM
I always hear about people saying that you can't use skills in 4e or that it's harder than other editions... In 3.5 usually just the skill monkey used skills while the rest kinda sat back. At least in 4e anyone can use a skill and have a chance to be awesome at it. If you want more skills in the campy then get a DM that is less on fighting and more on rp and skills...

Foryn Gilnith
2010-01-05, 09:46 PM
I assume that means WoD/Exalted has a dumbed down mechanic with limited character individualization too, in OP's mind? Because it used a single skill for jumping, climbing and swimming, or hiding and sneaking, long before DND.
This. So very this.


In fact, are there any modern RPGs that don't add use a single skill for such closely-related abilities?
Oh hell yes. Well, I suppose it depends on what you define as a modern RPG, but I'm pretty damn confident the answer is yes.


And I was hoping that this thread, despite having "4e" and "dumb" in the title, wouldn't be anti-4e. 4e has flaws, ya, but not because it's "dumb".

Dimers
2010-01-05, 10:40 PM
I assume that means WoD/Exalted has a dumbed down mechanic with limited character individualization too, in OP's mind? Because it used a single skill for jumping, climbing and swimming, or hiding and sneaking, long before DND. In fact, are there any modern RPGs that don't add use a single skill for such closely-related abilities?

GURPS certainly doesn't. Half the game is skills, and it's quite fine-grained. Heck, each spell a mage knows is a separate skill -- Create Fire, Extinguish Fire and Shape Fire are distinct, and those are more closely related (to my way of thinking) than swimming, climbing and jumping are. In Shadowrun, you can buy Athletics as a skill group, or can separately take any or all of Climbing, Gymnastics (D&D's "Acrobatics"), Running and Swimming. It's only cheaper to buy the group if you want three or more of those four.

KillianHawkeye
2010-01-05, 11:27 PM
Have they made Thri-Kreen for 4e yet? Do they have +30 to athletics?

I'm sure the Thri-Kreen's jumping ability would be better represented as a racial power in 4th Edition, rather than as a skill bonus like it was in 3rd.

Example: Super Jump (Move Action): You jump through the air, moving up to double your speed.

It would probably be an encounter power (just because most racial powers are).

valadil
2010-01-05, 11:30 PM
What I like about skills being put into broader categories for 4e is that each skill group gets roughly equal use. In some 3rd ed games, swim is life and death. In others it never comes up. Skills like forgery are even less likely to see use.

I've seen all 4e skills get used so far. Maybe the social ones see more use since they're more flexible (ie, I don't have diplomacy but intimidate can get info out of someone just as easily). But I don't feel like any are a waste of points. Maybe it's not the best model of a character, but it is better from a game perspective.

vicente408
2010-01-06, 12:20 AM
Clearly a better solution would have been to make skills even narrower, so that you can truly customize your character.

I want to take ranks in Tie Knot (Square) without being forced to be skilled at Tie Knot (Slip).

Somebloke
2010-01-06, 08:05 AM
The condensed skill set in 4e was actually one of the main selling points for me, although I might have added a few more (Ride, Seafaring, Craft (general)). I hated the idea that I could play a ripped, sturdy fighter who could climb up a sheer wall but couldn't jump to save his life.

Tehnar
2010-01-06, 09:21 AM
Its not the condesed skill list that bothers me (though they went too far with it as well), its the autoimprovement of all skill as you level.

The J Pizzel
2010-01-06, 09:51 AM
Its not the condesed skill list that bothers me (though they went too far with it as well), its the autoimprovement of all skill as you level.

Yeah. I kinda like that actually. I loved it in SAGA because it made sense to do it that way. I'm not really sure it makes sense in 4E, but I don't care. I still like it. I guess I kinda like that as an adventurer, you gradually get better at adventuring regardless of what you're specialized in. But I can see why some people don't like it.

oxybe
2010-01-06, 09:54 AM
D&D never handled skill growth correctly ever since it was introduced as Non-Weapon Proficiencies in 2nd ed (or the older % thief skills). remember that the best way to become a master basketweaver is to skewer as many goblins as possible with your sword, not through practice.

the auto-growth represents generic "experience". be it learning by simply listening to others, natural awesomeness, by experiencing it first hand, or whatnot. the fighter won't be as good in arcana as the wizard is by default, but at least he learns things on the subject. stat, training, focus, feats, items... those are the big "difference makers" that will provide variety between characters.

Tehnar
2010-01-06, 10:07 AM
I just don't see anyone becoming better at something by watching it done. You won't get any better at basketball by watching every game if you don't practise at it too.

Besides in 3.5 DnD you can achieve a superhuman level with skills (compared to modern world athletes) by the 5th level at latest. So that means you don't need to invest much in any skill to have a superhuman achievement.

Jayabalard
2010-01-06, 11:03 AM
D&D never handled skill growth correctly ever since it was introduced as Non-Weapon Proficiencies in 2nd ed Non weapon proficiencies appeared in 1e AD&D as well.

Sinon
2010-01-06, 11:10 AM
1) I have never really let “it doesn’t make sense” get in the way of my enjoyment of RPGs.

Firstly, I know verisimilitude is a priority to many (and to each his own) but in a game, realism has to compete with things like balance and the fact that you are reducing incredibly complex things like fighting, jumping, swimming, and knowing to abstractions that can be expressed as 1d20+x.

2) A person who watches basketball all the time but never plays is still going to be better than a fellow who does neither.

But more seriously, I don’t really buy the analogy of the fighter and Arcana/couch potato and basketball.

The fighter isn’t sitting on the sidelines. He’s fighting magical creatures, getting zapped by magical traps and other spells, using portals and other magic items, falling through illusory walls – seriously, how did 3.5 fighters manage to be so obtuse as to learn nothing from any of that?

oxybe
2010-01-06, 11:18 AM
to an extent, yes you will learn. you might not become a better player, but your understanding of the game will grow. i don't have an interest in basketball and i can't remember the last time i tried to pay attention to it so i can't make an analogy, but i'm certain if you pay attention to how the successful players in their positions play and the dynamics of the game, you'll probably pick up a few tricks.

thus the 1/2 level bonus.

if you're weak (low str for athletics) and you don't practice (so no training, focus or feat bonus), then yes, you're going to be an Armchair Quarterback, but for basketball. so an Armchair Jordan, if you will.

as for the "superhuman" thing, like you said it's superhuman for us, but if such a thing is expected of low level adventurers in "D&D Land", it's not really superhuman anymore, is it? i remember reading somewhere how 9th level characters are doing better then olympic athletes & other "above the norm" type people via normal progression, but that's compared to people on Earth.

on Oerth or whatever, that's expected from the greatest heroes and villains of the land.

so while Sir Shinypants the Valorous, paladin of the realms, might leap higher & farther then John Dirtfarmerson, he's not being compared to John. he's being compared to the Dark Lord Axeface Von Hacknslash III, a blackguard of bane who is a vile mirror of Shinypants.

oxybe
2010-01-06, 11:20 AM
The fighter isn’t sitting on the sidelines. He’s fighting magical creatures, getting zapped by magical traps and other spells, using portals and other magic items, falling through illusory walls – seriously, how did 3.5 fighters manage to be so obtuse as to learn nothing from any of that?

2+int skill points? Know(arcana) had to compete with Jump, Climb, Swim & Ride.

Sinon
2010-01-06, 11:27 AM
2+int skill points? Know(arcana) had to compete with Jump, Climb, Swim & Ride.

Calisthenics cause amnesia. :smallwink:

Mike_G
2010-01-06, 11:32 AM
Its not the condesed skill list that bothers me (though they went too far with it as well), its the autoimprovement of all skill as you level.


That's an issue with level based games in general.

Everybody's Saves, Attack Bonus, skills and HP go up with level, whether they train or not.

Why should the 10 level Barbarian who has never used a bow be a better shot than the 3rd level Fighter who has specialized in it? There's no good answer, except high level guys are just better. Heck, a 10 level Wizard is probably a better shot than Guardy McRedshirt, the mook archer at the castle gate.

It's not as realistic or customizable as a skill based system, but it allows for easier balancing, assuming 5th level characters are able to overcome certain challenges that 1st level could not, rather than having to detail a challenge that a guy who specialized in Rapier could overcome, but a guy who dabbled in it while excelling in Tightrope Walking could not.

Artanis
2010-01-06, 12:27 PM
A few thoughts on the realism/verisimilitude/whatever of 4e's auto-improvement vs. 3e-style skill points:


First, for some skills, 4e's way makes more sense. This is mostly exemplified by Knowledge skills, but can also extend to skills like Ride that get lots of use regardless of training.

Second, for many skills, you never see the effect of autoimprovement during play. The first reason for this is obvious: the experts are improving as well, and as such you'll never see Fumbles the Fighter building up that +15 to picking locks because Klepto the Rogue is doing all the lockpicking anyways. The second is linked to the first: the DCs that the party actually rolls against will scale with that autoimprovement. 4e is unashamed of its "gameist" elements, and one of those elements is that by the time Fumbles can easily pick a certain lock, the party won't be seeing that lock anyways.

My third thought is that #1 and #2 mean that there aren't really that many skills left where both it always makes more sense to use 3.5's method AND you actually see it in action.

Ozreth
2010-01-06, 01:08 PM
I guess the difference to me is Ive always been way more into the story/rp and less into the actual "game." The game/mechanics for me were always just a small vehicle for the greater picture, the story and role play.

Everybody here is talking about the game/the mechanics/the balance etc etc, and none of that really matters to me. I don't care about levels or optimized characters. I just want a creative, versatile, and even flawed character running through a good story.

Mike_G
2010-01-06, 01:13 PM
I guess the difference to me is Ive always been way more into the story/rp and less into the actual "game." The game/mechanics for me were always just a small vehicle for the greater picture, the story and role play.

Everybody here is talking about the game/the mechanics/the balance etc etc, and none of that really matters to me. I don't care about levels or optimized characters. I just want a creative, versatile, and even flawed character running through a good story.


If the mechanics aren't all that important, just don't sweat them. D&D is fine. It's well supported and easy to find a group. That said, D&D 4e is very concerned with mechanics and balance

If you want to be able to make very customized PC's, then you are better off with GURPS or Hero system, where you can be good at jumping and terrible at swimming and make the character any way you want, balance be damned.

Draz74
2010-01-06, 01:27 PM
If you want to be able to make very customized PC's, then you are better off with GURPS or Hero system, where you can be good at jumping and terrible at swimming and make the character any way you want, balance be damned.

Hmmm, switching to GURPS seems like an odd choice for someone who's complaining that he wants to have to deal less with rules and game mechanics.

taltamir
2010-01-06, 01:29 PM
GURPS certainly doesn't. Half the game is skills, and it's quite fine-grained. Heck, each spell a mage knows is a separate skill -- Create Fire, Extinguish Fire and Shape Fire are distinct, and those are more closely related (to my way of thinking) than swimming, climbing and jumping are. In Shadowrun, you can buy Athletics as a skill group, or can separately take any or all of Climbing, Gymnastics (D&D's "Acrobatics"), Running and Swimming. It's only cheaper to buy the group if you want three or more of those four.

in gurps skills rely on each other... that is, from the athletics skills you choose the one which is highest, other skills use its ranks - X. adding ranks to them adds to their total.
The ability to use a different skill that is "similar" at a small penalty works quite well.. GURPS also doesn't have "levels", each spell is a skill, etc... and you get significant amounts of skill points, and different skills cost different, etc etc etc.

there is really no comparison between gurps skills and DnD skills.


I just don't see anyone becoming better at something by watching it done. You won't get any better at basketball by watching every game if you don't practise at it too.

Besides in 3.5 DnD you can achieve a superhuman level with skills (compared to modern world athletes) by the 5th level at latest. So that means you don't need to invest much in any skill to have a superhuman achievement.

you literally ascend to godhood by level 30 in 4e... you aren't getting better by being a dumb fighter who watches, you are getting better by being a sword slinger who actually learns some magic because you are that awesome TM


The fighter isn’t sitting on the sidelines. He’s fighting magical creatures, getting zapped by magical traps and other spells, using portals and other magic items, falling through illusory walls – seriously, how did 3.5 fighters manage to be so obtuse as to learn nothing from any of that?

exactly... I view a fighter like roy from OOTS, sure he isn't a wizard, but he educates himself and knows what kind of monsters exist, what kind of weaknesses they have, how magic works, etc

dsmiles
2010-01-06, 01:31 PM
If you want crazy amounts of skills, try Rolemaster's HARP system.

Jayabalard
2010-01-06, 01:36 PM
Hmmm, switching to GURPS seems like an odd choice for someone who's complaining that he wants to have to deal less with rules and game mechanics.Not really, gurps has a fairly small set of mechanics and rules; it has loads of optional rules that you can add in, but they are no means necessary.

taltamir
2010-01-06, 01:42 PM
I guess the difference to me is Ive always been way more into the story/rp and less into the actual "game." The game/mechanics for me were always just a small vehicle for the greater picture, the story and role play.

Everybody here is talking about the game/the mechanics/the balance etc etc, and none of that really matters to me. I don't care about levels or optimized characters. I just want a creative, versatile, and even flawed character running through a good story.

so? 4e and 3.5e and 2e and 1e have identical capability to run the story... that is, the system has nothing to do with the story. You just play.

This thread is full of people discussing mechanics because that is all that is different.

You want to play a realistic game where killing goblins doesn't make you level and thus better at everything? fine, everyone is level 1, no XP is gained for killing things, "training" with something for a few months gives you an ad hoc bonus to its skill.

You want to play a highly social and RP game? fine, disallow social "skills" for rolls, just RP all social encounters (its what I and most groups I play with do) and use the stuff on your char sheet only in combat.

etc...

oxybe
2010-01-06, 01:51 PM
Not really, gurps has a fairly small set of mechanics and rules; it has loads of optional rules that you can add in, but they are no means necessary.

i have to agree with this. unless my memory is going, even the GURPS books suggest the GM running it trim down the skill list so they have an appropriate one for the setting (so no computer or airplane driving skill in a D&Desque setting, airships however:smallwink:).

GURPS might be a big set of LEGOs but you don't need all of it for any given game.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-01-06, 01:52 PM
I just want a creative, versatile, and even flawed character running through a good story.
...aren't you doing that now? I mean, all of those sound like RP, not mechanical, elements.

Mando Knight
2010-01-06, 02:23 PM
Why should the 10 level Barbarian who has never used a bow be a better shot than the 3rd level Fighter who has specialized in it? There's no good answer, except high level guys are just better. Heck, a 10 level Wizard is probably a better shot than Guardy McRedshirt, the mook archer at the castle gate.

They wouldn't be. If a 10th level Barbarian hasn't ever picked up a bow, he hasn't trained in it... and Barbarians don't start with training in bows normally unless they're Elves (but they do shooty stuff anyway). An archery-trained Fighter will have both a high Dexterity and proficiency in his longbow, something which only one build of the Barbarian would have one of (except, of course, if it's an Elf Whirling Barbarian). Except for an Elf wand-mastery Wizard, the Wizard is much the same way. An archery-specialist Fighter (likely actually a Ranger until Martial Power 2 comes out, in which case the Warlord gets a little love) would also likely have Weapon Expertise and Focus in bows, which is another +1 to hit and damage. Since none of the characters (except for maybe the Fighter if he's smart and figured out how to get Ranged Weapon powers) have any powers beyond the Ranged Basic Attack for use with a bow, the characters are likely in the same boat in terms of combat ability. And Archer-Guy has no where to go but up.

And really, the problem isn't limited to 4e. A decent-Dex level 10 Barbarian or Wizard in 3.5 would likely shoot a bow better than a level 3 Fighter barring nonproficiency on the Wizard's part.

Ozreth
2010-01-06, 02:32 PM
I'm not going to sweat it too much. Just gonna jump into our 4e game and go with the flow. I'm not as bitter and narrowminded as I am probably making myself sound.

Ive realized I shouldnt be bashing anything until I have had some good play time with it.

Mando Knight
2010-01-06, 02:36 PM
2+int skill points? Know(arcana) had to compete with Jump, Climb, Swim & Ride.

Jump, Climb, Swim, and Ride had to compete with each other. Now suppose you're Fighter McSlashySword, all-round terrific athlete and great guy. Perhaps we'll say he's not too terrifically bright, but is a human. Let's say he's got 11 Int. Now, which of these can't he do: jump across that gap, climb a rough rock wall, swim across a river, or ride a horse into combat? He's fighting in a breastplate, and only has 3 skills that he's fully trained in. All four of his favorite skills have Armor Check penalties, so if he's fully trained at level 1, he's still effectively using only his attribute modifier as if he were as untrained in it as that Wizard guy over there (except he's stronger and more agile... until the Wizard uses magic to break the rules).

Now, let's say he's battled the unknown for 10 or so levels, and managed to evenly spread out his skill ranks so he could do all of his favorite athletic-type activities. Even though he's faced hordes of skeletons and wizards and such, he still has no idea how to fight them... he never studied Religion or Arcana. He's gone on quests for the local duke, but couldn't name any of the barons in the duchy because he doesn't know Nobility. He's smashed through hordes of monsters and saved princesses and whatnot... but that upstart bard just turned the entire countryside into her fan club with just a few little songs sung in a different key.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-01-06, 03:03 PM
Ive realized I shouldnt be bashing anything until I have had some good play time with it.
Good man :smallbiggrin:

I hope you enjoy it.

Optimystik
2010-01-06, 05:17 PM
exactly...
In 3.5e your average fighter cannot jump, cannot run, cannot swim, cannot ride, cannot avoid blows (tumble), cannot climb, cannot etc...
very few classes were "skill monkeys" and they had far more valuable things to spend their skill points on then on the 15 aspects of physical excellence... Combining like skills makes sense, and if you NEED to make a character that cannot swim for example, you just give her/him the trait "cannot swim: this character doesn't know how to swim and sinks like a rock"... optionally make it a -10 to athletics when swimming rather then an absolute failure when swimming.

In 3e you cannot fix that because if you give fighters a ton of skill points they have better things, like UMD, to spend them on. You have to fundamentally break the system by having the DM and player just sit down and decide exactly which specific skills you can have as part of your illegal character.

4e finally fixes this horrible horrible dreck.

Amen. Preach it!

valadil
2010-01-06, 05:49 PM
Out of curiosity, would anyone support a system that gave points for both individual skills and skill categories? ie, you category skills would be athletics, knowledge, social, etc. and within those you could increase swim, climb, jump, etc. Or would that be too much paperwork?

For what it's worth, GURPs does something similar. You have your basic skills but you can also take certain talents. IIRC each point in Outdoorsman adds to your survival, navigation, fishing, etc checks. Not worthwhile if you only use one or two of those. But if you're a full featured man of the woods, it's cheaper to buy lots of that than to buy each skill individually.

Artanis
2010-01-06, 08:36 PM
Out of curiosity, would anyone support a system that gave points for both individual skills and skill categories? ie, you category skills would be athletics, knowledge, social, etc. and within those you could increase swim, climb, jump, etc. Or would that be too much paperwork?

Exalted sort of has that. You have the "category skills" as normal, and you can buy Specialties that give a bonus to a certain usage of that skill. For instance, Athletics covers swimming and climbing and whatnot, but you can get a bonus to swimming (and only swimming) related Athletics rolls by taking a specialty for it.

Dimers
2010-01-06, 11:21 PM
Out of curiosity, would anyone support a system that gave points for both individual skills and skill categories? ie, you category skills would be athletics, knowledge, social, etc. and within those you could increase swim, climb, jump, etc. Or would that be too much paperwork?

Not much paperwork at all. Shadowrun 4th edition handles it very smoothly.

Tehnar
2010-01-07, 07:57 AM
The 3.5 skill system is not perfect, the most glaring example being the fighter. Aside from the wizard and cleric, I feel all classes should have at least 4+int modifier worth of skills. And things like cross classing UMD won't happen, since its not mechanically sound to do such things.

Being good at jumping,climbing, swimming etc is not all that difficult (even with the 2+int points a fighter gets). First you must remember that you can take 10 in a lot of situations where those skills will be needed. If you are not getting shot at while climbing a cliff, you can take 10.

That is not to say that the 3.5 system could not use improvements. Things like skill groups could be added (ala shadowrun), for example a athletics skill group (climb, jump, swim, balance) that costs 3 skill points per rank. More skills and class skills to certain classes.

Now I don't care so much for pure gamist system; I prefer systems that have more simulation in them. The autoadvancement of skills gives you more problems then it is worth.

1) The players may feel there is no point. If you have a 50% chance to pick a shoddy wooden door at lvl 1, and all you encounter are shoddy wooded doors; and at lvl 20 if you have a 50% to pick a sturdy adamantine door, and all you encounter are sturdy adamantine doors... then you don't really get a sense you made any progress.

2) Aside from trained only skill checks, the only difference between a character trained in a skill and one not is a 5 point difference on the modifier. That pretty much kills any exclusivness a traind character has with a skill. He is only 25% better at it then a person not trained (if they both have a same ability modifier).

Now both of my points are views on the subject, my opinion on what skills should be like.

tcrudisi
2010-01-07, 08:19 AM
That is not to say that the 3.5 system could not use improvements. Things like skill groups could be added (ala shadowrun), for example a athletics skill group (climb, jump, swim, balance) that costs 3 skill points per rank. More skills and class skills to certain classes.

It's been a long time since I've played 3.x (thank you random person who actually played Pun-Pun at a table; no, seriously, someone played Pun-Pun at one of my tables so I quit 3.x permanently for 4e), but don't Fighters only get 2+Int mod skill points? So even a Fighter wouldn't be able to take the Athletics skill group you've outlined, which doesn't make much sense to me. It doesn't take a very smart person to learn how to swim, climb, jump, or balance... but a Fighter can only choose 2?


1) The players may feel there is no point. If you have a 50% chance to pick a shoddy wooden door at lvl 1, and all you encounter are shoddy wooded doors; and at lvl 20 if you have a 50% to pick a sturdy adamantine door, and all you encounter are sturdy adamantine doors... then you don't really get a sense you made any progress.

You've picked a bad example. The PHB says, concerning Thievery, that some uses are so specialized that the DM might decide you have to be trained to have some chance of succeeding. The DM that I play under uses this religiously, much to my dismay. I had a Dex-secondary character, that due to being a Halfling, was only 2 points lower in Thievery than the Rogue who was too afraid to disable traps or pick locks. Yet he would not allow me to do it, despite being just as good when I use thieve's tools.

Also, this DM is known for putting very hard-to-pick doors in invoncenient locations, more than just "shoddy wooden doors" at level 1. So really, as always, this depends on your DM.


2) Aside from trained only skill checks, the only difference between a character trained in a skill and one not is a 5 point difference on the modifier. That pretty much kills any exclusivness a traind character has with a skill. He is only 25% better at it then a person not trained (if they both have a same ability modifier).

This isn't usually true. Most players will pick skills that they are already good at, based upon stat. Therefore, as they level, they'll naturally increase these skills by virtue of increasing their two important stats. As such, the Rogue will become better and better at Thievery and Stealth than, say, an Orb Wizard. Or the Elf Ranger will become better and better at Perception than the Sorcerer. This becomes even more true as the group comes to rely on the person with the highest ranks in each skill, to the point that those members will pick up items to boost it. So the Elf Ranger will pick up items to improve Perception, the Fighter will pick up items to boost Athletics, and the Rogue will pick up items to boost Thievery and Stealth... even if they only wear these items outside combat. What you end up with, at epic levels, can easily be a difference of 20+ points (my level 23 Elf Ranger has a Perception score 18 points higher than everyone except the Elf Cleric, and we have a party of 7 people. At level 30, this will easiliy be 20+ points higher).


Now both of my points are views on the subject, my opinion on what skills should be like.

Just as my views are opinions. :smallsmile:

Tehnar
2010-01-07, 08:57 AM
It's been a long time since I've played 3.x (thank you random person who actually played Pun-Pun at a table; no, seriously, someone played Pun-Pun at one of my tables so I quit 3.x permanently for 4e), but don't Fighters only get 2+Int mod skill points? So even a Fighter wouldn't be able to take the Athletics skill group you've outlined, which doesn't make much sense to me. It doesn't take a very smart person to learn how to swim, climb, jump, or balance... but a Fighter can only choose 2?

It was a proposed houserule; with it would also go the 4+int skills for a fighter and other classes, as I stated in paragraph 1 of my post. There is room for improvement, and refinement in the system.

I think it is also wrong to think that only by maxing a skill you are effective in it. Lets use jump. Todays world record is I think somewhere around 29 feet. Lets say 30 feet for ease of use.

Making a DnD character that can make those jump checks is easy. A STR 14 character with skill focus(jump), the run feat, the athletic feat, 5 ranks in tumble, and 6 ranks in jump has a +17 modifier on running long jump checks. And it only takes a level 3 human expert made using the elite array to get those modifiers. He can match the world record (and one that has not been broken in 20 years) 40% of the time.

So when you see someone with a skill modifier of +15 or higher, that means he can perform that skill at a level only the very best of the best can perform it in a analogy with the real world.


You've picked a bad example....
Ok, it might be a bad example, but the point stands. If at level one you have 10ft wide pits, and at level 20, 20 ft wide pits.. do you feel (as a character) that you are making progress? Is it fun that you are still hoping for double digits on your d20?



This isn't usually true. Most players will pick skills that they are already good at, based upon stat.

This is all true. However what happens when a fighter who wants to be more intimidating (and took skill training and skill focus), is usually outdone by a feylock, or any of the other charisma classes (especially at higher levels) even without any investments in that skill.

Maybe its a philosophical debate. I prefer that a guy with little talent, but a lot of hard work (represented by feats or skill points) in a skill will be much better then a guy with talent and no investments in that skill.

tcrudisi
2010-01-07, 09:09 AM
It was a proposed houserule; with it would also go the 4+int skills for a fighter and other classes, as I stated in paragraph 1 of my post. There is room for improvement, and refinement in the system.

I think it is also wrong to think that only by maxing a skill you are effective in it. Lets use jump. Todays world record is I think somewhere around 29 feet. Lets say 30 feet for ease of use.

Making a DnD character that can make those jump checks is easy. A STR 14 character with skill focus(jump), the run feat, the athletic feat, 5 ranks in tumble, and 6 ranks in jump has a +17 modifier on running long jump checks. And it only takes a level 3 human expert made using the elite array to get those modifiers. He can match the world record (and one that has not been broken in 20 years) 40% of the time.

So when you see someone with a skill modifier of +15 or higher, that means he can perform that skill at a level only the very best of the best can perform it in a analogy with the real world.

Oops. I read your entire post, but I have this amazing ability to forget things the moment I read them. Does anyone else find that, while reading a good book, they suddenly don't remember anything that they've read in the last few pages and have to go back and re-read them?

Concerning the Jump example, I actually expect nothing less. I figure in the real world, we are, at best, level 1 experts. Heck, at one point I was one of the best amateur tap dancers in North America. Even in my peak I would expect a level 3 Bard to be able to out-perform me if he had specialized as much as I had. He's a hero, he's just supposed to be better than us mortals.


Ok, it might be a bad example, but the point stands. If at level one you have 10ft wide pits, and at level 20, 20 ft wide pits.. do you feel (as a character) that you are making progress? Is it fun that you are still hoping for double digits on your d20?

This is once again using personal experience, but my Barbarian finds himself jumping over difficult terrain all the time. Sure, sometimes it's a pit that gets bigger by level, but most of the time it's in an effort to increase my mobility by jumping over the bones on the floor which hinder movement. By making a 10' jump, at level 20, I've just saved myself 2 squares of movement, which often will let me reach the bad guy.


This is all true. However what happens when a fighter who wants to be more intimidating (and took skill training and skill focus), is usually outdone by a feylock, or any of the other charisma classes (especially at higher levels) even without any investments in that skill.

Cincture of the Dragon Spirit (waist item from AV, available at really low level, allows use of Str instead of Cha for Intimidate). Now your Fighter is better than any of the charisma classes, unless they also took investments in the skill.

Blackfang108
2010-01-07, 09:42 AM
Maybe its a philosophical debate. I prefer that a guy with little talent, but a lot of hard work (represented by feats or skill points) in a skill will be much better then a guy with talent and no investments in that skill.

So do I.

however, the real world doesn't always work that way. I used to run Track, and I did Triple Jump and Long Jump off the field. I practiced those two events like mad for years.

Then in HS, someone decided to join the Jump teams. He'd never run Track, although he was an athlete (Baseball).

There he is, getting 3 feet beyond my best with zero skill ranks. Blast my short stubby legs.

Sinon
2010-01-07, 10:02 AM
2) Aside from trained only skill checks, the only difference between a character trained in a skill and one not is a 5 point difference on the modifier. That pretty much kills any exclusivness a traind character has with a skill. He is only 25% better at it then a person not trained (if they both have a same ability modifier).
One thing about 4.0 that you have to remember is that bonuses are a lot harder to find.

3.x, everyone has stat-boosting items and skill-boosting stuff was pretty dang cheap.

4.0 doesn't have that. So every little point, including these five, becomes more valuable in comparison.

Artanis
2010-01-07, 10:56 AM
1) The players may feel there is no point. If you have a 50% chance to pick a shoddy wooden door at lvl 1, and all you encounter are shoddy wooded doors; and at lvl 20 if you have a 50% to pick a sturdy adamantine door, and all you encounter are sturdy adamantine doors... then you don't really get a sense you made any progress.


By that very same logic, one could say that every aspect of the entire course of a campaign doesn't give you a sense of making progress. Sure, you get stronger, but your enemies get stronger too, so you have the same chance of beating them and it takes the same percentage of your resources to do so.

But that logic doesn't work, and it doesn't work for the same reason it doesn't work for skills: your enemies are meaner and nastier. That lock the Rogue is picking at level 1 is just a lock. The lock the Rogue has the same chance to pick at level 20 is a magic-reinforced adamantine security machine linked to traps that shoot electrified burning poison while crushing you beneath a lead boulder if you mess up.

Kiero
2010-01-07, 11:01 AM
Its not the condesed skill list that bothers me (though they went too far with it as well), its the autoimprovement of all skill as you level.

Except that in skills you are neither trained in, nor have a decent stat, that's largely irrelevant.

At the heroic tier in particular, the 1/2 level bonus is largely irrelevant for skills you aren't trained in.

Kaiser Omnik
2010-01-07, 11:17 AM
I never thought characters with many ranks in move silently and none in hide made sense. (Talking only about characters, no races with a bonus to move silently or hide.)

AllisterH
2010-01-07, 11:27 AM
I'm not sure if people have read the Conan books in *chronological* order (not published) but there's a nice scene in one of the latter ones (pre King of Aquilona) where Conan and his companions are exploring some crypt.

Conan identifies the markings of a spell and tells his companions what to look out for and they are impressed. Conan remarks (paraphrasing), "I've been battling wizards and ritualists for years now...I wouldn't be here if I didn't notice/pick up on their tricks".

I see the auto-levelling feature in the same way. By the time you get to epic, even that fighter should know SOMETHING about the Arcane. Indeed, he should actually be better than the "fresh out of the academy" apprentice when it comes to recognizing magical effects.

Evard
2010-01-07, 11:28 AM
Well get rid of the autoimprovement. Then replace it with a system where if you use a skill you can give that skill a check and when you get X amount of checks next to a skill you can add Y number to the skill...

example

if i'm not trained in bluff but i still use it i may fail, but for each time i use it i put a check next to it. after using the skill 8 times i get a permanent +1 to the skill.
This would encourage players to use skills and your improvement is not based on class or auto improvement. Yes if i'm trained in a skill i'll have a head start for that one. If i'm a wizard i can still learn to use athletic skills to train myself during battles.

this also lets me choose to pick up tricks of other classes like the conan example... but if i don't pay attention then i wont learn anything.

Kylarra
2010-01-07, 11:42 AM
Well get rid of the autoimprovement. Then replace it with a system where if you use a skill you can give that skill a check and when you get X amount of checks next to a skill you can add Y number to the skill...

example

if i'm not trained in bluff but i still use it i may fail, but for each time i use it i put a check next to it. after using the skill 8 times i get a permanent +1 to the skill.
This would encourage players to use skills and your improvement is not based on class or auto improvement. Yes if i'm trained in a skill i'll have a head start for that one. If i'm a wizard i can still learn to use athletic skills to train myself during battles.

this also lets me choose to pick up tricks of other classes like the conan example... but if i don't pay attention then i wont learn anything."Hey Bob come here, I want to practice my Bluff skill on you."
"Sure, I'll counter with my Insight."

repeat with Stealth vs Perception etc til both characters have maxed out their skills.

Evard
2010-01-07, 12:20 PM
Yes, but practicing on a friend/non hostile is not the same as practicing on a hostile enemy that wants to rip your throat out and or make you their slave....

Also if people want to practice outside of battle thats ok... make limits of how much they can train or how far a character can train their body per tier (limits on your greatness blah blah)

This way a character who is playing a rogue wants to sneak around all the time will gain experience in that skill but not their diplomacy skill (unlike leveling up)

Mike_G
2010-01-07, 12:24 PM
Well get rid of the autoimprovement. Then replace it with a system where if you use a skill you can give that skill a check and when you get X amount of checks next to a skill you can add Y number to the skill...

example

if i'm not trained in bluff but i still use it i may fail, but for each time i use it i put a check next to it. after using the skill 8 times i get a permanent +1 to the skill.
This would encourage players to use skills and your improvement is not based on class or auto improvement. Yes if i'm trained in a skill i'll have a head start for that one. If i'm a wizard i can still learn to use athletic skills to train myself during battles.

this also lets me choose to pick up tricks of other classes like the conan example... but if i don't pay attention then i wont learn anything.

This is kinda how the old RuneQuest system worked. If you used a skill, you checked it, and after going back home and training you had a chance to improve in any skill you'd checked.

It feels more realistic than the "everything improves as you level" theory.

nightwyrm
2010-01-07, 12:35 PM
Sure, such a system is probably more realistic. But as with anything, there's a trade-off between realism and ease of gameplay. Keeping track of individual skill use is simple with a computer, keeping track of it by hand is a ton of paper work. In any case, the skill system is mostly peripheral in D&D. The heart of D&D has always been the class & level combat system. Such detailed skill system would probably be a distraction. If one wishes to play a skill heavy game, one should use a skill based system.

Evard
2010-01-07, 12:35 PM
I've never seen rune quest before, but i would like to see 4e skill system move into something like that. I would like to see a fighter that can surprise people by being able to bluff his way out of Orcus killing him (ok a little extreme...) without having to waste feats or go out of his way to multiclass to get the skill. I actually never liked the idea that a class determines all of your skills. I could see a couple being class specific but the rest being dependent on the player's design.
like the ranger has to choose between nature and dungeoneering, i would say give both to the ranger and then let him pick from all the other skills what he wants. That would give a more "realistic fee"l of any type of person. The two is from being a ranger and knowing more about areas but the rest would be his/her personality.


*edit*

ease of gameplay? i find that the runequest type system would be far simpler than 3.5 skills

Kylarra
2010-01-07, 12:37 PM
Maybe you should play GURPS or some similar pointbased system Evard.

EDIT:

I could see a couple being class specific but the rest being dependent on the player's design. You can get another skill training choice "for free" by choosing the appropriate background in 4e, so this point is moderately covered.

nightwyrm
2010-01-07, 12:41 PM
Of course, once you start micromanaging your skills to be more realistic, there's no reason why you shouldn't extend it to the combat based abilities either. Why should a wizard's BAB go up if he never rolled an attack for several levels? Might as well ditch the level system and just use a point buy system for everything.

Evard
2010-01-07, 12:43 PM
well in 4e his BAB would not go up since there is no bab....

his int attacks do go up but that is what he is using to attack with...

Hal
2010-01-07, 12:43 PM
I would like to see a fighter that can surprise people by being able to bluff his way out of Orcus killing him (ok a little extreme...) without having to waste feats or go out of his way to multiclass to get the skill. I actually never liked the idea that a class determines all of your skills. I could see a couple being class specific but the rest being dependent on the player's design.


Well, that's the trade-off, isn't it? But then, that's also one of the benefits of 4e's higher feat numbers; you can afford to "waste" them on perks that don't directly translate to combat prowess.

nightwyrm
2010-01-07, 12:46 PM
well in 4e his BAB would not go up since there is no bab....

his int attacks do go up but that is what he is using to attack with...

He still gets his 1/2 level bonus on non-int attacks. At lv 20, a wizard hits with a sword about as well as a 1st lv fighter.

Evard
2010-01-07, 01:04 PM
well the level 20 wizard was bound to pick up something from watching the fighter ^ ^. Of course i don't know why a level 20 wizard would be using a sword for most of his powers anyways but i guess there is that wizard of the spiral tower paragon path.

Swinging the sword to hit is not the same thing as say... using the sword to cut a specific part of the foe's body so that the foe will be slowed or dazed the next round. Yes the level 20 wizard may be able to attack with a basic attack as good as the 1st level fighter but the wizard can't perform skillful attacks with the sword.

Sinon
2010-01-07, 01:11 PM
Well get rid of the autoimprovement. Then replace it with a system where if you use a skill you can give that skill a check and when you get X amount of checks next to a skill you can add Y number to the skill...



We already advance your ability to use skills based on experience: we do it with experience points.

In 3.5, you went up a level and chose which skills improved (whether you used said skill or not) by spending skill points.

In 4.0, you automatically improve at everything, (whether you used the skill or not.)

Neither is realistic. In 3.5, you could have gained a level fighting a dracolich on the elemental plane of fire and remain unable to make inferences about dragons, planar travel, or the undead. (While somehow you've still gotten better at "ride.")

4.0, you do get better at making those inferences, and riding.

It isn't realistic, but realism isn't the only concern. I look at the "tick mark each time you use a skill, a sword, a spell" type of system, and shudder at the hassle of it all.

valadil
2010-01-07, 01:19 PM
Of course, once you start micromanaging your skills to be more realistic, there's no reason why you shouldn't extend it to the combat based abilities either. Why should a wizard's BAB go up if he never rolled an attack for several levels? Might as well ditch the level system and just use a point buy system for everything.

In that case I say go play GURPs. Or any other system where combat is just another skill.

Eorran
2010-01-07, 04:34 PM
I'm not sure if people have read the Conan books in *chronological* order (not published) but there's a nice scene in one of the latter ones (pre King of Aquilona) where Conan and his companions are exploring some crypt.

Conan identifies the markings of a spell and tells his companions what to look out for and they are impressed. Conan remarks (paraphrasing), "I've been battling wizards and ritualists for years now...I wouldn't be here if I didn't notice/pick up on their tricks".

I see the auto-levelling feature in the same way. By the time you get to epic, even that fighter should know SOMETHING about the Arcane. Indeed, he should actually be better than the "fresh out of the academy" apprentice when it comes to recognizing magical effects.


"Lisa, you don't get to be an egomaniacal, homicidal psychopath without learning a few things about dynamite." -Sideshow Bob (paraphrased)

I agree that 3.5 and 4e both have the inherent "flaw" of level-based systems, that levelling up increases your ability to do things completely unrelated to what you spend time doing. I've never really tried a GURPS system, but it sounds a bit more suited to the OP's taste.

CarpeGuitarrem
2010-01-07, 04:40 PM
Swinging the sword to hit is not the same thing as say... using the sword to cut a specific part of the foe's body so that the foe will be slowed or dazed the next round. Yes the level 20 wizard may be able to attack with a basic attack as good as the 1st level fighter but the wizard can't perform skillful attacks with the sword.
Au contraire. A sword =/= a club. Even a basic attack requires skill, normally. In a world, though, where you can gain that basic skill simply by leveling up, it's just as reasonable to gain aptitude in skills simply by leveling up.