Unskilled Casters

[BiblioRook]

I've always had the desire to branch out into spellcasting with my characters, but after years of playing mainly rogues and the like I still remain a skillmonkey at heart and there's always been one issue I keep finding it hard to get past.

Spellcasters, almost as a rule, get less skillpoints.

For the sake of this arguement lets please ignore Bards, they are one big exception to this, but nearly every other class that focuses on magic (pristege classes included) always seem to fall in the mid to low side of skillpoint allocation (and moreso one the low end then the mid end).
Even classes that are merely spellcasterish seem affected by this (such as Pathfinder's Alchemist).

I've just always been curious as to why that is? For that mater, the reasoning just on how one class is more skilled then another in general I guess.



Edit: I also realize I'm probably going to get alot of "Casters don't need skills, they could just use [Insert spell] to duplicate the effects of [insert skill] better!"
That's really not what I'm talking about here.

[Tengu_temp]

1. 2+int skill points is the base, not low. It's what everyone but people who are supposed to focus on skills get. Spellcasters are not supposed to be skill monkeys, so they get the base amount of skill points.
2. Wizards and other int-based casters get a lot of extra skill points due to high intelligence anyway, so they can still be very skilled in numerous fields.
3. This should go into the 3e subforum.

[Mastikator]

Full spellcasters spend their time learning spells, not skills.

[Analytica]

Part of the problem is that the game originally saw skills as "things that thieves do". This is why you now can have someone who does world-shattering magic and has all the trappings of an elderly sage, yet who has no knowledges to speak of and who does not, in fact, know the old and obscure languages of magic.

That said: cloistered cleric, archivist, high-int wizard, beguiler.

[Calimehter]

Magic-use and fighting are not often listed as "skills", especially in D&D, but they really are, and they take time to train and hone just as anything else in a standard "skill" list would. Characters presumably only have so much time and natural talent available to to them, and so heavy investment in one will lead to lesser investment in the other. Hence, character classes with heavy emphasis on combat and spellcasting skills get less to invest in "skill list" skills.

That theory runs into trouble with some classes here and there in D&D - both total skill access and the variable power of various skills (magic vs. melee) are problems - but I would say it holds true overall.

[Slipperychicken]

You could just play a Factotum. 6+Int, with heavy Int focus and Spellcasting, you're netting more skill points than the Rogue. All skills as class skills? It's like a dream come true! Cunning Knowledge? Oh hell, now you're just annihilating those skill checks. Put one rank in a skill and it's like you maxed it once per day. You can Use Magic Devices, Autohypnotize, and use Lucid Dreaming like it's nobody's business, and prepare spells like a mini-Wizard, and dole out heals. All your skillmonkey goodness, plus per-encounter goodies like Cunning Surge, plus Spellcasting. If you miss your Sneak Attack dice, either blow IP on it, put ranks in Iaijutsu Focus and take EWP: Gnome Quickrazor, or just bust out your +1 Greatsword with a chambered Wand of Wraithstrike, and Power Attack like a man.

I think Beguilers get 6+Int(?) too, are Int-based, and get Silent and Still for free. Supposed to be rogue-y casters.


Casters focus their attention on honing their spells, so they have less time for learning other trades like swordsmanship or artifice. They do, however, always leave time for the gentle art of basketweaving.


.

[BiblioRook]

Yeah, I guess it's the 'skills are something thieves do' bit I'm more questioning.

It's just when I think about it that Casters have a fair amount skills they are kinda expected to be decent at but not the points to really go into them. Things like Concentration and Spellcraft for one, but also stuff like Knowledges, Crafts, and the variety of social skills too (because you must admit, unless you are making a point to focus on these skills it's more often the Caster that becomes the 'face' of the party).
Sure these things could be remedied by a high stat in the appropriate area, but that could be said for any class and even then you aren't really being skilled but rather getting by on happenstance.

I've heard the 'Casters spend do much time focusing on spells that they don't have time to learn skills' argument plenty before but I've never really considered it to be all that valid. Sure it fits things like Wizards who really would have spent years singleminded focusing on magic, but what of classes like Sorcerers who's magic more or less just comes to them naturally?

[Hylas]

From a more mechanical and balance standpoint there's a lot of answers to the question "why do casters get 2+int skill points?"

Back in the 3.0e days everyone got 2+int skill points except for classes that had fewer combat options like the Ranger, Rogue, and Monk. The original idea was that "you were average at everything except for the skills you put points into, which you're awesome at" and that smarter characters would learn how to do more things. However by the end of 3.5 and start of Pathfinder skills evolved into "things you're average at and you suck at everything else" because after play and real life testing it was kinda pointless to only have 2 ranks in a Knowledge skill because you couldn't get those sweet DC 25 checks to find out a monster's mother's favorite after dinner snack.

Originally everything is compared to the commoner. What does a fighter have over a commoner? Well he has twice the BAB progression, more than twice as many feats, twice as much fort save, and more than twice as many HP. What does a rogue have? Well he gets a bunch of skills, sneak attack, reflex saves, and a little more HP. A wizard get spell casting, which is so super awesome he gets very little else. So from the original design perspective

For balance, you have Fighters, which in theory, are the best at fighting and going toe-to-toe against anything, and that's why you have one hanging around. Rogues are around because they fill in all of the tricky things like disable device, lock picking, and stealth. Wizards are around to handle magically related problems, which include combat, but also a lot of utility, and using magic doesn't require skill checks (which is a whole 'nother issue beyond the scope of this thread), so wizards don't need skills.

I think if the game were made today with the same skill list you would have 4+int skills for a minimum and then rogues would top out around 10+int or 12+int. For more flavor maybe make it like "A fighter has 2 physical skills, 1 mental skill, and 1 skill he can pick wherever" and a wizard would have "3 mental and 1 whatever" to keep them feeling like their classes.

[Reaver225]

Is 6+int skillpoints enough? (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#clericVariantCloistere dCleric)

[vartan]

I just copied and pasted this from a thread I started a whole back:
1) As an Expert you get d6 hit die. SimpleWeapon Proficiencyand Light Armor proficiency. Then you are supposed to pick 10 skills as classskillsto spend your6+Int mod skillpoints on. I pick: Decipher Script, Spellcraft, Knowledge (Arcana), Use Magic Device, and some others- Profession, Craft, what have you.

2) I play as a human (yay more skillpoints)and formy two starting feats I pick Skill Focus (UMD) and Magical Aptitude- these bonuses stack, no? Assuming I get an 18 INT, put full ranks into my important skills, and I talk the DM into the Masterwork Tool for UMD that is sometimes discussed here. I could have a +15 on my UMD.

3) By the time I reach second level, because of synergies from Spellcraft and Decipher Script I could have a +20 on the UMD check for scrolls. I auto-succeed the UMD check for 0 and 1st level spells.

You could be not technically a spellcaster but have 10 skills that you want and be a skillmonkey that acts like a caster VIA umd. Very suboptimal, but I really wanna do it myself.

[Cespenar]

I just copied and pasted this from a thread I started a whole back:
1) As an Expert you get d6 hit die. SimpleWeapon Proficiencyand Light Armor proficiency. Then you are supposed to pick 10 skills as classskillsto spend your6+Int mod skillpoints on. I pick: Decipher Script, Spellcraft, Knowledge (Arcana), Use Magic Device, and some others- Profession, Craft, what have you.

2) I play as a human (yay more skillpoints)and formy two starting feats I pick Skill Focus (UMD) and Magical Aptitude- these bonuses stack, no? Assuming I get an 18 INT, put full ranks into my important skills, and I talk the DM into the Masterwork Tool for UMD that is sometimes discussed here. I could have a +15 on my UMD.

3) By the time I reach second level, because of synergies from Spellcraft and Decipher Script I could have a +20 on the UMD check for scrolls. I auto-succeed the UMD check for 0 and 1st level spells.

You could be not technically a spellcaster but have 10 skills that you want and be a skillmonkey that acts like a caster VIA umd. Very suboptimal, but I really wanna do it myself.

I think this is what a "caster" should have been all along. Of course, I'm a low-magic fan, so there's that.

[Devils_Advocate]

I've just always been curious as to why that is? For that mater, the reasoning just on how one class is more skilled then another in general I guess.
As Calimehter said, having less skill points isn't the same thing as being less skilled. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0209.html)


Edit: I also realize I'm probably going to get alot of "Casters don't need skills, they could just use [Insert spell] to duplicate the effects of [insert skill] better!"
That's really not what I'm talking about here.
It's an answer to the question you asked, though. You inquired as to why some classes get less skill points than others. The answer is that their power lies more in other things that aren't covered by skill points, often in ways that compensate for their lack of skill points.

Do you understand the basic concept that the different classes have different strengths and weaknesses?


Yeah, I guess it's the 'skills are something thieves do' bit I'm more questioning.
Older roleplaying games are rather like natural languages in that they developed gradually rather than being designed by a team of experienced experts. (There can't be experienced experts at something before it exists!) As a result, they have lots of odd little rules that are counterintuitive and/or plainly less than ideal.

In D&D, "skills" were tacked on to an existing system. That's just how things developed. If the system that non-weapon proficiencies developed into had been around from the start, maybe fighting and magic would be designed to work according to the same rules. You can see this in later systems, created after and informed by the development of Dungeons & Dragons, like GURPS and the Storytelling System, which... use skill-type rules for everything instead of combat skill and spellcasting skill not being covered by "skills".

Heck, even in D&D 4E, the classes all have their powers represented in pretty much the same way, don't they? (I've heard that they later undid this initial "Everyone uses the same system" simplification and placated the old-school desire for overcomplicated rules, but that was how it worked at first, right?)

"Well that's a stupid rule and they should change it!"
"They did!" (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0572.html)


It's just when I think about it that Casters have a fair amount skills they are kinda expected to be decent at but not the points to really go into them.
Concentration and Spellcraft are the only skills really directly related to spellcasting.


Things like Concentration and Spellcraft for one, but also stuff like Knowledges, Crafts, and the variety of social skills too (because you must admit, unless you are making a point to focus on these skills it's more often the Caster that becomes the 'face' of the party).
Of the stereotypical group of Warrior, Mage, Priest, and Thief, it's the Thief -- if anyone -- who is expected to have social skills. You can tell this because it's the Rogue and Bard that have these skills as class skills.

Spellcasters generally have enough skill points to max out the skills essential to their basic roles, but not nearly enough to be good at everything that you'd like them to be good at. Which makes them like pretty much every other class.

Again, the concept being that different characters have different strengths and weakness, in this case even if they have the same class.


I've heard the 'Casters spend do much time focusing on spells that they don't have time to learn skills' argument plenty before but I've never really considered it to be all that valid. Sure it fits things like Wizards who really would have spent years singleminded focusing on magic, but what of classes like Sorcerers who's magic more or less just comes to them naturally?
Similarly, why do different races require different amounts of training for their first level, but gain XP at the same rate? For that matter, why does it take more years of training to become a first-level Wizard than a first-level Rogue, but the same amount of XP to multiclass into either class? And how is murdering a bunch of orcs a workable substitute for years of training, anyway? There is no causal relationship between killing kobolds and the illicit manipulation of locking mechanisms!

If you really want realism, D&D isn't really the game for it.


In summary: If the purpose of this thread was to find out why the rules are as they are, then you've been provided with the simulationist and game balance reasons for these rules. If the purpose of this thread was to complain about the way the rules are, then my response to you is that what you're complaining about is a legitimate thing to dislike, and there are systems other than d20 that work the way it seems you'd prefer.

Does that cover everything?

[Hylas]

Off-topic, but a reply to the above (edit: 2 posts above): D&D is the only system I've played where spells auto-succeed without a skill check or chance of failure by default. In GURPS spells are just skills with a few special rules. In Dark Heresy you need to spend xp for each spell learned and there's a chance of bad things with each manifestation.

D&D is quirky.

[vartan]

Off-topic, but a reply to the above (edit: 2 posts above): D&D is the only system I've played where spells auto-succeed without a skill check or chance of failure by default. In GURPS spells are just skills with a few special rules. In Dark Heresy you need to spend xp for each spell learned and there's a chance of bad things with each manifestation.

D&D is quirky.

I don't understand what you mean, it is the skill check that auto succeeds, not the spell. I don't know anything about the other systems you mentioned, but unless you play by the rule that a natural one fails a skill check then you should be able to use this in any d20 system.

[Morithias]

I don't understand what you mean, it is the skill check that auto succeeds, not the spell. I don't know anything about the other systems you mentioned, but unless you play by the rule that a natural one fails a skill check then you should be able to use this in any d20 system.

What he means is that if you cast "knock" you don't need to make a caster level check versus the DC of the lock. Aka you have no chance of failure. On the other hand you CAN fail the skill check if you roll badly enough (unless your mod is so high you succeed on a 1)

[Gamer Girl]

I've just always been curious as to why that is? For that mater, the reasoning just on how one class is more skilled then another in general I guess.

Game Balance. The idea is simple enough: No every class is good at everything. It provides a nice reason that a group of people will adventure together: each has strengths and weaknesses.


But the makers of the game are not of the 'super optimized near cheating type' of players. And this is where most people have problems: making awesome 'Batman' characters. It's bad enough that people use the point buy cheat to get all high ability scores, and it only goes worse from there. Most optimized combat characters will always have maxed out search, spot and listen as they are the 'cool combat skills'. So the wizard will have a spot of like +20 so he can strike foes as soon as she sees them.

But that is not they way the game was made. They thought that a wizard folk would have a low spot skill and not be a super hard core eagle eyed scout blaster.

After all, if you play a normal game that is 'close' to the published rules, then characters already get way too many skill points. Any character can max out a skill to like +10 at 1st level with zero effort. So that is a 50% chance of beating a DC of 20. And a 1st level character won't find too many higher DCs. And then as the character levels up, everything just becomes pointless and automatic:"What is the DC? Ho never mind my super awesome character just automatically does everything." It can quickly become pointless to even put anything with a Dc in front of the character: "I look at the door and open it, again''. And while some gamers(the video gamer types) like to play D&D in 'auto win' mode, some players like to have the fun of failure.

[Godskook]

If you're wanting a solution to this issue, try:

Rogue 1/Wizard 4/Daggerspell Mage X/Unseen Seer Y

Gets, at its worst moment the equivalent of 5+Int skill points per level(at lvl 5), and the average goes up after that, getting within .5 skill points per level of a Bard.

With human and the feat Able Learner, you're holding on to the Rogue's full skill list for your entire career.

[ericgrau]

Past 26 int they get more skill points than a rogue with 14 int. The problem is getting class skills. Loremaster adds use magic device, speak language and 5 minor skills besides giving 4+int skill points per level. Archmage adds search. Maybe with a bit of digging you could find others.

I'm a fan of adding minor secondary focuses with 1 level dips instead of full blown dual class prestiging. For your lost caster level a dip in rogue grants you all kinds of class skills and trapfinding. Your max ranks in a skill remains the same as a full rogue for the rest of your career, but your future skill points in non-wizard skills cost double. You can still grab 4-5 rogue skills on top of your essential wizard skills.

[killianh]

Truth of the matter in my eyes is that fluff wise a caster knowing only magic and maybe being ok with some knowledge checks and the like makes sense. Int+2 gives the average caster enough points to max a knowledge, spellcraft and concentration at the very least with even more available skills to be mastered as Int increases.

Mechanics wise why on god's grey earth would a caster need anything more than the earth shattering powers they already hold? Most threads about casters are usually about trying to weaken them to make them more balanced with everyone else.

Balance wise the average cap DC for most checks is around 25 or 30 meaning after skill boosting items (if any) skill points, attribute bonus, and everything else a character can achieve the most difficult of tasks halfway through his career if any amount of focus is put there (3\4s of the way if you just max out a skill you have a high stat in). A level 1 Wizard with 20 int (18 plus race) can have 7 skills maxed out (same as average rogue) with even more of a bonus to those skills coming from the Int score. For example for a DC 20 Knowledge check (which is the base DC for "really tough questions" according to the PHB) that wizard would need to roll a 12 (4 ranks, 4 INT=+8 bonus to skill) to succeed. That's without any magic, feat to boost knowledge, class variant or any other form of optimization.

If anything its the fighter that really get's hosed in the skills department. Sure he can swing a sword and is really strong, but god forbid he has to balance or speak :smallyuk:

[Godskook]

I'm a fan of adding minor secondary focuses with 1 level dips instead of full blown dual class prestiging. For your lost caster level a dip in rogue grants you all kinds of class skills and trapfinding. Your max ranks in a skill remains the same as a full rogue for the rest of your career, but your future skill points in non-wizard skills cost double. You can still grab 4-5 rogue skills on top of your essential wizard skills.

See, all you're really going to do with a 1-level dip and cross-class skills is develop a benign rogue cancer. Sure, its not 'hurting you', but its also not helping either. You're a wizard with 24 extra skill points(not really cause of cross class usage) and 1d6 SA.

At least when you go with dual-class prestiges and Able Learner, you're getting a decent SA progression, decent skill points, and the opportunity for some class features that are pretty boss for an actual rogue+wizard concept, rather than being an eclectic wizard.

It basically boils down to this: Do you want to be a wizard who's not really a rogue, but tries to fake it, or a wizard who's also a rogue(and a rogue who's also a wizard). Cause when push comes to shove (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0627.html), a 1 lvl dip isn't going to cut it.

[ThiagoMartell]

Back in the 3.0e days everyone got 2+int skill points except for classes that had fewer combat options like the Ranger, Rogue, and Monk. The original idea was that "you were average at everything except for the skills you put points into, which you're awesome at" and that smarter characters would learn how to do more things. However by the end of 3.5 and start of Pathfinder skills evolved into "things you're average at and you suck at everything else" because after play and real life testing it was kinda pointless to only have 2 ranks in a Knowledge skill because you couldn't get those sweet DC 25 checks to find out a monster's mother's favorite after dinner snack.

Dude, only two classes had any changes to their skill points in the 3.0->3.5 conversion (Bard and Ranger)... so I have no idea what you meant by the bolded part.

[Curmudgeon]

Reaver225 (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13629284&postcount=9) already linked to Cloistered Cleric, which gets (6+INT mod) skill points. Their class skill list is a bit weak, but you can use this list (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19860850/Alternative_ways_to_get_new_Class_skills) to improve/change things around some.

For an alternative to the Bard you might also consider the Mystic Ranger (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19872054/Alternative_Class_Features_III?post_id=338428258#3 38428258) variant (Dragon # 336, page 105). They get the same skills, but casting starts immediately and goes up to 5th level spells.

[Lonely Tylenol]

Beguilers may well be the most skilled class in the game, because while they "only" get 6+INT skills per level, they are also an INT-based caster, so your INT is going to be much higher than that of a Rogue or Scout of the same level (a Human Rogue with 14 INT and a Human Beguiler with 18 INT have the same number of skills). What's more, they are a full list spontaneous caster with a skillful spell list: with Charm Person, Detect Secret Doors, Disguise Self, Invisibility, Knock, Glibness, and Freedom of Movement replacing Diplomacy, Search (to find secret doors), Disguise, Hide, Open Lock, Bluff (to lie), and Escape Artist (to escape or avoid a grapple), you can decide not to focus on these skills and still not suffer too great a consequence. Don't have the ranks to swing Open Lock? Don't worry--a crowbar will work until level 4, when you get Knock.

The only class that I believe is more skilled?

The Factotum, who also has 6+INT skills, but can focus on INT to the exclusion of all other attributes (including CON, if Faerie Mysteries Init. is on the table), has every skill on their list, Brains over Brawn for your physical skills (minus Concentration), Cunning Knowledge for almost everything else, and spell access--with a smaller per-day limit, of course, but a broader list, including all of the above skill-boosters sans Glibness, plus a great many others.

The two most skilled classes in the game, I believe, moreso than the Rogue, are INT-based casters with access to skill-based spells, because a high INT means more for skill access even than a high skills/level number.

Rogue and Scout fall within the top five, of course, but I don't think even a Ninja (who might be the "obvious" candidate to round out this list) can compete with a Wizard. I mean, sure, Wizards get only 2+INT and a limited list, but they also have enough INT for "2+INT" to still mean something. It's ther primary stat, whereas a Ranger or Ninja just couldn't swing it on Point Buy (meaning a Human Wizard, out of the gate, might have more skills than a Human Ranger). Skill access then becomes the only concern, but that can be overcome. Oh, and I know that this wasn't supposed to be mentioned, but spells.

Or, a Cloistered Cleric of Boccob (Magic and Trickery, or Mind and Trickery) or Kurtulmak (Luck and Trickery) or Olidammara (Luck and Trickery, or Mind and Trickery) or Mouqol (Pact and Trickery), which has Bluff, Concentration, Craft, Decipher Script, Diplomacy, Disguise, Heal, Hide, Knowledge (all of them), Profession, Speak Language and Spellcraft (plus Appraise, Intimidate and Sense Motive if you have the Pact domain, or +2 to Bluff, Diplomacy and Sense Motive if you have the Mind domain), with 6+INT skill points per level. INT is a dump stat for them, but no more or less so than a Ranger or Ninja (actually, perhaps less so, because a melee-focused Cleric can dump STR and pump it through other avenues), and, oh yeah, they have access to Wieldskill and Guidance of the Avatar, and just don't care about skill DCs anyway.

Or the Mystic Ranger variant, which is a Ranger, but also a full caster (for the first 10 levels). With Sword of the Arcane Order, it is also a Wizard.

So the most skilled characters in the game are simply those with INT synergy and spell access. Sure, you can only go so far without resorting to the "spells do everything" argument (I did four times--one for each entry), but point of fact is these characters are ALSO very skilled without it, by way of class design.

[Devils_Advocate]

So, I was recently reading a discussion where someone mentioned the concept of "siloing" in RPGs. The concept is that different types of character abilities -- for example, utility powers and combat powers -- are separate from each other, and it isn't possible to get more of one by sacrificing the other. The polar opposite of this a "point build" character creation system (e.g. GURPS) in which you can get more of anything you like by sacrificing anything else.

The relevance here is that the OP could probably be summarized as "Why aren't skills points siloed off from all of the other benefits of taking a level of a class?"

To which the answer is "Siloing is limited in d20, and skill points are no exception".

Note that while it's limited, it's far from non-existent. There are things that a character of any class gets from leveling up, though they increase at different rates for different classes. Everyone gets a minimum of +1/2 BAB, 2 + Int mod skill points, d4 + Con mod hit points, and +1/3 each save per level, so there are limits to how much you can trade these off for other things, with the notable exception of races and templates with level adjustments.

4E classes simply add to the minimums rather than multiply them more often than in 3E. Changing things as far as possible in that direction would silo class and level off from each other, with neither making reference to the other! But most players probably prefer character advancement options specific to class (and/or race and/or Ability score and/or other variable) and wouldn't like that.


I don't understand what you mean, it is the skill check that auto succeeds, not the spell. I don't know anything about the other systems you mentioned, but unless you play by the rule that a natural one fails a skill check then you should be able to use this in any d20 system.
I don't understand what you mean (particularly by "the" and "this"). The default for skill use is that there is a chance of failure, which only disappears in a case when a character can take 10 or 20 or has a very high skill modifier. Whereas the default for spells is that they just work, though there are frequent exceptions (e.g. every spell that allows a saving throw, though even many of those still have partial effects on passed saves). Cast dancing lights and, hey, bam!, dancing lights appear. The limiting factor on spells -- which is supposed to balance their power, but generally doesn't -- is that they're a finite (though renewable) resource: The wizard can only cast knock a limited number of times per day, but the rogue can make an unlimited number of Open Lock checks.


people use the point buy cheat to get all high ability scores
Man, whaaaat? You can't cheat on point buy and get away with it so long as the DM checks your math, and point buy makes it impossible to get all high scores by design! If you want to cheat your way to high Ability scores, rolling is where it's at!

Of course, using some absurdly high point buy instead of a normal one allows for a bunch of high scores, but so does 6d6 drop 3 lowest. So does "You know what, just put an 18 in everything", if that's the sort of thing that the group enjoys.


Most optimized combat characters will always have maxed out search, spot and listen as they are the 'cool combat skills'. So the wizard will have a spot of like +20 so he can strike foes as soon as she sees them.

But that is not they way the game was made. They thought that a wizard folk would have a low spot skill and not be a super hard core eagle eyed scout blaster.
Since when is Search a "cool combat skill" or a combat skill at all?

Is it really common amongst Wizard optimizers to forgo the various Knowledges to spend skill points on perceptual skills that are probably pretty well covered by another party member? That's news to me, if so. I guess I could see it as an OK choice for a build with those as class skills...


And while some gamers(the video gamer types) like to play D&D in 'auto win' mode, some players like to have the fun of failure.
Is a preference for automatic success really more common among video game players? I would think that in video games it's more common that there's not much of a story, and thus the satisfaction to be had is that of overcoming a challenge (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0107.html). Whereas in a more story-based game, it makes more sense to think of a chance of failure as something hindering one's progress, as removing it doesn't defeat the point of the exercise (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ItsEasySoItSucks).

[Godskook]

And while some gamers(the video gamer types) like to play D&D in 'auto win' mode, some players like to have the fun of failure.

Personally, I take offense at this characterization. It insults my intelligence as someone who'd consider himself a video gamer type. You can't 'win' unless you give risk to losing in a video game(or D&D). Otherwise, you're just 'progressing'(such as in peaceful-mod minecraft).

In fact, I challenge you to name a popular console game in which winning didn't involve risk of failure(no, Minecraft doesn't count, cause even the vanilla xbox version involves dying, and it'll eventually catch up to its PC brother).

[Calimehter]

I've heard the 'Casters spend do much time focusing on spells that they don't have time to learn skills' argument plenty before but I've never really considered it to be all that valid. Sure it fits things like Wizards who really would have spent years singleminded focusing on magic, but what of classes like Sorcerers who's magic more or less just comes to them naturally?

Well, even folks who naturally channel power instead of book-learning it will still need time to practice *how* to control/channel/enhance/etc. their power. Otherwise, sorcerers wouldn't need to go out and gain XP to learn how to cast 9th level spells, they would just know how to throw them them right out of the gate. I don't think that D&D is alone in this view of 'natural' spellcasters.

D&D 3.x does assume that sorcerers don't need to spend (quite) as much time as wizards getting the basics down . . . of course, 3.x also assumes that Sorcerers spend this extra time picking up extra simple weapon proficiencies instead of working on the types of skills covered under "skill points". YMMV as to whether or not you feel that was a worthwhile or characterful thing for your sorcerer to have learned, but hey, at least its there. :smallwink:

[ericgrau]

See, all you're really going to do with a 1-level dip and cross-class skills is develop a benign rogue cancer. Sure, its not 'hurting you', but its also not helping either. You're a wizard with 24 extra skill points(not really cause of cross class usage) and 1d6 SA.

At least when you go with dual-class prestiges and Able Learner, you're getting a decent SA progression, decent skill points, and the opportunity for some class features that are pretty boss for an actual rogue+wizard concept, rather than being an eclectic wizard.

It basically boils down to this: Do you want to be a wizard who's not really a rogue, but tries to fake it, or a wizard who's also a rogue(and a rogue who's also a wizard). Cause when push comes to shove (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0627.html), a 1 lvl dip isn't going to cut it.

With 4-5 extra skills, trapfinding and an int focus you can trap find better than a full rogue. You can also sneak around ok except you don't have such a high dex. Still helps yout your invisibility since wizards don't get silence. But if that really bothers you there's a 2500 gp magic item to help. Your disguise self spells and other related spells just got way, way better from your rogue-like disguise check plus 10. I suppose you could put the last skill into spot, and listen if you still have room. Sometimes that means preventing/getting a surprise round, and that's handy.

A real dual rogue/wizard loses more caster levels in exchange for only a couple more skill ranks per level (not 4 due to MAD). You get more sneak attack, ya, but you can't cast as well. A dip can cast almost as well. He's still mostly a wizard rather than someone who's now stuck with single target ray damage spells for the rest of his life. If you want to cast rays too, they do almost as much damage since you have more caster level damage dice and 1d6 sneak attack. It's also less conditional than having many sneak attack dice and facing immunities/lack of triggers.

[Godskook]

A real dual rogue/wizard loses more caster levels in exchange for only a couple more skill ranks per level (not 4 due to MAD).

1.Rogue/Wizard hybrids are not MAD. Its still the standard Int>Dex~=Con that Wizards already had. You can barely argue that they're DAD due to the increased desire to do Dex-related things.

2.After level 5, the build I posted gets 4 skill points per level more than a single level dip, adding up to an additional 60 skill points. With Able Learner, that's 3 more skills with nigh-max ranks(or more if you're getting ones with break-points in them).


You get more sneak attack, ya, but you can't cast as well. A dip can cast almost as well.

And a hybrid can cast almost as well as the dip, and that's only if we assume he's taking Daggerspell Mage. There's paths that don't lose a second caster level.


He's still mostly a wizard rather than someone who's now stuck with single target ray damage spells for the rest of his life. If you want to cast rays too, they do almost as much damage since you have more caster level damage dice and 1d6 sneak attack. It's also less conditional than having many sneak attack dice and facing immunities/lack of triggers.

1.Practiced Caster makes any argument you make about caster level moot.

2.Ray casters are not the only way to optimize a Rogue/Wizard hybrid

3.My typical SA is 6d6 base + 1d6/3CL, so by lvl 20, I'm getting at least 13d6 SA.

4.I also can get several free action attacks per round, and with 13d6 SA, it starts adding up quickly.

5.You seem to be anticipating a spellwarp sniper build, and I didn't list anything of the sort.

[Gamer Girl]

Since when is Search a "cool combat skill" or a combat skill at all?

It is for the optimized ''Kill, Loot, Repeat'' types. The Spot/Listen for any foes from far away, overwhelm them with mega blasty force, then loot the bodies, and do it all again.



Is it really common amongst Wizard optimizers to forgo the various Knowledges to spend skill points on perceptual skills that are probably pretty well covered by another party member? That's news to me, if so. I guess I could see it as an OK choice for a build with those as class skills...

Yes, it's all too common. The Optimized Roll Player type will always max out the 'combat cool skills' of Spot, Listen, Search. And yes, even to the point of ignoring obvious class skills. This type of player has to be in on all the action all the time. It would be unfun and unfair to them to be forced to sit at the table for something like a minute and do nothing while another player got to act just as that character could detect the monsters.




Is a preference for automatic success really more common among video game players?

Well, it is one of the top five problems with any video gamer that plays a role playing game. They think all games are video games. The vast majority of video gamers use cheat codes and the all popular 'immortal' codes.

[Lonely Tylenol]

Well, it is one of the top five problems with any video gamer that plays a role playing game. They think all games are video games. The vast majority of video gamers use cheat codes and the all popular 'immortal' codes.

These haven't been a thing in video games since the SNES generation. For the last 15 years, video games have been almost exclusively about the challenge--so much so that "the vast majority of video gamers" actually eschew solo or offline play in favor of online, competitive play, and seek out easter eggs instead of cheat codes (which is why the aforementioned codes haven't been seen since I was as young as some of my friends' children).

I haven't even played video games in two or three years (EDIT: on anything remotely resembling a regular basis; which is to say, I have played maybe once a month, on a social level), and I know that this is a blatant misrepresentation of "the vast majority of video gamers". It could, perhaps, be said that they play to win, but more importantly, they play to win difficult challenges.

[silverwolfer]

Gesalt it , just make it low level spells or something, so you don't break the power of your group or something. HAve your DM make some really weak water down wizard or something, that has a very limited spell list.

[ericgrau]

1.Practiced Caster makes any argument you make about caster level moot.

2.Ray casters are not the only way to optimize a Rogue/Wizard hybrid

1. Considering I was talking about spell access, I wonder if this mistake is on purpose. Or do you seriously believe taking that feat is the same as being a full caster or at only -1 level? That has little or nothing to do with anything.

2. So now you don't want to sneak attack with spells? :smallconfused:

Basically there are trade-offs on any hybrid build vs a pure caster or pure rogue. A dip pays less and gets less, simple as that. What you gain from going part way is far from nothing: trapfinding better than a rogue plus a couple extra skills (as much as I hate their overuse, this often means spot and listen) is nothing to sneeze at. What you lose from going all the way is far from nothing: losing spells is nothing to sneeze at.

Beguiler and Factotum are good points too, but there are still tradeoffs in spell access. This time by spell type rather than spell level.

To the original question, I think division of roles is a big part of the reasoning by the designers. Ideally each character in a classic party should be good at something different so each player has his turn to do something. If you want to mix you have to multiclass or use a PrC or give up something in exchange.

[Knaight]

After all, if you play a normal game that is 'close' to the published rules, then characters already get way too many skill points. Any character can max out a skill to like +10 at 1st level with zero effort. So that is a 50% chance of beating a DC of 20. And a 1st level character won't find too many higher DCs. And then as the character levels up, everything just becomes pointless and automatic:"What is the DC? Ho never mind my super awesome character just automatically does everything." It can quickly become pointless to even put anything with a Dc in front of the character: "I look at the door and open it, again''. And while some gamers(the video gamer types) like to play D&D in 'auto win' mode, some players like to have the fun of failure.

There are 36 skills in D&D, treating all Knowledge skills as one skill. Most characters have 2 or 4 skill points per level. I'm trying to see how this could possibly be too much, given that this covers almost nothing. Lets take your standard issue traveling warrior. Clearly, this person should be able to move around decently - so, that's Climb, Swim, Jump, and Ride. Clearly, this person should have some knowledge of the wilderness due to traveling, so there's Survival and Handle Animal on top of that, plus some Knowledge Local and Knowledge Geography. Basically everyone has some degree of social skills, particularly people who travel and are likely to see multiple cultures, so there's Diplomacy.

Here we have a character who barely covers the bases, with no room for anything else (they never had a profession, they know jack all about nobility, they don't have better than average senses, they have no mercantile skills, so on and so forth, they don't speak all that many languages, they have no real religious knowledge). There are still 9 skills critical to fulfilling this basic concept. Good luck managing 9 skills on 2 skill points per level. And yet, D&D somehow has too many skill points? If anything, it fails to really support the skill system at all, where the only skills with any real support are those that are represented by their own subsystem (e.g. skills involved in fighting).

[Godskook]

1. Considering I was talking about spell access, I wonder if this mistake is on purpose. Or do you seriously believe taking that feat is the same as being a full caster or at only -1 level? That has little or nothing to do with anything.

This is where I got caster level from, and thus made the point about practiced caster:


If you want to cast rays too, they do almost as much damage since you have more caster level damage dice and 1d6 sneak attack.

Can you at least see why I'd get the impression you were talking about caster level in general, rather than as it relates to spell level?

Either way, without heavy metamagic reduction(which can be quite frowned upon), 13d6 SA is going to be hard to make up with spell damage from 1 CL, spell level or no.


2. So now you don't want to sneak attack with spells? :smallconfused:

Are you really that unfamiliar with Unseen Seer optimization?

Steel Dance
Dancing Blade
Cloud of Knives
Wraithstrike
Greater invisibility

You're now attacking flatfooted touch AC for 4 attacks as free actions after casting, at a to-hit of CL+Int. And damage on Dancing Blade and Steel Dance are weapon-dependent, which means carrying the 3 sizing weapons can abuse size rules to your content, and Dancing Blade does full weapon damage, so using a solid +10 weapon is actually an option there.

And to my previous point, not a single ray spell was used, so you can now buff yourself with standard gish spells(including getting the full TWF tree as appropriate) and full attack during combat. -OR- you can play a standard god wizard who just happens to also hurt.