Are "low skill" characters bad characters?

[Kaeso]

First of all, let me start off by defining "low skill" characters. For the purpose of this thread, they are characters that either have low skill points and/or not many skills to spend them on, as well as no access to spells that duplicate them. For example, a non-cloistered cleric has low skill points and barely any skills to spend them on (barring good domain selection) but still has spells like guidance of the avatar and find trap that can either give him a massive boost on certain skills or entirely replicate certain skills. This makes him a "high skill" character.

Now that that's out of the way, I have to wonder if "low skill" characters are bad characters. By this I don't mean less optimized, but downright less suited to have a fun game with. Let's take, for example, a fighter or even the beloved swordsage (which is hailed as that which the fighter should have been). Most campaigns involve more than just fighting, they involve diplomacy, sneaking around etc. etc. In group play, you could leave this to the rogue-like characters and those who can replicate rogue-ish skills to a certain degree. The warblade is thus left out, forced to twiddle his thumbs as the rest of the group has all the fun. In solo play, this element of gameplay has to be eliminated altogether.

I have to wonder if this means that warblade is simply a "bad" class to play in spite of its class (and swordsage is one of the best classes to play, even though it's often called the weakest class of ToB).

[Troacctid]

Warblades do get Mountain Hammer, which does a pretty good job of replacing Open Lock. :smallbiggrin:

[backwaterj]

Side-stepping for the moment the swordsage argument (which by the way I agree with you on):

I hesitate to put an objective label like "bad" on something as subjective as a playstyle issue. And while I certainly (all other things being equal) enjoy a high-skill character over a low-skill one, there is some roleplaying potential in a character whose skills are limited. My mantra is the weaknesses define the character more than the strengths.

A lot of this issue has to do with the type of campaign that's being run. If it's very dungeon-crawly (yes that's a word) then skills are more than likely entirely optional unless you're the rogue. On the other hand, in an intrigue-heavy campaign that spends a lot of time in social interaction, your typical fighter will likely be out of his element (but see above).

Overall, I tend to look at skills as a balancing factor. At least that's the ideal. The cleric gets low skill points to compensate for the fact he's a cleric and can more or less do everything the party needs without resorting to skill checks, while the rogue gets a metric crapton to compensate for the fact that, besides dodging and stabbing things in the back, he's basically got nothing.

Not sure where that leaves us with the fighter, though. :smallmad:

[Knaight]

I'd say that low skill points can contribute to a frustrating play experience outside of combat, and that basically every class gets screwed skill point wise - Adding 6 across the board doesn't seem unreasonable. D&D characters in general seem to be lacking in non-combat skills compared to just about any skill based game, even when looking at combat specialists in said games.

[Thurbane]

I find low skill characters to be quite annoying, especially non-casters (since casters have massive versatility to begin with).

The Knight is a good example. 2 skill points/level, and possibly the most awful skill list in the game. In combat, he's OK as far as beatsticks go. Out of combat? Umm...

Seriously, not even any social skills to work with. A Commoner has a better skill list for crying out loud.

It makes all the parts of a game that aren't combat (overcoming traps/obstacles, research, negotiating with NPCs etc.) boring since you can't contribute.

My quick and dirty fix? Give all non-casters a minimum of 4 skills/level, and expand their lists. Literally every adventuring type should have Spot and Listen added, at least.

[KillianHawkeye]

The Knight is a good example. 2 skill points/level, and possibly the most awful skill list in the game. In combat, he's OK as far as beatsticks go. Out of combat? Umm...

Seriously, not even any social skills to work with. A Commoner has a better skill list for crying out loud.

While I agree that the Knight could well do with Diplomacy in-class, Intimidate is technically a social skill even though it also has combat uses, and Fighters get access to it as well. The Knight also gets Knowledge (nobility & royalty) which could easily be used to leverage some circumstantial bonuses when socializing with the upper class. Also, Knights at least usually have a decent Charisma bonus. Once again, the Fighter gets left behind on that one.

The Commoner, on the other hand, really doesn't get any social skills, although they do get both Spot and Listen... hmm.....

[Psyren]

Binder is low skill (2+Int) and has no spells, and it's fine :smalltongue: Likewise Incarnate, though that one replaces its skill ranks a little more directly.

Measuring fun is like measuring any other outcome - compare actual result to expectation. If the warblade player is expecting to sneak around or charm the king with his wit, then yeah, he will probably be disappointed. But if he signed up to crack heads with style or inspire his allies, he's got plenty of that, and efficacy at the other stuff becomes irrelevant.

[peacenlove]

Skills are easy to cover with items when you get to mid levels by any class, from as early as a 1000 gp 3rd eye improvisation. A masterwork tool, costing a measly 50 gp, gives +2 to a skill straight from the PHB. And at high levels skill ranks are perhaps only 1/2 - 1/3rd of your total skill modifier.
It really depends on the campaign though and on the party.

[Talya]

First of all, let me start off by defining "low skill" characters. For the purpose of this thread, they are characters that either have low skill points and/or not many skills to spend them on, as well as no access to spells that duplicate them. For example, a non-cloistered cleric has low skill points and barely any skills to spend them on (barring good domain selection) but still has spells like guidance of the avatar and find trap that can either give him a massive boost on certain skills or entirely replicate certain skills. This makes him a "high skill" character.

Now that that's out of the way, I have to wonder if "low skill" characters are bad characters. By this I don't mean less optimized, but downright less suited to have a fun game with. Let's take, for example, a fighter or even the beloved swordsage (which is hailed as that which the fighter should have been). Most campaigns involve more than just fighting, they involve diplomacy, sneaking around etc. etc. In group play, you could leave this to the rogue-like characters and those who can replicate rogue-ish skills to a certain degree. The warblade is thus left out, forced to twiddle his thumbs as the rest of the group has all the fun. In solo play, this element of gameplay has to be eliminated altogether.

I have to wonder if this means that warblade is simply a "bad" class to play in spite of its class (and swordsage is one of the best classes to play, even though it's often called the weakest class of ToB).

The Warblade gets 4 skill points+int per level and has INT as a secondary focus stat, meaning they're going to get at least 6, probably 7 (or 8 if human) skill points per level, which is every bit the equal of the swordsage (with its 6 skill points/level and int as a dump stat). Crusader may have been a better example from TOB, as they'll be stuck with their starting 4 skill points per level.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

My group has eliminated the existence of cross-class skills, with the exception of UMD, UPD, and IF. Those three are class skills for any class that would normally have them as class skills, and all other skills are always class skills for everyone regardless of class or race. We also made it so every class and racial HD gets at least four base skill points per level, anything that would normally get four or more is unaffected, but any 2+Int skill point class gets increased to four. Furthermore, we've eliminated the need for trapfinding, every instance of the trapfinding class feature is replaced by your choice of a +2/+2 skill feat (Alertness, Stealthy, etc.). So far it's worked out quite well.

[PaucaTerrorem]

.... Literally every adventuring type should have Spot and Listen added, at least.

That's how my DM does it. Spot and Listen are class skills for everyone. Everyone(even NPC classes) can get better at noticing things. Especially if you live a dangerous lifestyle and noticing enemies before they detect you can save one's hide.

[Knaight]

My group has eliminated the existence of cross-class skills, with the exception of UMD, UPD, and IF. Those three are class skills for any class that would normally have them as class skills, and all other skills are always class skills for everyone regardless of class or race. We also made it so every class and racial HD gets at least four base skill points per level, anything that would normally get four or more is unaffected, but any 2+Int skill point class gets increased to four. Furthermore, we've eliminated the need for trapfinding, every instance of the trapfinding class feature is replaced by your choice of a +2/+2 skill feat (Alertness, Stealthy, etc.). So far it's worked out quite well.

Eliminating cross-class skills is a good first step, as far as I'm concerned. They're an irritating feature that serves mostly to limit what can be accomplished with a particular class, and it's not like removing them even has any real balance issues.

[KorbeltheReader]

Isn't this really just a somewhat simplified restatement of JaronK's tier system, since it's based on versatility? Plus, in this case I don't think actual gameplay bears out your theory. All I can go by are games I've been in, but nobody I know has played a warblade and found them less fun than classes with lots of skills.

That said, if you are of the believe that skill points = fun, that is an eminently fixable problem. I've found that a combination of upping everyone's points per level by 2 or 4 or so, removing the cross-class double rank cost, and combining skills a la Pathfinder (combining climb, jump and swim in Athletics, listen and spot in Notice, etc.) improves people's numbers enough to allow them to branch out into more flavorful skill sets.

[squiggit]

I'm personally of the opinion that 2+int skills is a complete abomination when put on anything but an int based spell caster. Everyone else with those numbers is boosted to 4+int in my games.

[Frostthehero]

As others have said, what really matters is how you want to play. A bad character is defined in different ways by different people. Some think that it is a character that is not fun to play, others think a bad character is a weak character. Low skill characters are often fun to play, (I have built a barbarian who runs around grappling people to death) but they often lack combat effectiveness, or out-of-combat effectiveness. I would say that no class is truly "bad" rather that different classes appeal to different play styles.

[Blink Knight]

Every skill in the game meets at least one of these criteria:

Doesn't scale past low levels (every DC you'd care about is under 20 or so).
Doesn't scale past low levels (nothing you could ever do with any level of that skill will matter at mid and high levels).
Scales very poorly from a cost/benefit standpoint (you have to stack all those massive skill boosters just so the skill functions, and even then it doesn't do much).
Is extremely narrow, requiring 2 or even 3 skills all raised just to perform one task (Spot + Listen, Search + Disable Device, Hide + Move Silently, (one or more of Bluff + Diplomacy + Intimidate) + Sense Motive...)

In short, skill access is no real benefit from a power standpoint and is actually a detriment (because WotC overvalued skill points).

[jiriku]

It depends on the game. In a hack'n'slash dungeon crawl, the lack of skills means little, because the few skills that are useful at all are only needed on a one-per-party basis (like Disable Device). In a story-based game with a broad variety of non-combat challenges, then yes, low-skill classes are bad. When I play in those types of games, I invariably see players who have chosen low-skill characters swapping out their PCs for a chance to play a different class, because they're getting tired of sitting around and waiting for combat to start while the players of skillful characters are enjoying the game.

[Snails]

I'd say that low skill points can contribute to a frustrating play experience outside of combat, and that basically every class gets screwed skill point wise - Adding 6 across the board doesn't seem unreasonable. D&D characters in general seem to be lacking in non-combat skills compared to just about any skill based game, even when looking at combat specialists in said games.

I agree. The designers overemphasized differences between classes with respect to skills with a double whammy of both differences in class skill choices and huge differences in numbers of skills points. Perhaps that was justified to differentiate between primary spellcasters and the rest, but the battle was fought the most fiercely between the more mundane classes.

It is as if someone actually believed that a Fighter10 having a Spot +8 (6 ranks, Wis 14) would steal the Rogue10 Hide +23 thunder (13 ranks, Dex0, +5 from cloak) when the Wizard10 has been casting Invisibility since 7 levels ago.

Rather than stick to the tired and pointless "Fighters are Stoopid" joke, I would give Fighters 8 + Int skills points (and other classes lesser boosts), to recast them as a serious and studied class, even if they are not less than great at many things.

[tadkins]

Would I be wrong to believe that a big disadvantage to playing a Sorcerer over a Wizard is their lack of skills? Particularly the knowledge ones.

[Thurbane]

Would I be wrong to believe that a big disadvantage to playing a Sorcerer over a Wizard is their lack of skills? Particularly the knowledge ones.
Well, it's definitely a disadvantage, but the inequity in spells known (i.e. a limited number vs. NI in a spellbook) and the fact Wizard is a level ahead in acquiring new spell levels are much larger concerns.

Also, bonus feats vs. no bonus feats, and able to apply metamagic without a casting time increase (without needing a feat or ACF to do so).

Interestingly, one of the best (IMHO) PrCs for Sorcerer is Fiend-blooded, which requires ranks in a Knowledge skill (The Planes) the Sorcerer doesn't get without sub-levels, dips or a feat. The sample Fiend-blooded character doesn't even qualify.

[tadkins]

Well, it's definitely a disadvantage, but the inequity in spells known (i.e. a limited number vs. NI in a spellbook) and the fact Wizard is a level ahead in acquiring new spell levels are much larger concerns.

Also, bonus feats vs. no bonus feats, and able to apply metamagic without a casting time increase (without needing a feat or ACF to do so).

Interestingly, one of the best (IMHO) PrCs for Sorcerer is Fiend-blooded, which requires ranks in a Knowledge skill (The Planes) the Sorcerer doesn't get without sub-levels, dips or a feat. The sample Fiend-blooded character doesn't even qualify.

Those are also pretty big disadvantages too, true. I dunno though, just feels weird that an arcane practitioner doesn't get certain knowledge skills, like Nature or the Planes.

[Thurbane]

Those are also pretty big disadvantages too, true. I dunno though, just feels weird that an arcane practitioner doesn't get certain knowledge skills, like Nature or the Planes.

If you wanted to bring Sorcerers more in line with Wizards (not sure trying to bring things up to Tier 1 characters is a good idea or not), I'd give them 4 skill points/level, add all the "social skills" (Diplomacy, Gather Information, Intimidate, Sense Motive) and all the knowledge skills. Still wouldn't make them Tier 1, but would give them a little more equity with their "big brothers".

[tadkins]

If you wanted to bring Sorcerers more in line with Wizards (not sure trying to bring things up to Tier 1 characters is a good idea or not), I'd give them 4 skill points/level, add all the "social skills" (Diplomacy, Gather Information, Intimidate, Sense Motive) and all the knowledge skills. Still wouldn't make them Tier 1, but would give them a little more equity with their "big brothers".

It's more about flavor and less about just trying to bump them up a tier. For the most part, by choosing sorcerer over wizard you know what you're getting into in terms of spell limitations and whatnot.

The social skills would make sense (Sorcerers have high CHA after all), as well as a couple of the more magically-related knowledges (Nature, the Planes). The other knowledges, to me, seem like fields of specialized study more suited toward Wizards, and Sorcerers can do without those.

[Svata]

Knowstones are a way to help Sorcerers catch up to wizards. More expensive than simply putting spels in your spellbook, but you can wall of iron your way through that if you really need more spells than you can afford normally.

[jedipotter]

Now that that's out of the way, I have to wonder if "low skill" characters are bad characters.

They are not bad characters...depending on the type of game you play. In a hardcore optimized very gamey play-by-numbers type game, then low skills are bad. In other games, the player won't have a problem.

A low skill character player won't be able to do things the easy way: roll a lazy dice and move on. They might need to think, be creative, and even roll play. For example, they might not be able to ''know for a fact'' with a roll if a goblin is lying...they might have to use thier own common sense to figure out if an evil, sneaky, goblin theif is lying to you.

But it will depened on your game. If in the game, you can only open a locked door with the skill, then the low skill charcter is in trouble. If your game allows a character to do other things, then you won't notice.

[Svata]

:smallsigh: Look, jedipotter, we get that you think that allowing the chracters to figure things out for themselves without the players having memorized the adventure path/Monster Manual or going on a quest for an NPC is bad. We have had this exact discussion with you on several occasions. You have seen all of the arguments for why nearly everyone else disagrees. So, I request, as politely as I can, just stop. Stop bringing it up. Stop trying to convince everyone else that they're wrong and you're right. Stop insinuating that anyone who uses up permanent character resourses to figure stuff out and expects it to work is a bad roleplayer, especially when you're okay with them knowing the same stuff if they know about the monster/whatever OOC. Please.

[jedipotter]

Stop bringing it up. Stop trying to convince everyone else that they're wrong and you're right. Stop insinuating that anyone who uses up permanent character resourses to figure stuff out and expects it to work is a bad roleplayer, especially when you're okay with them knowing the same stuff if they know about the monster/whatever OOC. Please.

It's a free forum?

I'm not trying to ''convince'' anyone. A question was posted, I posted my answer and thoughts. Just like lots of other people did. The OP, and anyone else, is free to read all the posts and draw their own conclusions.

Feel free to skip over my post(s) if you wish.....

[Coidzor]

They are very limited in how they can interact with the world outside of combat, yes. Which I find generally undesirable. Basically they're mostly left with brute force.


They are not bad characters...depending on the type of game you play. In a hardcore optimized very gamey play-by-numbers type game, then low skills are bad. In other games, the player won't have a problem.

A low skill character player won't be able to do things the easy way: roll a lazy dice and move on. They might need to think, be creative, and even roll play. For example, they might not be able to ''know for a fact'' with a roll if a goblin is lying...they might have to use thier own common sense to figure out if an evil, sneaky, goblin theif is lying to you.

Yes, yes, real roleplayers cheat by ignoring the system and making **** up. Also, you've managed to butcher the language again and confused roll-play and role-play where bolded. If you're going to do this, you should at least remember that using roleplay to avoid actually using the rules is "role-play," and actually rolling to interact with the skill system is disparaged as "roll-play," because we humans are petty like that.

While an option, I generally favor things that don't lead to the question "Why are we playing this game if we're not even using the rules or some set of rules pulled from a game that deals with such things better or made up so there's some consistency rather than guessing what the DM has in his or her pocket as if that was actually a riddle?"

[daremetoidareyo]

Eliminating cross-class skills is a good first step, as far as I'm concerned. They're an irritating feature that serves mostly to limit what can be accomplished with a particular class, and it's not like removing them even has any real balance issues.

I like this house rule alot. Who says bards can't intimidate? Or rangers know about religion?

I feel like cross class skills were invented to make rogues better. But that is easy to fix. What we did was allow 1st level rogues, with rogue as their initial class, trade those initial skill points in for a competancy bonus equal to the number of skill points traded in, max 4. That way, its like a rogue can be excellent at sneaking about due to growing up a rogue. +8 tumble, jump, move silently doesn't break the game. This fix can only occur at first level, not when multiclassing.

[Thurbane]

While an option, I generally favor things that don't lead to the question "Why are we playing this game if we're not even using the rules or some set of rules pulled from a game that deals with such things better or made up so there's some consistency rather than guessing what the DM has in his or her pocket as if that was actually a riddle?"

This reminds of when we used to play soldiers when we were kids, shooting at each other with impromptu guns (branches, brooms etc.), then the inevitable arguments of "I shot you, you're dead!" "Am not, you missed!". :smalltongue:

D&D is a rules-heavy game. If you want to thrown 3/4 of the creator's rules out of the window, surely there is a system better suited to that style of play...

[jedipotter]

While an option, I generally favor things that don't lead to the question "Why are we playing this game if we're not even using the rules or some set of rules pulled from a game that deals with such things better or made up so there's some consistency rather than guessing what the DM has in his or her pocket as if that was actually a riddle?"

I understand your confusion. I see all the things written in all the game books as...suggestions.

[Flickerdart]

I understand your confusion. I see all the things written in all the game books as...suggestions.
You may be surprised to learn that answering "do characters need more skill points to be more fun to play" with "no, if you don't use the rules for skills at all" is neither helpful nor insightful. It is seen as common courtesy on this and other forums to have discussions that honour the premise of the thread they are in, and if you're not going to do that, I suggest you not ruin it for the rest of us.

--------------------------------------------

Yes, under the rules of the game, characters who have few skills can't contribute as well, and thus are likely to be less fun to play. This isn't really related to skills, though - a fun character is one that has something to contribute in every situation, whether or not it's a skill or a class feature. If you don't want to sit and twiddle your thumbs whenever a situation arises, you want to have something to do!

The bard is a perfect example of how this works without overshadowing the party. His bard songs and tiny amount of spellcasting don't make him well suited for being able to solve problems himself, but he can make the designated problem-solver a little bit better. Boost the wizard's knowledge check with Inspire Competence, distract guards with Hypnotic Pattern so the rogue can sneak by, that sort of thing.

Really, the best character is one that's able to give other players things to do in situations where they normally would not.

[Thurbane]

http://i61.tinypic.com/o0o2g9.jpg "Yeah. We could start our own game, where people throw ducks at balloons and nothing's the way it seems!"