Gaols and Giants - Skills

[Eldan]

This thread is for the discussion of skills. First up to discuss:

Grouping: should we make groups of skills, ala Shadowrun, that can be bought as one pack?

Eliminating: are there skills that are unnecesssary or too niche?

For reference, these are all D&D core skills:

Appraise
Balance
Bluff
Climb
Concentration
Craft
Decipher Script
Diplomacy
Disable Device
Disguise
Escape Artist
Forgery
Gather Information
Handle Animal
Heal
Hide
Intimidate
Jump
Knowledge
Listen
Move Silently
Open Lock
Perform
Profession
Ride
Search
Sense Motive
Sleight of Hand
Speak Language
Spellcraft
Spot
Survival
Swim
Tumble
Use Magic Device
Use Rope

Any my personal comments on them:

Appraise: I've played for years, and I'm pretty sure I've seen this one used exactly once, for a check that, ultimately, did nothing. Either we give this one a lot more functionality (identifying magic items, perhaps), or we drop it. Shove it into craft or knowledge.

Balance: situational. I'd imagine it's campaign dependent. I've seen one or the other check in swashbuckling fights or rooftop chases.

Bluff: Probably the single biggest skill in my current campaign. I'd imagine my characters do more lying than actual talking.

Climb: Rarely used. I think my campaign got into flying territory before we ever had to climb anything. But it's a city campaign, so you can usaully organize a ladder or find some stairs. In the wilderness or some ruin, it would probably see more use.


Concentration: Quite big on spellcasters, rather useless on everyone else. I think Pathfinder made this one an inherent feature of magic, which I could see happening.

Craft: is a background thing. I like having it, just so you can say "This craftsman is much better than that craftsman" and attach a number to it,but I don't think I've ever seen any character use it much in game other than for prerequisites.

Decipher Script: very niche. Rarely comes up, but really, really good when it does, if used right. I'm unsure about this one.

Diplomacy: see bluff. This is a major one.

Disable Device: once? Maybe? I don't like using traps as a DM, might be different for others. Shove it into open lock.

Disguise: often, and with pleasure. Personally, one of my favourites, all the characters I play just have to have some shapeshifting.

Escape Artist: rarely, but good when it comes up. Problematic, I guess this is one to merge.

Forgery: extremely powerful. Useless in the wrong kind of campaign.

Gather Information: I don't like it, personally. This one should be replaced by a Knowledge: local check, some talking, some bribing and maybe a diplomacy check or two.

Handle Animal: animals can be quite useful at the lower levels. I've seen trained hawks, dogs, monkeys, rats and other critters all used very well.

Heal: this one can't go. It just needs to be expanded to do a bit more when compared to healing magic.

Hide: certainly.

Intimidate: invaluable, I think. Might need some expansion.

Jump: There was a rooftop chase once or twice. What else is there? Pits? If anyone actually took this, I'd be tempted to throw some chasms into the campaign just so they wouldn't have wasted their points.

Knowledge: oh yes. Can't lose this. What needs to change here is the monster identification DCs. Base them on the monster's rarity, not it's power.

Listen: has to stay.

Move Silently: same.

Open Lock: see disable device, but more often used.

Perform: I like having a few points in a few different ones. A gentleman has to know how to dance and read a few poems.

Profession: see craft, except this is used even less. Like craft, this is something that comes up in backgrounds, not in play.

Ride: probably merged with handle animal? Some people really like their mounts, I've noticed.

Search: not much to say about this one. It stays.

Sense Motive: another one without much dispute.

Sleight of Hand: I love it. Comes up often.

Speak Language: clunky, as a skill. A different solution, perhaps.

Spellcraft: merge with knowledge: arcana?

Spot: yup.

Survival: yup.

Swim: would come up if there was water.

Tumble: a one-use skill. needs to be expanded or merged.

Use Magic Device: too good. My suggestion is making it a charisma check everyone can attempt with magic items.

Use Rope: too specialized.

[Morph Bark]

I think Pathfinder did very well on combining Decipher Script, Forgery and Speak Language to form the Linguistics skill.

Hide and Move Silently are prettymuch never used seperately, so I'd combine those two.

[toapat]

I think Pathfinder did very well on combining Decipher Script, Forgery and Speak Language to form the Linguistics skill.

Actually, that is the worst thing on the skills end of all that Pathfinder does.

Decipher Script and Forgery are opposed skills, Forgery has more in common with the Disguise check then Decipher Script, being that Forgery is (while not accurately named as such), one's ability to write or forge official documents, as well as setting the DC for impersonating a person via identity theft.

[Knaight]

I'm all for condensing the list fairly dramatically, and then keeping specializations open. So, for instance, you can take Athletics, then have +Swim -Climb or something applied on top of it.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Let's take a step back and look at skill categories. As I see it, there are four things skills do:

Physical Actions
Mental Actions
Interaction with People
Interaction with the Environment


On the current list, we can organize them like this:

Physical Actions

Balance
Climb
Escape Artist
Hide
Jump
Move Silently
Ride
Sleight of Hand
Swim
Tumble
Use Rope


Mental Actions

Appraise
Concentration
Craft
Decipher Script
Forgery
Heal
Knowledge
Perform
Profession
Speak Language
Spellcraft
Use Magic Device


Interactions with People

Bluff
Diplomacy
Disguise
Gather Information
Handle Animal (I know, not quite people, but close enough)
Intimidate
Sense Motive


Interactions with the Environment

Disable Device
Listen
Open Lock
Search
Spot
Survival


Now, it occurs to me that it would be good to have an equal number of skills in each category. Giving us a condensed skill list to be something like:

Physical Actions

Acrobatics (Jumping, flipping, balancing, tumbling, etc)
Athletics (Climbing, jumping, running, swimming, etc)
Sleight of Hand
Stealth


Mental Actions

Knowledge
Linguistics (new languages, figuring out languages, forgery, spotting forgeries, etc)
Heal
Profession (Covers craft and performance skills too)


Interactions with People

Deception
Persuasion
Insight
Intimidation


Interactions with the Environment

Devices (lockpicking, traps)
Investigation
Perception
Survival


Now, those are fairly broad skills, many of them, covering multiple roles. So what I propose is that we steal a page from Exalted and introduce specialties. Here's how it'd work.

We'd have class skills and cross-class skills, just like 3.5, except that both types would be purchased at a cost of one point per rank. Your ranks in class skills would be limited to the medium progression, while ranks in cross-class skills would be limited to the poor progression.

BUT, you can also buy Specialties, at the cost of 1 or 2 ranks per point. Specialties would stack with skills, and would allow you to increase your ranks in a specific aspect of a skill to the next progression's cap (level+3 for class skills, 2/3 level +3 for cross-class).

For example, Eldan the 10th level bard has 10 ranks in Deception, the maximum allowed for a class skill. However, he also has a 3-point Specialty in "Disguise," granting him a +3 bonus to Deception rolls involving disguising himself.

[toapat]

Am i the only person on these boards who understands that Linguistics is the worst conglomerate skill immaginable?

[Morph Bark]

You're probably not the only one who thinks that, but considering Forgery has a lot to do with language and nothing with altering the way you look, I would never couple it with Disguise. Plus, Forgery and Decipher Script are already both Int-based, whereas Disguise, like the social skills, is Cha-based, so it makes sense mechanically.

Grod's grouping sounds good for a rough start, though I don't agree with the rest.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Appraise: I've played for years, and I'm pretty sure I've seen this one used exactly once, for a check that, ultimately, did nothing. Either we give this one a lot more functionality (identifying magic items, perhaps), or we drop it. Shove it into craft or knowledge.

I'd say combine Appraise, Disable Device, and Open Lock into a generic Devices skill: you can identify the quality, composition, and strongest/weakest points of items, which lets you break, disable, or jury-rig them as needed.


Balance: situational. I'd imagine it's campaign dependent. I've seen one or the other check in swashbuckling fights or rooftop chases.

Balance is basically a skill tax to avoid being flat-footed while balancing, and it's too situational otherwise. I'd fold it into Tumble.


Concentration: Quite big on spellcasters, rather useless on everyone else. I think Pathfinder made this one an inherent feature of magic, which I could see happening.

If you want to expand rather than eliminate it, you could draw inspiration from psionic focus, Autohypnosis, and the Combat Form feat line. Use Concentration to take 10 with Dex-based skills under pressure, improve defensive fighting/Combat Expertise/etc. bonuses against a single opponent, resist combat maneuvers, act while disabled, and other "mind over matter" abilities.


Decipher Script: very niche. Rarely comes up, but really, really good when it does, if used right. I'm unsure about this one.

Forgery: extremely powerful. Useless in the wrong kind of campaign.

Speak Language: clunky, as a skill. A different solution, perhaps.

I'd combine these three into a Linguistics skill a la PF, but instead of learning new languages, you'd be able to make checks to convey simple messages, mimic accents, and that sort of things. That makes the various learn-X-language or add-X-to-bonus-languages abilities more useful and lets you have creatures that don't share a language with the party without requiring magic to get along, and folding Forgery into a more generally-useful skill would reduce its power somewhat as now people might actually take ranks in it.


Jump: There was a rooftop chase once or twice. What else is there? Pits? If anyone actually took this, I'd be tempted to throw some chasms into the campaign just so they wouldn't have wasted their points.

I'd just get rid of the skill, personally, and have a flatter jumping distance based on speed, size, Str, and Con. If you're going to be jumping over pits and such most of the variation in Jump doesn't matter because pits tend to come in 5-foot width increments, and being able to jump a 20-foot pit one day and missing a 5-foot jump the next doesn't make much sense.


Search: not much to say about this one. It stays.

I'd disagree. What is Search beyond a bunch of methodical, repeated Spot checks? The only real difference is using Int for Search and Wis for Spot, but that isn't set in stone given that there's been discussion about changing up key abilities for certain skills or allowing a choice of multiple stats for a given skill.


Actually, that is the worst thing on the skills end of all that Pathfinder does.

Decipher Script and Forgery are opposed skills, Forgery has more in common with the Disguise check then Decipher Script, being that Forgery is (while not accurately named as such), one's ability to write or forge official documents, as well as setting the DC for impersonating a person via identity theft.

Decipher Script and Forgery are two sides of the same coin. Both require knowing about physical aspects of writing (writing materials, medium, handwriting, etc.), writing conventions (alphabets, vocabulary, idioms, etc.), and interpretation (ciphers and codes, making things more or less archaic, interpolating missing information, etc.). The difference is that one is used to deceive and one is used to reveal, but someone who knows about one would logically know plenty about the other.

Yes, Forgery can be used in conjunction with Disguise, and yes they're opposed, but Bluff can be used in conjunction with Diplomacy and you can oppose a skill with itself (such as with, say, Forgery), so those aren't really good objections.


I'm all for condensing the list fairly dramatically, and then keeping specializations open. So, for instance, you can take Athletics, then have +Swim -Climb or something applied on top of it.


Now, those are fairly broad skills, many of them, covering multiple roles. So what I propose is that we steal a page from Exalted and introduce specialties.

Seconded. Grod's proposed list looks good for the most part, though I don't know if I like Profession as a "mental action"--it's supposed to be a bunch of background training that could be applied to a bunch of things. For instance, Profession (Sailor) could involve the physical actions of knot-tying and balancing on a ship's deck or rigging, the mental actions of knowing about the weather and identifying ship designs, the people-interaction actions of working with/commanding a crew and catching up with gossip on shore leave, and the environment-interaction actions of navigating at sea and repairing a ship's equipment.

I'd personally either make Profession a skill that augments other skills by giving synergy bonuses, replacing certain skills in certain circumstances (e.g. Profession [Merchant] replaces Diplomacy for haggling), and so forth, or replace Profession with a feat similar to Jack of All Trades that gives virtual skill ranks in a certain number of skills related to your background (something like "gain 1/2 level virtual ranks in X skills" or "pick one Craft, one Knowledge, and one Perform and gain X virtual ranks in each" or whatever).

To replace it and keep the numerical symmetry, how about splitting Knowledge up into Lore (historical/long-term/secret knowledge, covering ancient or legendary creatures, artifacts, gods and the planes, political history, lineages, and such) and Knowledge (current/popular/common knowledge, covering local fauna, minor magic items, religions and temples, geography, current nobility, and such)? It would help break up an exceptionally broad skill, and it would provide a nice distinction between the hedge mage that can identify spells and the socialite that can tell you who's who among the kingdom's nobility on the one hand and the arcane scholar that knows more about the theory of magic and the diplomat that knows more about the broader political trends on the other.

[Eldan]

There's one thing I was thinking aobut in the races section: backgrounds.

Many races, as written in the players handbook include features that are clearly cultural, not genetic, like the various bonuses to killing giants there are in core. Should we make cultural/professional backgrounds? Having a profession background would then give +2 to relevant skills, such as profession: sailor to balancing, use rope, climbing and navigation on ships.

[Eldan]

I'd like a few more categories, too. How about:

Ancient Lore: History, Legendary creatures, distant lands
Arcane Knowledge: Planes, magic, magical creatures
Practical Knowledge: Customs, religions, geography, architecture
Acrobatics: Tumbling, Climbing, Balancing
Athletics: Swimming, Jumping, Endurance?
Perception: Vision, Hearing, more specialized ones like smell, touch, taste (identify chemicals, find poison)
Stealth: hiding, moving silently
Linguistics: Deciphering, piecing together languages, forgery, calligraphy
Mechanics: Opening locks, appraising, repairing items, disabling traps and mechanical items,crafting
Social Skills: bluffing, diplomacy, sense motive
Survival: handle animal, ride, navigation, tracking, foraging
Skullduggery: Disguise, sleight of hand, others like that.

Then we give everyone three or four to begin, and the option to specialize into one sub-area for a +2 bonus. Skill monkeys get more specializations.

and we can still leave the option open to have different sub-areas key off different attributes. Picking a lock is Mechanics (dex), while appraising an item is mechanics (intelligence). Lying is social (charisma), while sense motive is social (wisdom).

[PairO'Dice Lost]

and we can still leave the option open to have different sub-areas key off different attributes. Picking a lock is Mechanics (dex), while appraising an item is mechanics (intelligence). Lying is social (charisma), while sense motive is social (wisdom).

To keep things simple, I'd tie using different attributes to specialization. If you just have ranks in Mechanics you use Dex for everything, but if you choose to specialize in Mechanics [Appraise] you can use your Int for that area if it's higher. It's not as granular or realistic, but it would encourage specialization by giving it an extra perk, and it means you can easily write down all of your modifiers on your sheet beforehand instead of having to enumerate every single subskill or add in your stat on the fly.

[Eldan]

Fair enough ,that should work. Any comment on the areas I suggested?

[Morph Bark]

There's one thing I was thinking aobut in the races section: backgrounds.

Many races, as written in the players handbook include features that are clearly cultural, not genetic, like the various bonuses to killing giants there are in core. Should we make cultural/professional backgrounds? Having a profession background would then give +2 to relevant skills, such as profession: sailor to balancing, use rope, climbing and navigation on ships.

Something that might be useful (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=10848960)?

[Eldan]

Ooh, I remember that one. I meant to look at it.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I'd like a few more categories, too. How about:

Ancient Lore: History, Legendary creatures, distant lands
Arcane Knowledge: Planes, magic, magical creatures
Practical Knowledge: Customs, religions, geography, architecture
Acrobatics: Tumbling, Climbing, Balancing
Athletics: Swimming, Jumping, Endurance?
Perception: Vision, Hearing, more specialized ones like smell, touch, taste (identify chemicals, find poison)
Stealth: hiding, moving silently
Linguistics: Deciphering, piecing together languages, forgery, calligraphy
Mechanics: Opening locks, appraising, repairing items, disabling traps and mechanical items,crafting
Social Skills: bluffing, diplomacy, sense motive
Survival: handle animal, ride, navigation, tracking, foraging
Skullduggery: Disguise, sleight of hand, others like that.

Then we give everyone three or four to begin, and the option to specialize into one sub-area for a +2 bonus. Skill monkeys get more specializations.

and we can still leave the option open to have different sub-areas key off different attributes. Picking a lock is Mechanics (dex), while appraising an item is mechanics (intelligence). Lying is social (charisma), while sense motive is social (wisdom).

That is exactly the same number of skills that I proposed, but leaving out things like Intimidate, Sleight of Hand, and Heal. Also, I feel like a lot of the combinations are somewhat... weird. How is climbing an acrobatic action? How are Disguise and Sleight of Hand related? I do like the Knowledge split, though-- works well with specializations.

PairO'Dice, you're right about Profession. It should probably never be more than a Specialization. Let's take it and knowledge and split them into Lore (magic, history, the planes, etc) and Experience (politics, culture, etc). Not sure if they need more granular subdivisions, or if we can get by with Specializations. It'd be nice if we could do the latter...

For backgrounds, I feel like when we design the races, we should have a block of custom-specific attributes and bonuses that can be easily changed-- a feat and a skill bonus or something.

[Eldan]

That is exactly the same number of skills that I proposed, but leaving out things like Intimidate, Sleight of Hand, and Heal. Also, I feel like a lot of the combinations are somewhat... weird. How is climbing an acrobatic action? How are Disguise and Sleight of Hand related? I do like the Knowledge split, though-- works well with specializations.

PairO'Dice, you're right about Profession. It should probably never be more than a Specialization. Let's take it and knowledge and split them into Lore (magic, history, the planes, etc) and Experience (politics, culture, etc). Not sure if they need more granular subdivisions, or if we can get by with Specializations. It'd be nice if we could do the latter...

For backgrounds, I feel like when we design the races, we should have a block of custom-specific attributes and bonuses that can be easily changed-- a feat and a skill bonus or something.

Oh, right. At first, I thought you only introduced four skills. Heal would have to find a place. Disguise and Sleight of Hand just belong in the sort of same area of expertise to me.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Oh, right. At first, I thought you only introduced four skills. Heal would have to find a place. Disguise and Sleight of Hand just belong in the sort of same area of expertise to me.

They're archtypically similar, but... disguise involves preparation-- getting the right clothes, wigs, etc-- and a lot of acting ability-- copying mannerisms, expressions, etc. In other words... bluffing someone into believing that you're a different person. Sleight of Hand involves having nimble fingers. Completely unrelated skills. We might fold it in with Open Lock and Disable Device and call the whole thing Thievery, but that's probably getting a bit too general.

[Eldan]

With Performance, maybe?

[Grod_The_Giant]

With Performance, maybe?

Performance is being pushed back to a Specialty, along with the rest of the former Profession options.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Hmm. Did a semi-organized chart... my list is missing four useful skills: Concentration, Handle Animal, Ride, and UMD.

UMD, we were talking about replacing, so that's no biggie. Concentration can take on Autohypnosis' functions and become more useful for non-casters, or it could possibly be ditched altogether. Handle Animal and Ride could probably be merged, I suppose, although they're a little too distinct for me to be entirely happy with that idea.

Also, if we add Concentration and Animals, I think we should break Knowledge down a bit more into Lore, Expertise, and Occult (Eldan's three categories with new names). That takes us up to a nice 15 skills.

[Eldan]

We should be fine then. I think that works.

Now, how exactly would specializing work? How would you pay for it, and what is the benefit?

[Sgt. Cookie]

If I might chip in?

I propose that whatever you end up using for spot/listen/perception, whatever, these are class skills (or whatever is used instead) for EVERYONE, EVER.

It struck me as weird that all classes got Craft, but not Spot/Listen.

[Eldan]

Ah, we discussed that in the main thread.

There won't be any class skills. Everyone can take whatever they want.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Ah, we discussed that in the main thread.

There won't be any class skills. Everyone can take whatever they want.

We discussed it, but didn't decide. I, for one, am very much in favor of retaining class skills. All skills should be bought at the same cost, but your caps should be higher for class skills.

Perception will 100% for sure be on every class list.

Specialties... was my description unclear? If a skills is a class skill, you can buy ranks up to the medium progression using skill points as normal. Cross-class skills can go up to the poor progression. Then you can buy specialties, again using skill points. Specialties are basically untyped (I know, I know...) bonuses to a particular aspect of a skill. Your specialty bonus plus your ranks in the base skill can't exceed a good progression (for a class skill) or a medium progression (for a cross-class skill). You can also get specialties in things that don't really appear on the skill list, like crafting, in which case you can buy ranks up to the poor progression.



To achieve superhuman skill feats, we were going to use skill tricks, yes? They're based on base skill ranks. So, if we accept skills at being capped at the medium progression (going up to 18 ranks at 20th level), how about we have three "tiers' of skill tricks?

5 skill ranks: heroic. Neat tricks that are within the realm of human possibility.
10 skill ranks: legendary. These are near- or fully-superhuman feats of skill and daring.
15 skill ranks: epic. These are flat-out superhuman abilities, based more on epic skill uses than what bodies can actually do.

Each skill should have at least one, and preferably 2-3 per tier. Skill tricks would be obtained by spending one or two skill points to learn a trick.

[Eldan]

Please no. Skill tricks were a pretty bad idea to begin with. We can do something *like* skill tricks, maybe, but I think they should be gained just like that, without additional resource investment.

[Morph Bark]

Turn most skill tricks into parts of skills normally, and make some feats into a new kind of "skill tricks"?

[Grod_The_Giant]

Please no. Skill tricks were a pretty bad idea to begin with. We can do something *like* skill tricks, maybe, but I think they should be gained just like that, without additional resource investment.

I guess we could have them granted automatically. I was thinking that it'd be nice to offer choice.

Also, when I say "skill tricks" I don't mean the crappy 'limited use, worse than a feat' things that 3.5 has. Legendary tricks that replace low-level spells like Spider Climb; Epic tricks should be flat-out superhuman abilities, allowing you to literally leap tall buildings in a single bound.

[Morph Bark]

I have yet to read through it myself, but I've heard great things about the Tome of Prowess, so maybe that'd be worth checking out for this.

[Gamer Girl]

Am i the only person on these boards who understands that Linguistics is the worst conglomerate skill immaginable?

No. I'm against all combined skills.

The Big Problem 1: Every class gets too many skill points as it is and skill DC are not high enough in a normal game. By about 3rd level and easily by 5th level, most skills become useless. A character will have so many pluses, that to roll is pointless as the character will automatically make the roll. The 10th level rogue can easily have 13 ranks, plus 5 from dexterity, 2 from at least one feat, 2 from at least one magic item and 2 from at least one more source like masterwork tools in Open Locks, for a total of 24-25 at least. So average and good locks are automatic. And it does not take much more effort to boost that 25 to 30 or 40 and make all locks pointless.

The Big Problem 2: Optimizers and Roll Playing. This type of player is just playing the numbers. They think that automatically winning every single roll and DC is fun. I don't get it myself, if you know you can't loose: why bother?

So the end result if you combine skills is that you give way more skill points for each character to use. Now they have the 'infinite plus' in every skill and automatically make any skill roll.

But all that aside, combining skills just does not make sense. Take Hide and Move Silently. Lots of people like to combine the two into stealth. As if anything sneaky both hides and is quiet. But that is not true. You don't always need to do both at the same time. For example, a character might want to walk across some gravel road. The character is not hiding as they are out in the open, but they don't want the nose to attract the guards in the nearby shack. So why should 'hide' help you here? It's worse for combining Spot and Listen in to Awesome Senses or whatever.

And finally, you really need to step outside yourself when you do something like this. You might have never used appraise in a game, but I'll bet several hundred other gamers have...

[Morph Bark]

No. I'm against all combined skills.

I think the opposite effect is far less desireable though. You also seem to have a very specific taste that I rarely come across, so this may not be the fix for you.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Ok. Our current skill list is as follows:


Acrobatics (Jumping, flipping, balancing, tumbling, etc)
Animals (including ride, handle animal, and wild empathy)
Athletics (Climbing, jumping, running, swimming, etc)
Concentration (including many Autohypnosis tasks)
Deception (lying)
Devices (lockpicking, traps)
Expertise (politics, culture, etc)
Heal
Insight (seeing through lies and bluffs)
Intimidation
Investigation (searching, gathering information, etc)
Linguistics (figuring out languages, forgery, spotting forgeries, etc)
Lore (history, religion, etc)
Occult (spells, magical creatures, etc)
Perception
Persuasion (trying to make a deal)
Sleight of Hand
Socialization (generally ingratiating yourself to people)
Stealth
Survival (geography, navigation, wilderness skills, etc)


Dropping synergy bonuses, and adding specializations.

[Eldan]

Let's see. What haven't we covered...

Appraise. Where would it go? Expertise? Devices? Probably not a big loss anyway.
Craft. Does that go into backgrounds now? How do we make rules about what you can and can not craft, in which quality, and how quickly?
Disguise. Where does it go? Deception, maybe? Doesn't quite seem to fit.
Perform. Again, how do we scale backgrounds numerically, if this goes there? How do we tell how good a performance is?
Languages: how do you learn new ones? (Probably a different system altogether).

[Grod_The_Giant]

Let's see. What haven't we covered...

[QUOTE]Appraise. Where would it go? Expertise? Devices? Probably not a big loss anyway. Depends on what you're appraising. Expertise, Lore, or a Specialty, probably.


Craft. Does that go into backgrounds now? How do we make rules about what you can and can not craft, in which quality, and how quickly? Specialty, but otherwise like in 3.5.


Disguise. Where does it go? Deception, maybe? Doesn't quite seem to fit.
It's 100% Deception. You are lying to someone about who you really are. It's essentially one big protracted bluff. It doesn't get more straightforward than that.


Perform. Again, how do we scale backgrounds numerically, if this goes there? How do we tell how good a performance is? Because you have skill ranks in it.


Languages: how do you learn new ones? (Probably a different system altogether).
Anyone can spend a skill point and learn a new language.

[tarkisflux]

If you get 1 skill point per level, but you can't put a skill into a point every level (due to your lower 3/4 level + 3 rank cap), you're going to have left over skill points every 4 levels after 1st. Charging for skill tricks isn't actually bad in that scenario since it's not coming out of keeping something else at full ranks. You basically get to choose between bonus skills (variety) or better uses of existing skills (depth), and I don't see any problem with that.

It also allows you to write up more skill abilities without also introducing more character abilities, and thus avoid character bloat or inappropriate abilities. It blurs the line a bit with "feat", but I think that's worth a second look even if you didn't like skill tricks in their first form.

[Eldan]

And specializations. They come at high progression, as we've decided in the Skype chat. I've put it into the compilation thread.

[Amechra]

A quick idea: What if stuff like Darkvision and Tremorsense where Specialties you could pick for Perception?

[Grod_The_Giant]

A quick idea: What if stuff like Darkvision and Tremorsense where Specialties you could pick for Perception?

Mmm. Seem more like skill tricks, but yeah, cool idea.

...man, we're going to need a lot of skill tricks. And a lot of feats. Eesh.

[Eldan]

Now that we have the list and the acquisition mechanic down, I think we should start talking about skill uses.

First order of business: is there anything in the existing rules that is especially wonky?

[toapat]

Now that we have the list and the acquisition mechanic down, I think we should start talking about skill uses.

First order of business: is there anything in the existing rules that is especially wonky?

well, they actually screwed up when they removed Innuendo in the 3.5 conversion (being that it was the universal "Understand Language skill") and combined it into bluff.

[Eldan]

Ah, well. Understand Language can to into Linguistics. Bluff is for "give subtle clues to colleague while talking without others understanding what you say".

[Grod_The_Giant]

Linguistics or Deception could work for innuendo-ing, with Insight being a pretty good candidate to detect them. You could also just say "my character hints at this" and have everyone roll Insight to see if they catch it.

...I do really like linguistics as a skill, though. I remember the last campaign I played in (as opposed to running) there were a couple of situations where we really needed some way to puzzle out an unknown language, and there's literally no good skill in 3.5 to do that. (Spells, yes, but we were low-leveled, in the wilderness, and our only caster was a bard).

[toapat]

Linguistics or Deception could work for innuendo-ing, with Insight being a pretty good candidate to detect them. You could also just say "my character hints at this" and have everyone roll Insight to see if they catch it.

...I do really like linguistics as a skill, though. I remember the last campaign I played in (as opposed to running) there were a couple of situations where we really needed some way to puzzle out an unknown language, and there's literally no good skill in 3.5 to do that. (Spells, yes, but we were low-leveled, in the wilderness, and our only caster was a bard).

the skills that make up Linguistics are basically alone useless, and unrelated no matter even if they all handle language.

and then there is the fact that the only skill which bridged the gap between all of them, Innuendo, was functionally removed (bluff got a stripped out version) in 3.5

[Eldan]

It's funny. I'm currently reading Mieville's The Scar. The main character is a Linguist. She managed to be kidnapped by pirates, pressganged into a magitek project and an expedition to feral mosquito people, and her skills are constantly the most useful around.

[Agent_0042]

The Tome of Prowess (http://www.dnd-wiki.org/wiki/Tome_of_Prowess_(3.5e_Sourcebook)) may be of interest.

[toapat]

It's funny. I'm currently reading Mieville's The Scar. The main character is a Linguist. She managed to be kidnapped by pirates, pressganged into a magitek project and an expedition to feral mosquito people, and her skills are constantly the most useful around.

each skill can be useful

its just that
Speak/learn Language =/= Read Language/Decipher Script =/= Forgery

while having Speak and Decipher together makes sense, Forgery is more specifically part of the disguise skill, as its primary use in a campaign is going to come down to Identity Theft.

hell, the way the game works, the Forgery Skill is more efficient then Diplomacy for taking over kingdoms

Lady Anya, (my Avatar), would, with a good enough Forgery Skill, would be able to take over any kingdom she wanted, because Forgery sets the DC for stealing one's identity. beat the Scribe's Decipher script, and you can take the king's throne. The only challenge is of course having a good bluff score afterwards, when the questions start being asked, or have chugged a Philter of Glibness

[Grod_The_Giant]

each skill can be useful
Anything can, potentially, be useful. The question is if it's useful enough to be on the same sort of scale as, say, Persuade.


while having Speak and Decipher together makes sense, Forgery is more specifically part of the disguise skill, as its primary use in a campaign is going to come down to Identity Theft.
Speaking of things that don't belong together... no. Forgery may be useful when trying to disguise yourself, but it's not even remotely the same skill set. They're related, but you can get by without one or the other.

[Eldan]

Forgery has so many uses beyond Identity theft. False passports. False cargo manifests. False property deeds. False diplomas. False invitations.

[Knaight]

Forgery has so many uses beyond Identity theft. False passports. False cargo manifests. False property deeds. False diplomas. False invitations.

I favor false imperial decrees personally, as well as the religious equivalents (which obviously varies by game). Invitations are a lot of fun though.

[Eldan]

Certainly. You can do all kinds of false documents, really. False spy reports from the frontlines.

[tarkisflux]

The Tome of Prowess (http://www.dnd-wiki.org/wiki/Tome_of_Prowess_(3.5e_Sourcebook)) may be of interest.

It's been brought up once before in this thread, and the suggestion ignored then as well. Which I think probably for the best really, but since I wrote it I'll try to explain why I think that's the case.

The math in it is compatible, the min ranks thing the same idea in both places, but beyond that it's probably not of interest except for idea mining. And I'm hesitant to even suggest that because of the indicated changes for spells and other bits. It's written for a rather different ideal than the one Grod and Eldan (and whoever else is in the skype chats) seem to want and makes some design decisions that Eldan specifically disagrees with, so I figured it probably best to let things here go their own course without getting distracted by it. And progress was happening anyway, so no need to slow that.

But if you did want to idea mine for the skills, this page (http://www.dnd-wiki.org/wiki/Tome_of_Prowess_%283.5e_Sourcebook%29/Revised_Skills) is nothing but brief summaries of the skill abilities and might be worth looking at. If you're stuck or something and don't have anything else to go on. Maybe.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I didn't take it up mostly because I've been too busy with midterms to read it through. I'm looking at the page you just linked to now, though, and I'm really liking some of the stuff you've got here. They look like they'd make great skill tricks.

[tarkisflux]

I'm looking at the page you just linked to now, though, and I'm really liking some of the stuff you've got here. They look like they'd make great skill tricks.

Well, like I said, I wouldn't look too hard at it. It's written for solving a different set of concerns than I think you have here (which we can discuss if you want, but they're probably not relevant and I don't really want to derail you). If you want to look hard at it anyway, that's fine; I'd appreciate any comments you come up with in the thread linked in my sig.

The skill trick thing confuses and worries me though. Are those still in? Eldan indicated the general skills setup went into the compilation thread, but I can't seem to find it.

[Grod_The_Giant]

The skill trick thing confuses and worries me though. Are those still in? Eldan indicated the general skills setup went into the compilation thread, but I can't seem to find it.

As far as I know they're still in. As-yet-unwritten, though: it's an awful lot of stuff to do, and there's not a lot to balance them off. Spells, I guess.

[Eldan]

I still don't like skill tricks much, but I suppose they are a necessary evil.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I still don't like skill tricks much, but I suppose they are a necessary evil.

We could also copy tarkisflux's fix directly, and just dole out the advanced skill uses for free when you have a certain number of ranks in a skill.

[tarkisflux]

They might be a workable evil (as I previously suggested), but they certainly aren't a necessary one. Depending on how many skill points you get per level, how many skills you have to spend them on (itself partially based on how the cross-class, class, and specialization thing is setup), and how many tricks you have to spend them them on they could well be a net hindrance. They partially obscure the actual number of points you need per level and the places you need to put them. And, depending on cost structure, they could open up the chance for people to get a more skills with low level uses instead of fewer skills with multiple higher level abilities. There are good reasons for not wanting to allow people to have a broad pool of low level abilities, like not giving people the option of sucking.

So, here's some alternatives to purchasing skill tricks with skill points that may not have been considered:

Classes get a pool of skill points to keep up their skills and purchase additional tricks. Some tricks are granted for free based on ranks only, as in my thing.
Classes get a pool of skill points and the class grants tricks automatically at certain levels. More tricks (from other classes of a general pool) can be purchased with points (maybe). This is roughly equivalent to giving each trick out free if you meet a skill and class prereq for it.
Feats grant a bunch of skill tricks, so you spend those on them instead of skill points. This arguably meets the "feats broaden your abilities, not make your abilities stronger or just give bigger numbers" requirement, but you probably don't get enough feats for this to work.
Classes get a pool of skill points and trick points. They spend skill points on keeping up their skills, and trick points on new tricks. You can go really crazy with this and do combat tricks too, and then some classes get skill tricks, some get combat tricks, some get spells, and most get some weird combination of these two pools to build themselves with. That's probably too crazy unless you're going to seriously rethink the conceptual space for feats and turn the fighter into a "gets combat tricks and a few skill tricks" class...


As for trick balance - probably spells. If your spellcasters don't have as many skill tricks they'll be casting utility spells instead of using utility tricks, and casting social spells instead of using social tricks, and so on. If they don't get a lot of their spells then you might be able to justify making the spell stronger than the trick (they can magic up a few things really well but the trick guy can probably do a broader range of things or more of them in a day), but it's really tied in with your assumptions about the role and idea space of magic and the frequency with which those spells can be cast and haw many levels behind another class you can perform their primary shticks (picking simple locks 4 levels after the rogue is done with them, for example) and... stuff. It might be better to sort one or the other more first, and then come back with a reference point to build the other one around. Fewer moving targets that way.

[Grod_The_Giant]

The rational behind skill tricks was trying to get epic skill results without inflating numbers. Given our desires to unify scaling and keep modifiers under control, skill modifiers at high levels aren't going to be that much higher than you can hit with a lucky d20 roll at low levels. We want high level characters to be able to routinely do things like run up walls and balance on razorwire, but we don't want low-level guys to be able to do the same thing with a lucky roll. Skill tricks were my best idea for how to address the problem.

At this point, I like either making skill-expanding feats (and expanding the number of feats granted- maybe one every other level) or granting skills extra uses based on ranks, like you did. I can't decide which I like more, though.

(Although I will say that given the way scaling works, I think you wind up getting a few more points than you need to keep your X+Int skills maxed out)

[tarkisflux]

Although I will say that given the way scaling works, I think you wind up getting a few more points than you need to keep your X+Int skills maxed out.

Like I said, it depends on your advancement structure (and I'm not actually clear on what that is anymore). If you're doing the 3/4 level max for skills then you wind up with extra points at 1 and again every 4 levels that you can put into tricks without falling behind. If you have more than 1 trick per 4 levels you can focus on one skill over another or something, and that's fine as long as the game is designed with that expectation. But it also allow you to ignore skill tricks and get new base skills without tricks instead, which might be something you wanted to avoid.

And I forgot to mention this earlier, but if you're going with stronger skills through point investment you may want to reconsider int mod to skill points (note: these concerns do not apply to the feat investment thing, that might be ok). If you've glanced at my summaries, I think you can tell how large a difference in utility you could have with just a couple of extra sets of skill abilities. And an Int 2 points higher lets you get an extra set of skill abilities; it really, really enhances the value of that attribute. I would argue too much so and that utility variations based on attribute differences like that should probably be avoided. Giving smart people more stuff to do doesn't really work in such a setup.

So if you go with the ranks = new stuff model, just give each class the skill point totals you want them to have and find new stuff for Int to do. Some of the magic changes suggest a multiple attribute model for casting, and it might just be that Int / Wis / Cha are dump stats for physical guys but really important for the casters, and would probably retain Int value without bonus skill points. Or Int points might only be useable on Knowledge skills or whatever.

[Eldan]

I mentioned the different amounts of skills by class and int modifier, yes. I think if we make skills more powerful, we should probably hand out fixed numbers of skills.

And I forgot about the 3/4 thing. That leaves you with leftover points, and not everyone might wish to start investing into another skill. In that case, skill tricks are probaby still the best idea. (I'd rather not have two kinds of points, to avoid more complexity).

Also, a point I think I should make: I'm not ignoring the Tome of Prowess at all, I quite like it. I just thought we should get the basics down first before we get into the advanced uses. I think much of what you wrote fits into here rather nicely.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I mentioned the different amounts of skills by class and int modifier, yes. I think if we make skills more powerful, we should probably hand out fixed numbers of skills.

And I forgot about the 3/4 thing. That leaves you with leftover points, and not everyone might wish to start investing into another skill. In that case, skill tricks are probaby still the best idea. (I'd rather not have two kinds of points, to avoid more complexity).

Also, a point I think I should make: I'm not ignoring the Tome of Prowess at all, I quite like it. I just thought we should get the basics down first before we get into the advanced uses. I think much of what you wrote fits into here rather nicely.

There's also specialties to spend points on, and those scale directly with level.

The more I think about this, the more I like making advanced skill uses either an inherent part of the skill, or feats.

[Eldan]

Both, maybe? Feats only for the very strong, specialized ones. Augmented probably aren't a natural part of perception, maybe, but a feat for it might be worth it.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Both, maybe? Feats only for the very strong, specialized ones. Augmented probably aren't a natural part of perception, maybe, but a feat for it might be worth it.

Mmm. The trick will be sorting out what's worth a feat and what's worth a skill upgrade.

...actually, idea. How about a rule that if you have at least, oh, 7 ranks in a skill, you double the result of your check, and if you have at least 14 ranks, you triple it? Big numbers for epic checks without messed up scaling.

[tarkisflux]

Can someone point me towards the post with the specialty thing in it, or just re-write a quick version of the expected progressions and specialty thing?

[Eldan]

I put it in here. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=14044325#post14044325)

[Grod_The_Giant]

Can someone point me towards the post with the specialty thing in it, or just re-write a quick version of the expected progressions and specialty thing?

Specializations towards the bottom of the post. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=14055460&postcount=5)

We're using the progressions you proposed here. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=14028011&postcount=221)

[erikun]

I'm not sure how relevant it is at this point in the conversation, but I've wondered how well including more into the skill system will work. One specific example is a Stability skill, which would include both the old Balance with resisting bull rushes. (No offense, but a "Stability" skill for how well the character can stay upright makes more sense than an Acrobatics skill representing the same.)

[Grod_The_Giant]

I'm not sure how relevant it is at this point in the conversation, but I've wondered how well including more into the skill system will work. One specific example is a Stability skill, which would include both the old Balance with resisting bull rushes. (No offense, but a "Stability" skill for how well the character can stay upright makes more sense than an Acrobatics skill representing the same.)

Adding more skills to the system gives you point inflation, mostly. If there are 20 skills on the list, then 5 skill points/level can let you cover a fair number of bases. If there are 40 skills on the list, less so-- you'd need 10 points/level to get the same sort of variety. That's twice as much work to do on level-up, twice as much space taken up on your character sheet...

[Vadskye]

Hide and Move Silently are separate skills for a reason that no one here seems to have considered: it makes sneaking around much more difficult. When there are two stealth skills, you must succeed at two separate skill checks to successfully sneak up on someone, while the target must only succeed on one of the two. This is important, because it means that a character with X Hide and Move Silently has only about a 25% chance of sneaking up on a character with X Spot and Listen. If you merge the skills into Stealth and Perception, you're doubling the chance that stealthy characters will succeed at what they do.

Personally, I think the double roll is important from a balance and realism perspective; it should be more difficult to sneak up on someone undetected than a single opposed skill check accounts for. It is much easier to raise your Stealth than your Perception; Dexterity is a much more common ability score to max, since it can be used as a primary combat skill, and there are a litany of ways to raise Stealth (like being a Halfling). Perception is a fundamentally defensive skill in this context, and few will raise it nearly as high as Stealth - nor should characters be expected to. If you combine that with a single roll, it will be far too easy to sneak up on people.

If you really want to consolidate skills, then I recommend using the same approach that Pathfinder uses with Acrobatics, where the same skill is used for multiple separate checks. Thus, the Stealth skill would cover both Hide and Move Silently, and you must make a "Hide check" and a "Move Silently check" to successfully sneak around. Spells like Invisibility or Silence can thus modify one without affecting the other, which avoids the Pathfinder oddity where Invisibility makes you harder to hear.

[Grod_The_Giant]

True, but... stealthy characters are going to max out hide and move silently regardless of whether it's one skill or two, because that's their stick. But how many characters have the points to max out two perception skills? As I see it, combing those two makes it harder to sneak around, because your opponents are getting more return on their skill point investment.

You can also take specialties in, say, hiding, or listening. Not sure how invisibility will work; it'll probably give a big bonus to stealth checks made to hide from sight. (Minor note: it does make a certain amount of sense that invisibility gives a bonus to move silently: you'll hear the same rustling either way, but you're much more likely to ignore it if you glance over and there's clearly no movement.)

[Vadskye]

True, but... stealthy characters are going to max out hide and move silently regardless of whether it's one skill or two, because that's their stick. But how many characters have the points to max out two perception skills? As I see it, combing those two makes it harder to sneak around, because your opponents are getting more return on their skill point investment.
That makes sense to me - I support combining, as long as you still make two separate checks. We're fundamentally talking about slightly different things here. You're talking about how likely a stealthy character is to encounter someone who is good at noticing things, but I'm talking about how likely a stealthy character is to sneak past characters who are good at noticing things. In other words, you're saying that there will be more people who can notice stuff, but I'm saying that it doesn't matter whether they're good at noticing stuff, because they still will have way too difficult of a time noticing hiding characters. (Also, don't forget distance penalties; the perceptioning character should almost always have some penalties for how far away the stealthy character is, which is another reason it's important to have two checks.)


You can also take specialties in, say, hiding, or listening. Not sure how invisibility will work; it'll probably give a big bonus to stealth checks made to hide from sight.
Makes perfect sense to me; specialties in Hide/Listen/Move Silently/Spot are easy to implement if you already split the skill into multiple checks.


(Minor note: it does make a certain amount of sense that invisibility gives a bonus to move silently: you'll hear the same rustling either way, but you're much more likely to ignore it if you glance over and there's clearly no movement.)
Eh... hearing something invisible and fighting by ear is a classic fantasy trope. I could see a very minor bonus to move silently, maybe, but just calling it a Stealth bonus and being done with it completely destroys a very natural space for fluff.

[tarkisflux]

True, but... stealthy characters are going to max out hide and move silently regardless of whether it's one skill or two, because that's their stick. But how many characters have the points to max out two perception skills? As I see it, combing those two makes it harder to sneak around, because your opponents are getting more return on their skill point investment.

This is actually not true, but only because iterative probability is mean. If you only need to win 1 of 2 rolls to defeat stealth then you have a noticeable advantage over the side that needs to win 2 of 2 rolls to be stealthy. Big enough to cover even the (in my experience relatively rare) times when the detecting side doesn't boost both when they have the access. It also opens the stealth character to detection by non-specialists who just boosted 1 skill. Reducing the rolls to 1 to win for either side is a net boost for the side that was previously worse off - the stealth side. Which I think is a good thing in general, but if you wanted stealth to be weaker than disguise or simple lying or whatever for some reason, then sticking with separate skills or requiring multiple rolls is what you want.

The invis / silence arguments don't really apply. As long as you're tightening your numbers you might as well get rid of ridiculous spell bonuses. Since you're redoing a bunch of spells anyway, you can just redo invis so that it sets the stealth DC to detect you to a certain number like 20 or provides a +3 to your roll. And then apply distance penalties (or whatever) to that base, so you can sneak around while invisible and far away, but still be detectable when you get close in and people can defeat the DC reasonably often (even if that just means they can target your square). And silence isn't even that good, since it fails anytime someone has line of sight to you.

[Vadskye]

Since you're redoing a bunch of spells anyway, you can just redo invis so that it sets the stealth DC to detect you to a certain number like 20 or provides a +3 to your roll.

At that point you'll really need to change the name of the spell, though. Perhaps "Slightly less visibility"? Invisibility seems like quite a stretch if that's all you get from it.

[tarkisflux]

At that point you'll really need to change the name of the spell, though. Perhaps "Slightly less visibility"? Invisibility seems like quite a stretch if that's all you get from it.

Smell, breeze, sound, all of these are detectable things that invis does not cover. If the skills are combined in the name of simplification, then invis would set the DC to find you as the DC of finding those things (and not allowing direct targeting since those are less obvious, so a 50% miss chance). The DCs for those are whatever you want them to be when you're rebuilding the skills. But since you might want to cast invis on the stealthy guy once in a while, you throw in a small bonus if their check is similar to the base DC. But you don't make it a big thing, because you don't want it to be better than being a specialist stealther. It's really not that much of a stretch.

Alternately, you could have separate DCs for sight, touch, sound, etc. events and allow people to detect something with a perception check based on the lowest DC (like they basically do against lowest result split stealth skills). And then have invis simply not allow detection by sight, at all, ever, because that's all the spell does. That's a bit more involved, but only really changes the base detection DC and I don't know that you get much out of it.

[Edit] Besides, if you're keeping the reactive perception style, you might not even prompt a check against invis for a while and be able to walk around not being noticed unless you did something stupid. Like yell, or knock something over, or open a door that the guards are watching. The sort of thing that invis wouldn't protect you against anyway.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Yeah, you're right, tarkisflux. Math is not my thing. I fully support single-rolls for perception and stealth, regardless.

I have no idea how the invisibility spell can ultimately be balanced with making the skill useful.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

I have no idea how the invisibility spell can ultimately be balanced with making the skill useful.

You could always have invisibility just grant total concealment and allow taking 10 on Stealth checks. Clean and simple. That way, people can make Stealth checks out in the open and, assuming you're still going with the passive perception rule, automatically beat people with Perception modifiers no greater than their Stealth as long as the perceivers aren't suspicious or the stealther is in combat (two conditions where it would logically be easier to detect someone invisible). If total concealment gives a Stealth bonus/Perception penalty like in SWSE (this is basically how invisibility works in that system), so much the better.

[Grod_The_Giant]

You could always have invisibility just grant total concealment and allow taking 10 on Stealth checks. Clean and simple. That way, people can make Stealth checks out in the open and, assuming you're still going with the passive perception rule, automatically beat people with Perception modifiers no greater than their Stealth as long as the perceivers aren't suspicious or the stealther is in combat (two conditions where it would logically be easier to detect someone invisible). If total concealment gives a Stealth bonus/Perception penalty like in SWSE (this is basically how invisibility works in that system), so much the better.

Ding ding ding! Clever, sir. I like that.

[toapat]

Ding ding ding! Clever, sir. I like that.

that actually makes invisibility work more like it does in Science fiction: bending the light around a person, not actually making them invisible, and the spell not scrubbing out the shadow or footprints

[PairO'Dice Lost]

that actually makes invisibility work more like it does in Science fiction: bending the light around a person, not actually making them invisible, and the spell not scrubbing out the shadow or footprints

Well, that's already how it works in D&D; invisibility only hides you from sight, it doesn't conceal footprints or prevent sounds or whatever. Since you can in fact use Spot to find invisible creatures in 3e it's entirely possible that the shadow is still visible, but it's not specified whether that's the case.

[Knaight]

You could always have invisibility just grant total concealment and allow taking 10 on Stealth checks. Clean and simple. That way, people can make Stealth checks out in the open and, assuming you're still going with the passive perception rule, automatically beat people with Perception modifiers no greater than their Stealth as long as the perceivers aren't suspicious or the stealther is in combat (two conditions where it would logically be easier to detect someone invisible). If total concealment gives a Stealth bonus/Perception penalty like in SWSE (this is basically how invisibility works in that system), so much the better.

I'd support this. It's an elegant method, that balances the spells utility fairly well.