Thoughts on UA: Maximum Ranks, Limited Choices?

[reddir]

I did a quick search and did not find anything on this.

Does anyone have thoughts on this optional Alternative Skill System from the 3.x Unearthed Arcana (page 79)?

To me it seems reasonably balanced and shifts the feel more toward 'gaming' and a bit less 'roleplaying' as the skill ranks are fixed rather than up to the player to decide each level... though obviously any player can run either system in heavy gamist or immersion mode.

I wonder what other people think of this, and what opinions people might have had back when it was introduced and while 3.x was the main D&D system.

[Willie the Duck]

To me it seems reasonably balanced and shifts the feel more toward 'gaming' and a bit less 'roleplaying' as the skill ranks are fixed rather than up to the player to decide each level... though obviously any player can run either system in heavy gamist or immersion mode.

I wonder what other people think of this, and what opinions people might have had back when it was introduced and while 3.x was the main D&D system.

To be honest, I've never considered the meting out of skill points with an eyedropper or a game of mancala to be anything except a gamist exercise. If you want to capture the RP feel of a character, you can do so with either. There are consequences to the rule, but mostly along the 'lower granularity in exchange for simplicity' axis, not the gaming-RP axis.

[HouseRules]

All of the published NPC and Monsters used the Alternate Skill System.

5E is clearly build upon this Alternate Skill System because it makes things simpler.

Some people want to limit the complexity of the game.

[Crake]

I did a quick search and did not find anything on this.

Does anyone have thoughts on this optional Alternative Skill System from the 3.x Unearthed Arcana (page 79)?

To me it seems reasonably balanced and shifts the feel more toward 'gaming' and a bit less 'roleplaying' as the skill ranks are fixed rather than up to the player to decide each level... though obviously any player can run either system in heavy gamist or immersion mode.

I wonder what other people think of this, and what opinions people might have had back when it was introduced and while 3.x was the main D&D system.

Personally I'm not a fan of it. It's basically the 4e/5e skill system in it's early stages, and is basically the equivilent of just picking a number of skills equal to X+int mod (where X is the number of skill points per level you get from your class). I much prefer being able to spend your skill points however you wish, and it allows for more granularity for characters. You can actually be moderately good at something, rather than being forced to choose between "completely untrained" or "the best you can possibly be".

[JNAProductions]

Personally I'm not a fan of it. It's basically the 4e/5e skill system in it's early stages, and is basically the equivilent of just picking a number of skills equal to X+int mod (where X is the number of skill points per level you get from your class). I much prefer being able to spend your skill points however you wish, and it allows for more granularity for characters. You can actually be moderately good at something, rather than being forced to choose between "completely untrained" or "the best you can possibly be".

To be fair, there's a HUGE difference between "Max Skill Ranks" and "Best You Can Be".

A 12 Int Human Fighter who nabbed Knowledge (Nature) has a Level+4 bonus.

A 14 Int Elvish Druid who has Knowledge (Nature) maxed, at least 5 ranks in Survival, and Skill Focus (Nature) has a Level+12 bonus. And that's before any magic items that help out.

Finally, honest question: How often do you not max out skills? I don't think I've ever seen a character sheet without maxed skills, though it's possible you and I have had different experiences, of course.

[HouseRules]

For good role playing, usually, there is no need to sunk in more than 8 ranks in a skill.

[Zaq]

Thing is, you can already just do that by investing in the same skills every level. It only gets different when multiclassing, and then it’s ever so slightly abusable if you want to dip around into a lot of frontloaded classes. I don’t see much benefit.

I understand the desire to make things simpler, but there’s already an option in the basic rules to achieve nearly the same results with approximately the same level of effort.

I guess I can see it being faster for multiclassed NPCs?

[Troacctid]

Almost every character I've ever made—I actually can't think of an exception—has had at least one skill that stopped at 5 ranks for a synergy bonus or at the exact amount needed to hit a prerequisite or breakpoint.

[Crake]

To be fair, there's a HUGE difference between "Max Skill Ranks" and "Best You Can Be".

A 12 Int Human Fighter who nabbed Knowledge (Nature) has a Level+4 bonus.

A 14 Int Elvish Druid who has Knowledge (Nature) maxed, at least 5 ranks in Survival, and Skill Focus (Nature) has a Level+12 bonus. And that's before any magic items that help out.

Finally, honest question: How often do you not max out skills? I don't think I've ever seen a character sheet without maxed skills, though it's possible you and I have had different experiences, of course.

I meant best you can be, emphasis on the you, so you're either completely untrained, or have full dedication to the skill, learning it as best you possibly can, however good that means you are depends on other factors like ability scores, or external modifiers, but the point is, it makes it impossible to dabble in things.

This is especially problematic with 3.5 where a lot of the skills are quite specific, so maybe you want to be decently good at climbing, jumping and swimming (atheletics), taking 1/3rd ranks (read: 1 every 3 levels) in each, so you can be moderately good at all of them as you level up. With the UA system, you have no option to do that, you're either amazing at one of the skills, or completely untrained in them. For systems like 4e/5e/pf2, that becomes less of an issue, since a lot of those skills were grouped together, though to a detriment in some cases IMO, like hide/move silent/listen/spot/search, they're all quite different skills, even if they generally serve a similar goal.

Ultimately I have no real issue with the UA system beyond that, I know a lot of people who just max out X skills and call it a day, and the UA system generally mirrors that in outcome, but the fact is, the UA system removes options to NOT just max out skills. If someone wants to have things be simple and max out a skill, that option is already there, you don't need to make it into a special rule.

[Mr Adventurer]

I always liked the one where you get all of your class skills with ranks equal to your class level. Does absolute wonders for mid to high level Monks!

Obviously it's not a saving grace, and other high-skill classes also benefit a lot, but I've always felt that the Monk in particular has way too many skills that are essentially Monk-like without enough skill points to do them justice.

[HouseRules]

Almost every character I've ever made—I actually can't think of an exception—has had at least one skill that stopped at 5 ranks for a synergy bonus or at the exact amount needed to hit a prerequisite or breakpoint.

You get +2 synergy bonus for 5 ranks.
Epic Level Handbook: You get +4 synergy bonus for every 20 ranks.

Edit: For prestige classes, the most requires is 13 ranks if I recall correctly.

[JNAProductions]

I meant best you can be, emphasis on the you, so you're either completely untrained, or have full dedication to the skill, learning it as best you possibly can, however good that means you are depends on other factors like ability scores, or external modifiers, but the point is, it makes it impossible to dabble in things.

This is especially problematic with 3.5 where a lot of the skills are quite specific, so maybe you want to be decently good at climbing, jumping and swimming (atheletics), taking 1/3rd ranks (read: 1 every 3 levels) in each, so you can be moderately good at all of them as you level up. With the UA system, you have no option to do that, you're either amazing at one of the skills, or completely untrained in them. For systems like 4e/5e/pf2, that becomes less of an issue, since a lot of those skills were grouped together, though to a detriment in some cases IMO, like hide/move silent/listen/spot/search, they're all quite different skills, even if they generally serve a similar goal.

Ultimately I have no real issue with the UA system beyond that, I know a lot of people who just max out X skills and call it a day, and the UA system generally mirrors that in outcome, but the fact is, the UA system removes options to NOT just max out skills. If someone wants to have things be simple and max out a skill, that option is already there, you don't need to make it into a special rule.

That's fair. I don't have an issue with it, but to each their own.

[Mr Adventurer]

Almost every character I've ever made—I actually can't think of an exception—has had at least one skill that stopped at 5 ranks for a synergy bonus or at the exact amount needed to hit a prerequisite or breakpoint.

I often also do this; I also really like Able Learner to help realise out-of-class concepts (like charismatic Wizards, or sneaky Sorcerers, or sneaky Fighters, or knowledgeable anyone who isn't a Wizard or a Bard...)

[Celestia]

Finally, honest question: How often do you not max out skills? I don't think I've ever seen a character sheet without maxed skills, though it's possible you and I have had different experiences, of course.
Plenty of times. Sure, there are some skills you're going to want to keep maxed out, like anything with an opposed roll, but there are also skills where that's just not the case. There are numerous skills that check against fixed DCs, and once you have enough ranks to auto succeed them when taking ten, there's never any reason to sink more points into the skill. In addition, there is also a number of skills that are potentially useful at lower levels but eventually become obsolete at higher levels, so it would just be dumb to keep putting points into a skill you'll never roll again. And finally, there are skills that are just simply bad but gatekeep good things, so you're going to only want to put in the minimum points necessary to meet those prerequisites. So, there are plenty of mechanical reasons why you wouldn't want to just keep max ranks in a handful of skills.

[Willie the Duck]

This is especially problematic with 3.5 where a lot of the skills are quite specific, so maybe you want to be decently good at climbing, jumping and swimming (atheletics), taking 1/3rd ranks (read: 1 every 3 levels) in each, so you can be moderately good at all of them as you level up. With the UA system, you have no option to do that, you're either amazing at one of the skills, or completely untrained in them. For systems like 4e/5e/pf2, that becomes less of an issue, since a lot of those skills were grouped together, though to a detriment in some cases IMO, like hide/move silent/listen/spot/search, they're all quite different skills, even if they generally serve a similar goal.

I certainly understand the point, and agree with it in grand theory, however, as applied to 3e, I've not found it to be all that helpful to do that. That's because the target number treadmill that seems to exist in 3e/d20/PF means that you really do need to have any skills you actually use (as opposed to for flavor, for synergy bonus, or as prerequisites) maxed out.

I mean, particularly for rogues or the like (where even 8sp/level is woefully inadequate to capture a archetypal 'D&D Thief'), the idea of spreading it out is good -- a 6th-level human rogue with 12 Int has 90 sp, and having 15 skills at 6 ranks better captures the concept than 10 skills at 9 ranks. But you need those 3 extra ranks in your hides, move silentlies, open locks, etc. if you actually are going to be putting them to use, because those 3 ranks every time you make your rolls may well be the difference between life or death.

All this is personal experience. YMMV, etc.


Ultimately I have no real issue with the UA system beyond that, I know a lot of people who just max out X skills and call it a day, and the UA system generally mirrors that in outcome, but the fact is, the UA system removes options to NOT just max out skills. If someone wants to have things be simple and max out a skill, that option is already there, you don't need to make it into a special rule.

That would be the basic point, yes. Simplicity in exchange for less options.

[Crake]

I certainly understand the point, and agree with it in grand theory, however, as applied to 3e, I've not found it to be all that helpful to do that. That's because the target number treadmill that seems to exist in 3e/d20/PF means that you really do need to have any skills you actually use (as opposed to for flavor, for synergy bonus, or as prerequisites) maxed out.

I mean, particularly for rogues or the like (where even 8sp/level is woefully inadequate to capture a archetypal 'D&D Thief'), the idea of spreading it out is good -- a 6th-level human rogue with 12 Int has 90 sp, and having 15 skills at 6 ranks better captures the concept than 10 skills at 9 ranks. But you need those 3 extra ranks in your hides, move silentlies, open locks, etc. if you actually are going to be putting them to use, because those 3 ranks every time you make your rolls may well be the difference between life or death.

All this is personal experience. YMMV, etc.

Celestia just above you actually explicitly pointed out that while yes there are some skills that you will generally want to have max, there are plenty of skills that run against fixed DCs, which you can generally avoid ranking up after you hit certain thresholds. Examples include hitting climb DC20-25ish, swim DC20, tumble DC15/25, survival DC 10+(2*number of other party members), handle animal 10/25, concentration DC 24, craft DC20, and I'm sure there's many more out there.

[Willie the Duck]

Celestia just above you actually explicitly pointed out that while yes there are some skills that you will generally want to have max, there are plenty of skills that run against fixed DCs, which you can generally avoid ranking up after you hit certain thresholds. Examples include hitting climb DC20-25ish, swim DC20, tumble DC15/25, survival DC 10+(2*number of other party members), handle animal 10/25, concentration DC 24, craft DC20, and I'm sure there's many more out there.

I'm aware that there are exceptions, but I'm going to hazard less than one might think. Climbing, actually, I've found gets dropped not because DCs stop climbing, but because people start picking up spiderclimb and fly and the like, and the skill just stops being as relevant as it once was. Which is another situation where this alternate rule set might be more constraining and you might have to follow a skill all the way to the end instead of duck out after a certain point. Whether that's good or bad is another good open question.

I'm sure we could cobble together a story of a player who wants to take these skills up to 5 for synergy bonus, that skill up to level 8 for a PrC qualification, these other skills keep maxed out until level 6 or 8 or so when everyone has a magic item making the skill irrelevant, and these other could skills they need to keep maxed at all times because they are usually contested skills and the opposition's ranks keep rising. Those are the reasonable and obvious counterarguments to this alternate system, and the counterresponse is going to come down to 'simplicity.'

[Mr Adventurer]

I'm sure we could cobble together a story of a player who wants to take these skills up to 5 for synergy bonus, that skill up to level 8 for a PrC qualification, these other skills keep maxed out until level 6 or 8 or so when everyone has a magic item making the skill irrelevant, and these other could skills they need to keep maxed at all times because they are usually contested skills and the opposition's ranks keep rising. Those are the reasonable and obvious counterarguments to this alternate system, and the counterresponse is going to come down to 'simplicity.'

I kinda object to the insinuation that half my characters are "cobbled together", my dude! :smallbiggrin:

[Willie the Duck]

I kinda object to the insinuation that half my characters are "cobbled together", my dude! :smallbiggrin:

Cobble together a story, my man, a story! :smallbiggrin:

[Mr Adventurer]

Cobble together a story, my man, a story! :smallbiggrin:

What is a character, other than their story?! Mere numbers on a page?! Faugh!

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/pDK9rhWBUlg/hqdefault.jpg

[Willie the Duck]

What is a character, other than their story?! Mere numbers on a page?! Faugh!

This is fun, but I have no idea how it relates!

[Troacctid]

I'm sure we could cobble together a story of a player who wants to take these skills up to 5 for synergy bonus, that skill up to level 8 for a PrC qualification, these other skills keep maxed out until level 6 or 8 or so when everyone has a magic item making the skill irrelevant, and these other could skills they need to keep maxed at all times because they are usually contested skills and the opposition's ranks keep rising. Those are the reasonable and obvious counterarguments to this alternate system, and the counterresponse is going to come down to 'simplicity.'
Again, this isn't at all a contrived scenario. Look at my Warlockopedia. Every single sample build does it. Look at Iron Chef. All but one of the builds in the last E6 round did it.

[FaerieGodfather]

I vastly prefer Pathfinder's Grouped Skills optional rules from Pathfinder Unchained; they allow characters to be much more broadly competent and to grow and change over the course of their career.

[bean illus]

Finally, honest question: How often do you not max out skills? ...

Lol. I guess skill tricks are thrown out with the bathwater


Almost every character I've ever made— ...


Again, this isn't at all a contrived scenario. ...

An int based facto needs one rank of disable device and a T10. Also open lock, knowledgs, professions, spellecraft, and more ...

[Willie the Duck]

Lol. I guess skill tricks are thrown out with the bathwater

Didn't UA precede the books that included skill tricks, though?

[HouseRules]

Didn't UA precede the books that included skill tricks, though?

Unearthed Arcana: February 2004
Skill Tricks: January 2007

2 years and 11 months

[Mato]

Finally, honest question: How often do you not max out skills?
Q: Do you need max ranks in skills?
A: No. Several skills are easily bypassed (ie climb/jump) by other expected abilities and often you don't need a large modifier. For example, you may wish to be able to fast mount in full-plate (one of ride's highest DCs) and need a +26 modifier in ride but your actual ranks may be much lower. Practical limitations and diminished returns may also change desired, such as wanting a +15 modifier in tumble to avoid AoOs but choosing skill tricks over adding the benefit of being able to pass through an opponent. Even opposed skills have a sort of upper limit, a +20 modifier on hide is handy but a +80 has it's own increased cost and it also requires other support to avoid being ignored by things such as blindsense or permanent detect magic. Always follow the rules of min/max, don't excessively progress something if you're already a master at doing it.