Who has got the skills?

[Thuphinlok]

Alright, so I may be WAY off base here, but the other day I had an interesting idea for skills. We all know that skill points are determined by INT, and then you decide what you want to be good at by placing said skill points in the various skills. My thought was this. . . How does being smart help you jump higher/further? What about tumbling? How does INT help that? So basically I had a thought, what if you took away all class based skill points (2+INT, or whatever, but leave the *4 at first level) and gave skill points based on the relevant stat used? For example, I have 16 16 10 10 18 10, so a +3 in STR and DEX and a +4 in WIS, for my proposed skill system I would get 3 points for STR skills, 3 points for DEX skills, and 4 points for WIS skills, no CON, no INT, and no CHA. My character is strong, agile, and perceptive, but not particularly smart or charismatic. What do you guys think? Would this be an interesting way to do skills in a campaign or is it completely broken/useless? Mind you I have no problem with the current skill system, but it was just a random thought.

[Flickerdart]

Skills represent training and technique. A character that hasn't trained himself to jump can jump just as well at level 1 as he can at level 20 if his Strength hasn't changed. He can jump farther if he devotes training to the skill in the form of skill points. His Intelligence governs how well he can train - a smarter character learns more quickly regardless of the nature of the skill, because he can figure out the proper way to do it more quickly.

[ScrambledBrains]

The way skill points and ranks are now represents being trained in the subject. You can have two people with equal natural jumping talent(I.E. They have the same Strength modifier.), but one has taken classes or trained more(I.E. He or she has spent skill points to acquire Jump Ranks). This is why it's represented by Intelligence. :smallsmile:

Edit: Swordsaged!

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Int represents your ability to learn. If a smart guy picks up on a new subject immediately while a slow guy takes a lot longer to learn it, that smart guy can learn two skills in the time it takes the slow guy to learn one. Skills like Jump and Tumble have a lot to do with physics, weight distribution, technique, etc. which a very intelligent individual would learn faster and easier than a less intelligent individual. The ability to use a skill vs the ability to learn a skill are completely different things, that's why your number of skill points are always Int-based.

[The Grue]

Ooh, are we doing that thing where we each provide the same answer to the OP's question without reading the rest of the thread first?

My turn!

Skill ranks don't represent "being smart" helping you to jump or tumble or climb. Having a higher Int bonus means you learn faster, which means over time you get better at the things you practise.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Ooh, are we doing that thing where we each provide the same answer to the OP's question without reading the rest of the thread first?

My turn!

Skill ranks don't represent "being smart" helping you to jump or tumble or climb. Having a higher Int bonus means you learn faster, which means over time you get better at the things you practise.

Considering the existing replies are all within a few minutes of each other, chances are they were all being typed at the same time. For example, there were exactly zero replies to this thread when I started typing my reply, so there was nothing to read before I posted.

[Thuphinlok]

OK guys, that was not particularly helpful. . .
How does being smart help you jump higher/further? this was a rhetorical question in the post. I understand how the skill system works and why it works that way. The real question was about your collective thoughts on the oddball skill system that I proposed. It was just a random thought that occurred to me and I was curious to see if anyone else in the playground had a thought/opinion on it. I have 0 interest in the current skill system for this post, except on the pros and cons related to the skill system I proposed. So. . . Let's try this again guys, shall we? :smallbiggrin:

[Red Fel]

OK guys, that was not particularly helpful. . . this was a rhetorical question in the post. I understand how the skill system works and why it works that way. The real question was about your collective thoughts on the oddball skill system that I proposed. It was just a random thought that occurred to me and I was curious to see if anyone else in the playground had a thought/opinion on it. I have 0 interest in the current skill system for this post, except on the pros and cons related to the skill system I proposed. So. . . Let's try this again guys, shall we? :smallbiggrin:

It seems needlessly complicated.

Look, you already add your relevant ability bonus to certain skills. Jump is boosted by Strength. This reflects that your natural aptitude or capacity (i.e. your ability score) increases your ability with a given skill. Being strong means you can jump farther. It does not mean that you're better at understanding how to improve your jumping technique. So as far as the fluff goes, your skill system doesn't make much sense. Why should being strong mean that you can jump farther, and improve your jumping technique more effectively than someone else?

In terms of the crunch, like I said, it adds unwanted complication. Basically, if I understand it correctly - it's a bit confusing - instead of using your Int to calculate your pool of skill points, which can be spent on any skill, you gain skill points only from those abilities with a greater-than-zero modifier, and can spend those points only on the relevant skills.

Not only is that needlessly complex - you have a potential for up to six different pools of skill points - it also creates a double-bonus. Using Jump as the example again, if you have a +2 Str, you gain skill points to put into Jump. You then gain that modifier again to your jump checks. It basically gives you twice the benefit.

Finally, both crunch and fluff aside, I don't get the point. Is the point to allow any class to be a skill-monkey, but only in certain skills? Because that's just... I don't have words. It makes sense, but at the same time, it really doesn't make much sense to me.

[Slipperychicken]

Considering the existing replies are all within a few minutes of each other, chances are they were all being typed at the same time. For example, there were exactly zero replies to this thread when I started typing my reply, so there was nothing to read before I posted.

At two minutes between posts, you guys were practically ninja-ing each other.

[Jeff the Green]

Also, why should the person of average Intelligence literally never be able to recognize that he is, in fact, a person and not a dog or cat?

[Slipperychicken]

Also, why should the person of average Intelligence literally never be able to recognize that he is, in fact, a person and not a dog or cat?

To whom were you responding?

[Jeff the Green]

To whom were you responding?

Thuphinlok, sorry.

To elaborate, no one without an Intelligence of at least 12 can ever put ranks in any Knowledge skill, and so can never succeed on checks with a DC above 10—which includes identifying humans. To use a less silly example, they couldn't ever know anything that isn't a "really easy question." They literally have no chance of ever learning the answer to "basic questions" about a field.

[RedMage125]

Thuphinlok, sorry.

To elaborate, no one without an Intelligence of at least 12 can ever put ranks in any Knowledge skill, and so can never succeed on checks with a DC above 10—which includes identifying humans. To use a less silly example, they couldn't ever know anything that isn't a "really easy question." They literally have no chance of ever learning the answer to "basic questions" about a field.

I'm curious how you arrive at that conclusion?

A level 1 human commoner with an INT of 10 has 12 skill points. Even though all knowledge skills are cross-class to him, what, exactly stops him from putting ranks into, say, Knowledge (local)?

I re-checked my PHB, and nothing about the skill says anything about a requirement of INT of 12 to put ranks into a knowledge skill.

[Jeff the Green]

I'm curious how you arrive at that conclusion?

A level 1 human commoner with an INT of 10 has 12 skill points. Even though all knowledge skills are cross-class to him, what, exactly stops him from putting ranks into, say, Knowledge (local)?

I re-checked my PHB, and nothing about the skill says anything about a requirement of INT of 12 to put ranks into a knowledge skill.

I was talking about the proposed houserule. Without an Intelligence bonus you couldn't put any ranks in an Intelligence-based skill.

[RedMage125]

I was talking about the proposed houserule. Without an Intelligence bonus you couldn't put any ranks in an Intelligence-based skill.

Ah, right. Gotcha.

Well, that becomes true of ANY skill by his houserule. You would not be able to have characters take ANY skill they didn't have at least a 12 for a stat in.

[Thuphinlok]

Now this is more like it! That's the kind of feedback I was looking for.

Red Fel - there really was no point at all. It was a random thought that occurred to me (and I'm still not sure from where it came), and I just thought I would put it out to the Playground to see what I could get from you guys. I think you are correct in assuming the bizarre nature of the fluff, and while I disagree with the complexity of the crunch that may just be due to the fact that it was my thought, so I understand what I am talking about even if it doesn't make sense to anyone else.

Jef - I actually had not thought about that particular rule for Knowledge! I mean it seems like a silly thing, but as RAW goes it has definitely been cited as way more than silly on many other occasions.

So I guess that the conclusion here is that it really would change the game up, but in a potentially difficult way. And this is why I come to you guys! The odd thoughts in my head often make sense to me, but others tend to look at me as if I were a chicken with its head cut off and sometimes like said head is on fire too!

[Ceaon]

Alright, so I may be WAY off base here, but the other day I had an interesting idea for skills. We all know that skill points are determined by INT, and then you decide what you want to be good at by placing said skill points in the various skills. My thought was this. . . How does being smart help you jump higher/further? What about tumbling? How does INT help that? So basically I had a thought, what if you took away all class based skill points (2+INT, or whatever, but leave the *4 at first level) and gave skill points based on the relevant stat used? For example, I have 16 16 10 10 18 10, so a +3 in STR and DEX and a +4 in WIS, for my proposed skill system I would get 3 points for STR skills, 3 points for DEX skills, and 4 points for WIS skills, no CON, no INT, and no CHA. My character is strong, agile, and perceptive, but not particularly smart or charismatic. What do you guys think? Would this be an interesting way to do skills in a campaign or is it completely broken/useless? Mind you I have no problem with the current skill system, but it was just a random thought.

Your skill system basically forces characters to focus on their strengths and ignore their weaknesses, which I feel is a loss.
Moreover, STR/CON focused characters get screwed (there are very few STR and CON skills) and INT/WIS characters won't really mind the change.
So the already weaker classes get another hit.

My proposition, which flirts with your idea, is that you could divide all skills in two groups: training or study (i.e., Jump would be training, Knowledge would be study, some skills might be both). Then, each class gets two entries for skill points: a number of points per level for training skills, and a number of points per level for study skills.