PDA

View Full Version : [d20r] Tinker Questionnaire Thread



Fax Celestis
2010-04-29, 06:57 PM
What do people think about capping the total result you can receive on a skill check at twice your relevant statistic before item modifiers, and then multiplying the cost for skill-enhancing items by a factor of 25 or 50?

Gralamin
2010-04-29, 07:02 PM
What do people think about capping the total result you can receive on a skill check at twice your relevant statistic before item modifiers, and then multiplying the cost for skill-enhancing items by a factor of 25 or 50?

So if you were crafting, and had 18 int, you could not possibly get higher then a 36 before items?

I'm not sure that is a good idea.

Fax Celestis
2010-04-29, 08:22 PM
The idea is to make skills less variable (read: 'less twinkable') while making skill bonus items more functional and less broken.

Crafting, in itself, needs an overhaul anyway.

Doc Roc
2010-04-29, 08:59 PM
This seems, to me, to be like nuking a fly.

I think you'd be better served to just reduce the possible bonus sources. You're writing a system, so you aren't obligated to deal with legacy mistakes. Don't band-aid a broken bone.

Mushroom Ninja
2010-04-29, 09:00 PM
If I've read correctly, the suggested rule pretty much kills skill-monkeys as a viable character type since it makes them just about as MAD as 3.0 psionics.

For example, if I wanted to build a rogue who was able to scale a brick wall, pick a high-quality lock, charm an irate barmaid, and pinch the keys off of a guard -- that is, if I wanted to build a classic suave, swashbuckling scoundrel -- I would need 15 INT, 13 CHA, 10 DEX, and 13 STR to meet the minimum requirements. I would need much higher stats to do anything more than those basics, and epic skill uses would be completely out of the picture. These minimum stats don't seem all that bad until you realize that the hypothetical rogue must have a much higher DEX than this to hit and damage things, and a higher CON to stay alive.

In the mean time, an Enlightened Devotee, Cleric, Sorcerer, or Medium would be, by in large, unaffected by this rule, furthering the gap between casters and skill-monkeys.

Fax Celestis
2010-04-29, 09:20 PM
See, that's why I ask these things. Case closed.

Person_Man
2010-04-30, 09:57 AM
I basically agree with Mushroom Ninja as well. Nerfing magical items that boost Skills just makes spells the superior alternative.

I forget where I read it, but my favorite Skill system is a mashup of SWSE and d20. It eliminates Skill points and replaces it with a Trained/Untrained system. Your check for any Skill is d20 + relevant attribute + 3 if trained + class bonuses + race bonuses +/- size for Hide and Move Silently - Armor Check penalties where relevant.

For every level of a class you take that has that Skill as a class Skill, you get one point for that Skill. Racial bonuses are the static (the only race that needs to be changed is Human). You are trained in a number of Skills equal to your Int bonus, and you can only be trained in a Skill if it is a class Skill for one of your classes. Skill Monkey classes get additional number of trained Skills as bonus feats (similar to a Fighter, one every other level or so). Any Skill can be used untrained, but certain uses of each Skill are Trained only. For example, anyone can use Diplomacy to try to improve an NPC's disposition towards you, but to use it in a combat situation requires that you be trained. Items, feats, and spells which boost Skills are eliminated (although some spells might effect them indirectly by changing attributes - which is why you also need to fix Wildshape and Polymorph).

It works well in that taking a few levels of a Skill Monkey class at low levels opens up a lot of Skills to be Trained in, but at mid-high levels the only way to be truly good at any particular Skill is to take a majority of your levels in a class that has that Skill.

Fax Celestis
2010-05-01, 03:53 PM
Next question: traditional 3.5 weapon proficiencies, or Weapon Groups (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/buildingCharacters/weaponGroupFeats.htm) as in UA?

Nohwl
2010-05-01, 04:08 PM
i like the 3.5 proficiencies better.

Mushroom Ninja
2010-05-01, 04:13 PM
Next question: traditional 3.5 weapon proficiencies, or Weapon Groups (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/buildingCharacters/weaponGroupFeats.htm) as in UA?

UA weapon group proficiencies make much more sense to me.

Istari
2010-05-01, 04:14 PM
I think that the Weapon Groups make more sense from a logical standpoint and they allow for more customization in classes like the Rogue or Monk which are normally stuck with some specific weapons types.

Mushroom Ninja
2010-05-01, 04:25 PM
I think that the Weapon Groups make more sense from a logical standpoint and they allow for more customization in classes like the Rogue or Monk which are normally stuck with some specific weapons types.

This too. Customizability already seems to be a theme of d20r, so weapon groups would keep with the theme.

erikun
2010-05-01, 04:37 PM
I would prefer Weapon Groups myself, or at least the idea of them.

Escheton
2010-05-01, 08:10 PM
I agree with all above, though be carefull that the fighter doesn't get himself a bunch of awesome free exotic prof's.

Kroy
2010-05-01, 08:22 PM
Weapon groups. I think doing something along the lines of "The rogue is proficient in light blades and 2 other weapon groups" makes more sense then "The rogue is proficient with Rogues are proficient with all simple weapons, plus the hand crossbow, rapier, sap, shortbow, and short sword." because it is more customizable, makes better fluff, and is less arbitrary.

Godskook
2010-05-01, 09:14 PM
Next question: traditional 3.5 weapon proficiencies, or Weapon Groups (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/buildingCharacters/weaponGroupFeats.htm) as in UA?

Neither.

Use weapon styles. You describe a primary style that you can wield under an agreeable restriction. Any weapon that qualifies for that style qualifies. For instance, a slashing-swordsman style can use any slashing sword(even to do non-slashing damage). Or an improve style gets the bonus only on the first attack. Pick restrictions that work for you, and then go with it. Then, players can invest something more expendable than a feat(xp or prowess) to add additional styles to the same feats.

Opens up weird and common weapon styles, such as the incredibly common "newbie" style of melee+crossbow style.

Animefunkmaster
2010-05-01, 09:27 PM
This may be a little off the rocker, but I enjoyed the skill set model I read about earlier in the d20r discussions. One thing I felt is that skills and proficiencies need to be tied together. For my games, I gave proficiencies based on skill set since skill set was given based on character background (and obtaining new sets from classes that were termed a skill monkey).

As for limiting bonuses to skills, perhaps limit what feats can be attempted based on skill ranks. I think limiting magical bonuses is scratching the larger problem of magic items in general.

For my idea of re-balancing the game, I prefer making mundane (or even mechanical) items more available with more options/flavor and making magical items fewer.

This runs the risk of outbalancing magic even more than it is currently, but I suppose that is another hurtle to cross and more bonuses you can give for classes that benefited most from magic items.

Fax Celestis
2010-05-07, 02:45 PM
People's thoughts on perhaps divorcing swift and immediate actions?

erikun
2010-05-07, 02:53 PM
People's thoughts on perhaps divorcing swift and immediate actions?
Seperating them is simplier, although keeping them together creates a bit of a tactical decision. Do you go all out, expending all your actions in one round, or do you keep a bit "in reserve" in case you need to spend an immediate action during your opponent's turn.

It works a bit better if you flip the swift/immediate relationship, though. With the given rules, you basically get a "free" swift action if you didn't spend an immediate action since your last turn. I recommend giving everyone a Standard/Move/Swift action for their turns, and allowing immediate actions during an opponent's turn only if they hadn't spent their swift action.

I also recommend downgrading actions. (That is, if you spent only a Standard and a Swift on your turn, you may "downgrade" the Move into a Swift and thus be able to take an immediate action later.)

Person_Man
2010-05-07, 02:55 PM
People's thoughts on perhaps divorcing swift and immediate actions?

It would certainly speed up combat. But it would also eliminate half of the Tome of Battle and many useful but not broken spells, such as Swift Invisibility.

Doc Roc
2010-05-07, 03:07 PM
Swift and Immediate actions were the single best thing to come out of 3.x.

Fax Celestis
2010-05-07, 03:10 PM
Swift and Immediate actions were the single best thing to come out of 3.x.

I should be clearer: "divorcing" as in "splitting them up", not "removing them". Make them independent action types, not the same action type with differing circumstances.

Doc Roc
2010-05-07, 03:12 PM
I should be clearer: "divorcing" as in "splitting them up", not "removing them". Make them independent action types, not the same action type with differing circumstances.

Oh, that's probably a lovely plan then.

Human Paragon 3
2010-05-07, 03:14 PM
Consider adopting 4e's Minor Action schema. I think this is one bit of streamlining they got right.

Valairn
2010-05-07, 03:18 PM
Divorcing swift and immediate actions is a good idea from my personal perspective. The rule can be clunky.... Also they really should be balanced separately. For instance with a Tome of Battle class I cannot use a counter and a boost in the same round, that doesn't strike me as particularly sensible, it more or less restricts my ability to use a very important class function if I need to counter specific occurrences, which are not guaranteed to occur.

Person_Man
2010-05-07, 03:56 PM
I should be clearer: "divorcing" as in "splitting them up", not "removing them". Make them independent action types, not the same action type with differing circumstances.

So each turn you get:

1 Move + 1 Standard + 1 Swift + 1 Immediate OR
1 Full Round Action + 1 Swift + 1 Immediate

And Swift/Immediate is no longer interchangeable?

Hmmm. Could work. But entire categories of classes don't use Swift and Immediate actions. So you'd be making ToB and Casters even MORE powerful.

Fax Celestis
2010-05-07, 03:59 PM
So each turn you get:

1 Move + 1 Standard + 1 Swift + 1 Immediate
1 Full Round Action + 1 Swift + 1 Immediate

And Swift/Immediate is no longer interchangeable?Correct


Hmmm. Could work. But entire categories of classes don't use Swift and Immediate actions. So you'd be making ToB and Casters even MORE powerful.Theoretically. One of the things I'm doing with d20r feats and class features is making them be swift/immediate triggerable. For instance, look at the Flick of the Wrist and Defender's Gambit feats.

Person_Man
2010-05-07, 04:08 PM
Theoretically. One of the things I'm doing with d20r feats and class features is making them be swift/immediate triggerable.

It could work. My only concerns are that it would slow down combat even more (which is already ridiculous if more then one player knows how to use Attacks of Opportunity and/or action advantage), and that it raises the level of crunch mastery needed (someone would have to explain to every newb that they need to find something useful to do with their Swift and Immediate action each round, or it's "wasted").

Draz74
2010-05-07, 04:19 PM
Perhaps if you're "divorcing" Swift and Immediate Actions, you could also "marry" Immediate and Opportunity actions to speed up overall play?

(That's an arrangement I've been considering for CRE8. I've even thought of "marrying" all three types of actions, but that feels a little restrictive -- though my friend who is helping me the most with development is in favor of it.)

I think allowing Move Action downgrade to a Swift Action is a two-edged sword, and has some negative effects. The idea being that you can generally move at the same time that you do something else, so movement isn't really taking up any extra time. Plus, the idea that it will generally make combat more mobile and dynamic if characters don't have anything better to do with their move action than, you know, moving.

Downgrading a Standard action to a Swift Action should certainly be allowed, though.

I'm also curious to see more arguments about whether "swift" or "immediate" should come "first."

Valairn
2010-05-07, 04:41 PM
Well the idea of an immediate action is more or less a counter or "oh-****" button. I take an immediate action to teleport back 5 feet from the HUGE FRIGGIN MINOTAUR TRYING TO NOM MY FACE.

While a swift action is kind of just something you can do quickly enough that it doesn't take away from the rest of your activities that round.

erikun
2010-05-07, 04:46 PM
Perhaps if you're "divorcing" Swift and Immediate Actions, you could also "marry" Immediate and Opportunity actions to speed up overall play?
I agree with this. If swift actions are just something you do during your turn, then there isn't much difference between immediate and opportunity actions. They end up being very similar actions which do basically the same thing. I'm not sure how balanced giving someone 1 + Dex modifier immediate actions (Combat Reflexes) would be, though.

I'm not sure why the Move > Swift option would be a problem, though. That is basically how 4e works, and it doesn't prevent most people from moving. How often will you want to spend two Swift actions and a Standard action in the same turn?