PDA

View Full Version : On 4th edition skills [note: grousing ahead ;)]



Lord Zentei
2007-12-01, 03:15 PM
I have a problem with some of the rumors that I'm hearing for 4th edition. Notable among these is the new Skill system.

These problems are as follows:

Firstly, the list of skills is going to be severely truncated and simplified. Nothing wrong with that in principle, though they seem to be going a bit far with it, don't they? I mean, I can accept that Listen and Spot are going to be conflated... possibly so for Spot and Search... but Sense Motive? So, a wandering Ranger used to the outdoors who can track, spot and listen like nobody's business while being a stranger to both court intrigue and the back-street dealings of the cities is good at detecting deceptions of his fellow men now? Hmm. Whether there are further such issues when the rules come out, or whether these things can be dealt with ad hoc, I cannot say. But based on this, I tend to get the idea that they have cut a little too deep in their simplifications.

Also, as far as I understand, there are not going to be any Skill Points you can customize your character with anymore. I don't like the sound of that. Granted, the skills allocation was the most time consuming process of the character generation routine, but DMs want fast characters, WotC could simply include standardized buy schemes in the DM's guide... after all, the 3rd edition DM's guide included sample NPCs... and that way you can in fact have "default" skill lists in the game, so what's the big issue?

A third problem with the new skill system is the manner in which the skill roll bonus is defined. As far as I have been able to gather it works like this:

Bonus = Level + 5 (if "trained in skill") + 5 (if character has the Skill Focus feat)

Apparently, you get "trained in skill" if the skill in question is one of your class skills. So... what happens if a fighter "dips" into the Rogue class for one level? Does he gain "trained in skill" for all the Rogue skills? Is a Fighter:9/Rogue:1 going to be as good at hiding and lock-picking as a Rogue:10 (not counting Skill Focus feats)? Or am I misunderstanding something here?

Thinker
2007-12-01, 03:18 PM
That is simply speculation based on SW: Saga Edition. Some of the other stuff I've seen, notably things that grant +2 bonus on skills (see the feats article) suggests otherwise. They may have minimized the number of skills, but I don't know that they have gotten rid of skill points all together.

Zincorium
2007-12-01, 03:24 PM
If it works like it does in the Star Wars SAGA edition, which is where the "level +5 if trained +5 for skill focus" thing comes from, then:

You will, at character creation, pick a number of trained skills equal to the number given for your class (we don't know any of 4.0's yet) plus your intelligence modifier.

These are selected from among your class skills.

After character creation, you need to spend a feat to be trained in an additional skill.

To sum up, the problem you cite does not exist in the SAGA-based system they appear to be going for. Starting off as a skill monkey class will have serious perks all game.

Lord Zentei
2007-12-01, 03:27 PM
If it works like it does in the Star Wars SAGA edition, which is where the "level +5 if trained +5 for skill focus" thing comes from, then:

You will, at character creation, pick a number of trained skills equal to the number given for your class (we don't know any of 4.0's yet) plus your intelligence modifier.

These are selected from among your class skills.

After character creation, you need to spend a feat to be trained in an additional skill.

To sum up, the problem you cite does not exist in the SAGA-based system they appear to be going for. Starting off as a skill monkey class will have serious perks all game.

OK... but then if you start as a Rogue:1 and go Rogue:1/Fighter:9, do you get the Rogue skills at character creation and then the HD and BAB of a fighter thereafter?

Matthew
2007-12-01, 03:31 PM
In my opinion, whether you use skill points or not to develop a PC is secondary to the work involved in building NPCs with skill points - frankly, it's a drag. Much, much easier to do it the way that is being suggested here, but more to the point, it would be relatively easy to introduce skill points for PCs if you want them. I have no doubt that will appear as a variant rule.

Lord Zentei
2007-12-01, 03:40 PM
In my opinion, whether you use skill points or not to develop a PC is secondary to the work involved in building NPCs with skill points - frankly, it's a drag. Much, much easier to do it the way that is being suggested here, but more to the point, it would be relatively easy to introduce skill points for PCs if you want them. I have no doubt that will appear as a variant rule.

It is certainly a bit of a drag to do, though as I said, there is nothing to prevent WotC to have "standard" skill packages in the DM's guide to prevent just that sort of thing (and in the case of important NPCs you'll probably want to customize them). It seems a bit of a shame to remove skill points from the core rules just for that (and frankly, most issues can be dealt with as "variant rules"... that doesn't mean the new game system itself is better).

Matthew
2007-12-01, 03:57 PM
I dunno, Skill Packages just sound more complicated to me. I don't want to be looking these things up when preparing to run the game, a (X+0), (X+5), (X+10) (or whatever it might turn out to be) progression just seems easier to remember and apply.

And sure, the fact that the a variant might exist won't make the non variant version any better, but if the none variant version is aiming for simplicity, then dumping Skill Points is the way to go.

To tell the truth, I think that even the Saga version is too complicated and not worth the time spent preparing. Mind you it's a design aesthetic, and you are trading one thing for another.

Justin_Bacon
2007-12-01, 04:04 PM
In my opinion, whether you use skill points or not to develop a PC is secondary to the work involved in building NPCs with skill points - frankly, it's a drag.

Except... it's not.

If you want to quickly generate a character's skills, select a number of class skills equal to # + Int modifier and give them skill ranks equal to 3 + your level, where # is based on your class. (Multiclass Characters: For each class, select a number of class skills equal to # + Int modifier and give them skill ranks equal to their class level. Add +3 skill ranks to the class skills selected for whatever class was taken at 3rd level.)

The Saga system isn't any easier to use than the existing skill point system if you don't want the options the existing skill point system gives you. So the Saga system gives you nothing, but takes away a lot.

I recently wrote a lengthy essay (http://www.thealexandrian.net/archive/archive2007-11.html#20071128) about this.

Justin Alexander
http://www.thealexandrian.net

Renegade Paladin
2007-12-01, 04:07 PM
In my opinion, whether you use skill points or not to develop a PC is secondary to the work involved in building NPCs with skill points - frankly, it's a drag. Much, much easier to do it the way that is being suggested here, but more to the point, it would be relatively easy to introduce skill points for PCs if you want them. I have no doubt that will appear as a variant rule.
Oh for the love of... It isn't hard; just take the number of skill points per level the class and INT bonus (and race, if applicable) grant per level, select that many skills, put max ranks in them (level+3), and there. Done.

Matthew
2007-12-01, 04:19 PM
Except... it's not.

If you want to quickly generate a character's skills, select a number of class skills equal to # + Int modifier and give them skill ranks equal to 3 + your level, where # is based on your class. (Multiclass Characters: For each class, select a number of class skills equal to # + Int modifier and give them skill ranks equal to their class level. Add +3 skill ranks to the class skills selected for whatever class was taken at 3rd level.)

The Saga system isn't any easier to use than the existing skill point system if you don't want the options the existing skill point system gives you. So the Saga system gives you nothing, but takes away a lot.

I recently wrote a lengthy essay (http://www.thealexandrian.net/archive/archive2007-11.html#20071128) about this.

Justin Alexander
http://www.thealexandrian.net

Except that's not customisation. That's just choosing Class Skills and maxing them out. Believe me, I know how to do it, I just think it's a boring and pointless part of the game.


Oh for the love of... It isn't hard; just take the number of skill points per level the class and INT bonus (and race, if applicable) grant per level, select that many skills, put max ranks in them (level+3), and there. Done.

Who said it was hard? It's boring, a drag. I don't want to spend time doing it.

Lord Zentei
2007-12-01, 04:19 PM
I dunno, Skill Packages just sound more complicated to me. I don't want to be looking these things up when preparing to run the game, a (X+0), (X+5), (X+10) (or whatever it might turn out to be) progression just seems easier to remember and apply.

I can't really see that it's complicated... you would simply have a list of skill levels and copy/paste them to your character sheet the way BAB and saves are. In fact, having three or so "default" progression rates for skills (good, average, bad) in the same way BAB is handled would make a lot more sense than what I hear about the SAGA edition.

Consider: a Rogue:5 would have +5 for his Spot skill (or Perception or whatever else it is called now) since it is one of his "good" skills, while a Fighter:5 would have +3, since his Perception skill uses the "average" progression. A Fighter:5/Rogue:5 would thus have +8 total. Similarly, a Wizard would have "good" progression in Knowledge (something) and a Fighter would have poor progression, meaning a Fighter:5/Wizard:5 would have +7 total.

With this, there is no need to include the "trained in skill" mechanic, eliminating the possibility of dip abuse (first level in Rogue, rest in Fighter) like I mentioned above, since the skill benefits of a class accumulate gradually, just like any other class benefit. Neither is this really increasing the learning curve any, since we're already doing this for BAB and Saves.

A further advantage would be that BAB essentially becomes just another skill, facilitating balance as you're not comparing apples and oranges as much as before (and allowing the possibility of splitting BAB into distinct types based on different categories of weapons).



To tell the truth, I think that even the Saga version is too complicated and not worth the time spent preparing. Mind you it's a design aesthetic, and you are trading one thing for another.

Really? You feel character level +5 or +10 is too complicated? :smallconfused: Just how simple do you want it to be?



Who said it was hard? It's boring, a drag. I don't want to spend time doing it.

I think Renegade Paladin means that it doesn't take a long time. :smallwink:

Matthew
2007-12-01, 04:22 PM
I can't really see that it's complicated...

Well, complicated is probably the wrong word. Complex, or too many steps is what I perhaps should have said.


Really? You feel character level +5 or +10 is too complicated? :smallconfused: Just how simple do you want it to be?

I wouldn't even bother writing them down for NPCs. I would just decide on the spot what their modifiers might be, with the (X+0), (X+5), (X+10) paradigm in mind, should it come up.


I think Renegade Paladin means that it doesn't take a long time. :smallwink:

Maybe.

Lord Zentei
2007-12-01, 04:27 PM
Well, complicated is probably the wrong word. Complex, or too many steps is what I perhaps should have said.

I wouldn't even bother writing them down for NPCs. I would just decide on the spot what their modifiers might be, with the (X+0), (X+5), (X+10) paradigm in mind, should it come up.

OK... but if you're "winging it" to that extent while allowing PCs customization, I don't see what the issue is... if you want to wing it, then wing it. :smallconfused:

Anyway, most of your throwaway NPCs are not going to be multi-class anyway. Using the BAB type "default" progression I mentioned above, if you can remember that "Cleric:5" has BAB +3, and that "Perception" is a "mid-level" skill for Fighters, then it's not much of a leap to remember that a Fighter:5 should have Perception +3, for instance. And you are going to have to remember which skills are "high", or "low" for such and such a character anyway...

Lord Tataraus
2007-12-01, 04:31 PM
Huh, I've never had any problem with selecting skills for NPCs. I just use the quick and easy way already presented by selecting a number of skills to go max ranks in then I might move a few points around. Its nothing compared to the rest of creation such as picking feats and equipment. Skill selection has never much time in my group.

Matthew
2007-12-01, 04:32 PM
These two things are distinct:

1) I like the Saga skill system better than the 3e skill system

2) Preferably, I wouldn't even bother with a strict system

I wouldn't want you to make the mistake of conflating these two opinions, I was just fessing up that in general I prefer things to be simple and loose (or, to put it another way, I prefer light systems). I think Saga is lighter than 3e, and I find that attractive.

StickMan
2007-12-01, 04:33 PM
Have to agree with the OP I really do not want to see a Saga style skill system in the new game. I don't enjoy how generic it makes skills and how your good or bad at a skill can't I just be mediocre?

Zincorium
2007-12-01, 04:38 PM
OK... but then if you start as a Rogue:1 and go Rogue:1/Fighter:9, do you get the Rogue skills at character creation and then the HD and BAB of a fighter thereafter?

In the midst of the rest of the arguing going on:

You get rogue skills. Period. What you take after 1st level does not matter. One Iota. If this causes all the players to start as rogues, well, so be it to my way of thinking.



As far as the rest of the arguments:

The saga system vastly improves your ability to use skills you haven't focused on, class, cross-class, or whatever other designations they come up with.

Skill points are unnecessarily complicated for the most common use, which is maxing out all skills. If you're going to come up with the same numbers, why keep track of the exact points? Whether it's easy or hard is subjective. You all get that, right? There is no objective standard for ease of use. So I don't see why you're arguing over that aspect, it's flatly impossible to convince anyone else.

Edit:

Have to agree with the OP I really do not want to see a Saga style skill system in the new game. I don't enjoy how generic it makes skills and how your good or bad at a skill can't I just be mediocre?

Not taking it as a class skill or getting skill focus means you're mediocre. Taking it as a class skill or getting skill focus only means you are middle of the line. Both means you're excellent.

TheOOB
2007-12-01, 04:43 PM
The star wars SAGA edition skill system worked quite well for star wars, but I would be disappointed if they used the same system for D&D. Star Wars was built to that you multiclass freely to get the different talents you want, but so that you always come out resembling your first class. A scout, for example, has more hp and skills then a scoundrel, but the scoundrel has a more diverse skill list including many of the sneaky and social skills that a scout doesn't have. Thus a scout 1/scoundrel 1 comes out much different then a scoundrel 1/scout 1. This works for star wars to help give each character a little more individuality then others, if the system used skill points every character would wind up with very similar skill lists because most every character multiclasses alot, and thus would get every skill they want up to a decent level. Having 5 or 6 classes is not unusual in star wars.

D&D on the other hand has a much greater class identity, so a skill point system works better, letting people mix their class skills to make their own character more unique. In star wars most of you characters (save jedi) will likely have very similar class set ups because the classes are designed to mix and match, taking one class to high levels doesn't benefit you a great deal, and there isn't a great need for party roles. In D&D, however, your players all fill very different rolls, and the classes are all fundamentally different, so you need skill points to even make multiclassing work.

Matthew
2007-12-01, 04:45 PM
Aren't they trying to make Multi Classing easier with 4e, though? Presumably, something like Saga's mix and match approach is what they're going for, isn't it?


The saga system vastly improves your ability to use skills you haven't focused on, class, cross-class, or whatever other designations they come up with.

Yep.


Skill points are unnecessarily complicated for the most common use, which is maxing out all skills. If you're going to come up with the same numbers, why keep track of the exact points? Whether it's easy or hard is subjective. You all get that, right? There is no objective standard for ease of use. So I don't see why you're arguing over that aspect, it's flatly impossible to convince anyone else.

It's a terminology problem. Complicated suggests difficulty, which leads to an assumption of easier or harder in absolute terms.

Holocron Coder
2007-12-01, 04:46 PM
Actually, I cannot quote a direct source, but I do remember this. It was mentioned that skill ranks, etc, are being kept for the next edition. They are not going completely into the mechanic used for Saga. I think the reasoning was something about the Star Wars Saga being more cinematic, where characters needed to be competent at everything, as opposed to the DnD specializations.

Summary: Some skills are merged, ranks are kept, as far as i've heard.

Lord Zentei
2007-12-01, 04:53 PM
In the midst of the rest of the arguing going on:

You get rogue skills. Period. What you take after 1st level does not matter. One Iota. If this causes all the players to start as rogues, well, so be it to my way of thinking.

I completely disagree. If everyone starts as a Rogue, then that means there is something very wrong with the balance of the system. [EDIT: as an aside, if your future career is determined to this extent by what you take at first level does that not undermine the whole idea of flexibility in multi-classing somewhat?]



As far as the rest of the arguments:

The saga system vastly improves your ability to use skills you haven't focused on, class, cross-class, or whatever other designations they come up with.

That it does, though IMHO, it rather goes way too far in that regard.



Skill points are unnecessarily complicated for the most common use, which is maxing out all skills. If you're going to come up with the same numbers, why keep track of the exact points? Whether it's easy or hard is subjective. You all get that, right? There is no objective standard for ease of use. So I don't see why you're arguing over that aspect, it's flatly impossible to convince anyone else.

Well, one can point out that specific arguments and justifications for holding a position don't wash.

For instance as I have said: we already have varying progressions for BAB and saves; one can very easily use the same progressions for skills -- and one has to remember which skills are 'good' or 'bad' for any given class anyway. That can be used as the "default" progression if you don't want to waste time on skill points, rather than spending time on customizing your character. This cannot reasonably be considered "too complicated", unless you feel that BAB and Saves are too complicated also. I haven't really seen an effective counter for that point yet.


EDIT:


Actually, I cannot quote a direct source, but I do remember this. It was mentioned that skill ranks, etc, are being kept for the next edition. They are not going completely into the mechanic used for Saga. I think the reasoning was something about the Star Wars Saga being more cinematic, where characters needed to be competent at everything, as opposed to the DnD specializations.

Summary: Some skills are merged, ranks are kept, as far as i've heard.

Well I certainly hope that rumor is true.

Chronos
2007-12-01, 05:16 PM
In the midst of the rest of the arguing going on:

You get rogue skills. Period. What you take after 1st level does not matter. One Iota. If this causes all the players to start as rogues, well, so be it to my way of thinking.So in other words, instead of rogues having one dead level, now they'll have 29 of them.

It's not a good system if there exist a very large number of options which exist, but which you'd have to be hair-brained to take.

Beleriphon
2007-12-01, 06:41 PM
Have to agree with the OP I really do not want to see a Saga style skill system in the new game. I don't enjoy how generic it makes skills and how your good or bad at a skill can't I just be mediocre?

Thats the point of the Saga skill system. Everybody is medicore at the skills they don't focus on. D&D is very much the opposite, you're either very good or very bad at a skill.

Lord Zentei
2007-12-01, 07:58 PM
Thats the point of the Saga skill system. Everybody is medicore at the skills they don't focus on. D&D is very much the opposite, you're either very good or very bad at a skill.

D&D is: you can be as bad, good or mediocre as you want within the scope of the skill points available.

Zincorium
2007-12-01, 08:29 PM
D&D is: you can be as bad, good or mediocre as you want within the scope of the skill points available.

Somewhat true. You can spread your skill points out, but it works out very poorly as you'll never be able to succeed at skills you haven't kept fairly high.

Personally, as a DM I hate people who put skill points willy-nilly because:

A. It takes just that much longer to double-check their character sheets for errors and the like (we all do it occasionally, so I have at least one other person read the sheet over before play).

B. I cannot count on them to succeed at any given obstacle unless I make it very low difficulty.

C. It's almost never for a good reason, though that may be unique to the people I've played with.

Lord Zentei
2007-12-01, 09:00 PM
Somewhat true. You can spread your skill points out, but it works out very poorly as you'll never be able to succeed at skills you haven't kept fairly high.

This applies to cross-class skills in SAGA edition too.



Personally, as a DM I hate people who put skill points willy-nilly because:

A. It takes just that much longer to double-check their character sheets for errors and the like (we all do it occasionally, so I have at least one other person read the sheet over before play).

B. I cannot count on them to succeed at any given obstacle unless I make it very low difficulty.

C. It's almost never for a good reason, though that may be unique to the people I've played with.

Point B applies to cross class skills in SAGA edition too. Point C can be dealt with with standardized "default" packages. As for point A -- seriously, how hard is it to check a character sheet? And won't they have to do this anyway?

Zincorium
2007-12-01, 09:12 PM
This applies to cross-class skills in SAGA edition too.

Point B applies to cross class skills in SAGA edition too. Point C can be dealt with with standardized "default" packages. As for point A -- seriously, how hard is it to check a character sheet? And won't they have to do this anyway?

Class level added to all skill checks. Trained or untrained. I don't need to know which levels you spent points in which skills. Since most characters won't even take skill focus, I can reliably set difficulties to leave a good chance of success without making it certain.

And as far as how long it takes to check someone's character sheet, it generally doesn't take long, unless they put skill points down in bizarre ways. Which is why I have a problem with them doing so.

Skjaldbakka
2007-12-01, 09:13 PM
How they change the skill system is one of two breaking points for me, that will determine whether I buy the PHB, just to have it on the off chance someone else runs a game, or if I buy 4E, and switch over. I like skill points. I like spending a lot of time tinkering with my character before a game, to get him 'just so', and skill points are a big part of that. Not that I can't throw a character together in 5 minutes, but I like to put more thought into it. I find that my character's personality tends to become more clear in my mind as I am working on skills.

The other point being halflings. If they had dropped halflings, I would not have even bought the PHB. The second point being entirely irrational, but :smalltongue:

Sleet
2007-12-01, 09:40 PM
Oh for the love of... It isn't hard; just take the number of skill points per level the class and INT bonus (and race, if applicable) grant per level, select that many skills, put max ranks in them (level+3), and there. Done.

If I want my NPC to have a few levels of a PrC, it's not that simple. Plus, synergies. Ugh.

Is it tremendously difficult? Of course not. But it is a bookkeeping headache. I don't like it. I like Saga's system much better.

Edit: I say this as a GM and based on my limited experience with SW Saga, which has been very positive thusfar. One drawback I've noticed is that characters tend to end up looking a lot alike, skill-wsie. But that might be unique to our group.

Skjaldbakka
2007-12-01, 09:59 PM
Edit: I say this as a GM and based on my limited experience with SW Saga, which has been very positive thusfar. One drawback I've noticed is that characters tend to end up looking a lot alike, skill-wsie. But that might be unique to our group.

Emphasis mine.

I severely doubt that is unique to your group, or even unusual. One of the things I like about skills is how they diversify the party. The things that urks me about the current skill system is that certain classes don't get enough skill points to do the iconic things they ought to be able to do (I'm looking at you, cleric and monk).

Sleet
2007-12-01, 10:03 PM
And I'll admit that's a fair criticism. It's a trade-off I'm willing to make as a GM, but I certainly see how it restricts things as a player.

Of course, this discussion is predicated on 4E working like SW Saga does, which AFAIK isn't definite yet.

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-12-01, 10:13 PM
B. I cannot count on them to succeed at any given obstacle unless I make it very low difficulty.

1.) If it's an obstacle all PCs have to get past, you've got to nerf the DC to the lowest common denominator anyway.

2.) Even if only one PC has to get past, you only have to scale the DC to the character with the highest score. Which could very well have 0 ranks just like everyone else, as no group has all the skills covered.

And any skill system short of giving everyone max ranks in every skill you're gonna have to do that.

And really it's just basic taking your party composition into account. Which you should be doing for every aspect of your encounter design. Really no different than saying, "Oh, you're a party of all fighters. Guess I'll cut down on challenges that absolutely require spellcasters."


....characters tend to end up looking a lot alike, skill-wsie.
:smallyuk: :smallyuk: :smallyuk: :smallyuk: :smallyuk: :smallyuk:

I can't even begin to put how I feel about that in words, so the yukkie faces will have to do.

Zincorium
2007-12-01, 10:22 PM
Shalahar, I'm just gonna bow out of this. You're nitpicking something that perhaps could have been said better and turning it into a criticism of my DMing. Yes, I tailor games to my players.

However, the wonderful 'customization' everyone is talking about equates to people having unpredictable adeptness in the skills they use. I dislike that. Anything else you're reading into it wasn't there.

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-12-01, 10:35 PM
Shalahar, I'm just gonna bow out of this. You're nitpicking something that perhaps could have been said better and turning it into a criticism of my DMing. Yes, I tailor games to my players.
What criticizing? (Maybe it was the italics?)

I just don't see how its really any different, more complicated, or more time consuming than what other tailoring that does go on.

And I certainly didn't mean to come off as accusing you personally of negligent DMing or anything else along those lines.


However, the wonderful 'customization' everyone is talking about equates to people having unpredictable adeptness in the skills they use.
Sure, maybe unpredcitable from character to character. But in the end one chararacter's strengths and weaknesses are generally not going to change all that drastically between play sessions or even levels. Once you know your party and have played the first few sessions, you're set.

And if you dislike any unpredictability between characters, I fail to see the point of even generating different characters is.

Devils_Advocate
2007-12-02, 02:03 AM
The Saga system isn't any easier to use than the existing skill point system if you don't want the options the existing skill point system gives you.
I pretty much agree with this.


So the Saga system gives you nothing, but takes away a lot.
Gonna have to disagree with this.

It gives you a consistant design philosophy.

It's fundamentally weird how, in 3rd Edition, you automatically get better in some things, but not others, as you level. Or rather, that's not inherently weird in principle, but it's weird in practice. E.g., the wizard gets better at hitting things even if he never uses a weapon or a spell with an attack roll, but a fighter may never get better at spotting things, even if his group is ambushed all the damn time.

You write, "This type of disparity is a problem when it comes to attack bonuses and saving throws, because those are target numbers which are fundamental to a wide array of common challenges in the game". In other words, everyone has to be good against a type of challenge that will be routinely faced. But, see, the thing is, you can easily turn that logic around and say that making everyone good against a particular type of challenge allows you to throw that type of challenge against the group on a regular basis.

D&D, historically and as it stands now, is a decidely combat-oriented game. Basically, it's assumed that being a group of adventurers means beating things up and taking their stuff. And, since the PC classes model adventurers, they're all good at that in some way or another. And this is fine.

What would also be fine was if it were also assumed that adventurers routinely encounter things other than fights. That a group of adventurers routinely have to sneak around, or find lodging, or sell/trade valuables, or... you get the idea. Basically, if the team is going to have to deal with something on a regular basis, they're going to become better at it over time.

And if it's something that you can reasonably expect not to encounter during an adventure, does it deserve to be a skill?

That seems to be what 4E aims to do. Sucky skills like Profession, Craft, Use Rope, Heal, and whatever just get the axe, and you're left with the skills that everyone will use. And for those skills, the ones you have to use, why wouldn't you get better at them?

Oh, right. Because you can eliminate the need to use them with magic. Because magic, of course, is the solution to every damn thing.

In 3.5, you basically need a wizard or magic items, or you're screwed. Or at least, having these things is way, way better than not having them. And that sucks, because some people want to play a game without a wizard and without a ton of magic items.

4th Edition, it seems, is being designed with those people in mind. With the idea that wizards shouldn't be all-powerful. With the idea that a group might not have an arcane spellcaster who casts fly and invisibility on them whenever they need it, so they need to be able to sneak, climb, jump, etc. on their own. They actually seem to be down on the idea that spellcasters and only spellcasters should be able to do anything.

Armor Class is an excellent example of a nonsensically non-scaling stat that you're expected to fix with magic. As you go up in level, you automatically get better at hitting things, but not better at dodging things. (Actually, you get better at dodging some things, but not others, because your Ref save is quite distinct from your AC, even from your touch AC. Which, I think, just further illustrates how absurd this all is.) But that's OK! Because we've conveniently provided a whole bunch of different types of bonuses to AC and only a few types of bonuses to attack rolls! So, go ahead and pick up those AC-boosting magic items! Seriously, get them. Or you'll be screwed.

Armor class. Saving throws. Attack rolls. Primary ability scores. You need these things to be high, so you have to buy the magic items that make them high, in order to compete with the things you'll be fighting. Of course, since every damn character is going to buy these items and get these bonuses, you could achieve the same effect by incorporating the bonuses into the classes' progressions and doing away with the stat-boosters, so that there's not a lot of unneccessary bookkeeping.

Non-spellcasters shouldn't become dead weight at high levels. Which means that magic needs to stop being the one solution to everything, because that means that characters without magic have the solution to nothing. I favor the idea that magic shouldn't serve as a panacea, and that instead characters should be able to do things on their own because they're heroic and skilled and this is the sort of stuff they do, damnit. Which means that their important skills and armor class go up as they level, because they haven't had magic items and spellcasting buddies covering that stuff, and they shouldn't need to.

Skjaldbakka
2007-12-02, 02:34 AM
So instead of relying on the wizard to cast spells, instead the design philosophy has changed to making everybody spellcasters. I fail to see the improvement.

horseboy
2007-12-02, 02:36 AM
I'm in the camp against generic characters. I like to play characters, not stereotypes. The skills are one of the main reasons my group doesn't like SWSE.

Kompera
2007-12-02, 03:13 AM
Armor Class is an excellent example of a nonsensically non-scaling stat that you're expected to fix with magic. As you go up in level, you automatically get better at hitting things, but not better at dodging things. It does scale a bit, but only at lower levels. The Fighter can't afford full plate at 1st level, but at 3rd he probably can (I may be off on the levels based on WBL, but I don't know any GMs who use such a system in any event).

And while the characters BAB does go up with level, so does the AC of the things they are trying to hit, which tends to remove the scaling effect you're citing. In practice, they get better at hitting things which are already less of a challenge to them, such as humanoids. The things which are challenging to them are typically just as hard for them to hit (or harder) as the humanoids were when they were 3rd level.

Acquiring magic items, swords, armor, etc, is a time honored aspect of every FRPG I'm aware of. There's nothing wrong with those items being used to facilitate the scaling of armor class with level, because the 10th level Fighter will have a better enchantment on his armor then the 5th level Fighter does.

Shadowdweller
2007-12-02, 03:37 AM
I'm in the camp against generic characters. I like to play characters, not stereotypes. The skills are one of the main reasons my group doesn't like SWSE.
Same here. A Saga-like skill system is one of the few things that could completely ruin 4e for me. And quite frankly, I'd hope WotC knows better. TSR tried something similar with "non-weapon" proficiencies in 2e. And it sucked then, compared with more customizable systems like GURPS, or Shadowrun, or even the World of Darkness.

Of course, any further attempt to dumb down the game gets decided disapproval for me.

Lord Zentei
2007-12-02, 06:57 AM
Shalahar, I'm just gonna bow out of this. You're nitpicking something that perhaps could have been said better and turning it into a criticism of my DMing. Yes, I tailor games to my players.

However, the wonderful 'customization' everyone is talking about equates to people having unpredictable adeptness in the skills they use. I dislike that. Anything else you're reading into it wasn't there.

Well, as for that, you simply can discuss with the players how they spend their skills before a session begins. Such as "You might want to put more into Sense Motive for your next session, hint hint". As for myself, I tend to keep copies of my players' character sheets in my folder and look over them as I design scenarios specifically so I know what to throw at them next session.

As for class level being added to your skill checks... sure, though they will still need to check the character sheet for "trained in skill" as well as what stat bonus they're getting... not as much as before, perhaps, but...

Kurald Galain
2007-12-02, 06:57 AM
It would seem there are a number of problems with the skill system, but these apply both to third edition and to what we've seen of fourth edition so far. So it would seem that, while the 4E system is somewhat better than the 3E one, it fails to fix most of its underlying issues.

(1) The chief problem is that the range of randomness (1d20) is too large as compared to the actual skill ranks. This results in an implausibly high rate for unskilled people to succeed at complex tasks, and likewise for experts to fail at simple tasks. Applies to both editions, but interestingly not to second edition.

(2) A problem with character development is that, once a character is good at some skill, he cannot significantly improve that skill when gaining a level (i.e. only +1 more rank). Applies to both editions, and second edition as well.

(3) The third problem is one with realism: characters can get better at something without actually doing that (you can improve your social skills by chopping down black puddings in a dungeon), and conversely characters are not allowed to get better at some things that they do a lot. Applies to every edition since first.

(4) And the final problem is about pigeonholing: certain classes are simply not allowed to effectively learn some skills (and no, spending twice the skill points and get half the normal maximum is not effective). While one may argue it plausible that it doesn't fit the mindset of a barbarian to learn how to pick locks, it is rather strange that a wizard isn't able to learn to play a flute well. Applies to both editions, less so to second (because of the "common" group and the secondary skill rule).

Lord Zentei
2007-12-02, 07:05 AM
Armor Class is an excellent example of a nonsensically non-scaling stat that you're expected to fix with magic. As you go up in level, you automatically get better at hitting things, but not better at dodging things.

Well, technically that's what increasing hit points are supposed to represent. As hit points go up, you are not as much assumed to be able to survive a dozen hits from a longsword as be able to reduce a severe hit to a less severe one, partially dodge the blow, perhaps parry half the time, etc. Five hit points are a severe wound for a 1st level character, a minor cut for a high level one. In that sense, defense does indeed scale with level.

Closet_Skeleton
2007-12-02, 07:43 AM
If you want to quickly generate a character's skills, select a number of class skills equal to # + Int modifier and give them skill ranks equal to 3 + your level, where # is based on your class. (Multiclass Characters: For each class, select a number of class skills equal to # + Int modifier and give them skill ranks equal to their class level. Add +3 skill ranks to the class skills selected for whatever class was taken at 3rd level.)

The Saga system isn't any easier to use than the existing skill point system if you don't want the options the existing skill point system gives you. So the Saga system gives you nothing, but takes away a lot.


Oh for the love of... It isn't hard; just take the number of skill points per level the class and INT bonus (and race, if applicable) grant per level, select that many skills, put max ranks in them (level+3), and there. Done.


Huh, I've never had any problem with selecting skills for NPCs. I just use the quick and easy way already presented by selecting a number of skills to go max ranks in then I might move a few points around. Its nothing compared to the rest of creation such as picking feats and equipment. Skill selection has never much time in my group.

We hear you...

But this isn't the problem. The problem is with multiclass characters. When class skills change, and some skill points are tied to one set of class skills and some aren't. Then it gets annoying.


Have to agree with the OP I really do not want to see a Saga style skill system in the new game. I don't enjoy how generic it makes skills and how your good or bad at a skill can't I just be mediocre?

That's nonsense. The Saga Edition skill system doesn't do any of that. In fact, mediocre is the normal state of skills in Saga Edition and you have to have a crap ability score to be bad at something. Since you have to spend a feat for skill focus to be brilliant at a skill you won't tend to end up average at everything and brilliant at one thing.


Skill points are unnecessarily complicated for the most common use, which is maxing out all skills. If you're going to come up with the same numbers, why keep track of the exact points?

Agreed. Skill points are too fidly if you don't just by class level +3 in everthing.


I completely disagree. If everyone starts as a Rogue, then that means there is something very wrong with the balance of the system.

But not everyone will be able to afford to start as a rogue. If you're playing a game where everyone starts at high level then 1 level of rogue at the begining will be awesome. If you actually spend time at level 1 then a party full of rogues will suck. The wizard can't afford to lose caster levels like this (assuming this isn't thrown out for 4E) and a fighter won't be able to start with up any useful fighter abilities (assuming that fighters get useful abilities as the designers are claiming).


EDIT: as an aside, if your future career is determined to this extent by what you take at first level does that not undermine the whole idea of flexibility in multi-classing somewhat?

Not at all. It doesn't reduce multiclassing flexibility, it just changes your insentive to do so.


D&D is: you can be as bad, good or mediocre as you want within the scope of the skill points available.

Yes. You can be as good as you want in any given skill. But why do you want to waste skill points on something you won't be good at. You might like the idea of giving your character 2 skill points in craft carpentry to represent his background but If I spend skill points on craft carpentry I was to be able to make chairs. Putting 2 skill points into a skill is useless as no DC will be low enough to be able to do anything and it detracts from the skills you actually want to be good at. All the skill point system does is allow you to create a negatively optimised character and what is the real value in that?

With Saga Edition's skill you can still have skills you haven't focused massive amounts of character resources on, but these skills will be useful to you.


This applies to cross-class skills in SAGA edition too.

Saga Edition HAS NO CROSS-CLASSED SKILLS. Also, Saga Edition DCs are lower, allowing low skills to be useful. In D&D, skills you keep high have an average chance of success and everything else is impossible. In Saga Edition skills you focus in have a high chance of success and everything else is average.


Class level added to all skill checks. Trained or untrained.

It's half class level in Saga Edition.


How they change the skill system is one of two breaking points for me, that will determine whether I buy the PHB, just to have it on the off chance someone else runs a game, or if I buy 4E, and switch over. I like skill points. I like spending a lot of time tinkering with my character before a game, to get him 'just so', and skill points are a big part of that. Not that I can't throw a character together in 5 minutes, but I like to put more thought into it. I find that my character's personality tends to become more clear in my mind as I am working on skills.

But does you DM like waiting on you? Do all your fellow players agree?

The skill point system does allow people to have their cake and eat it in some way in that people who care for fiddling can and those who don't can just max everything. But I've spent hours on character creation only to have half an hour of game time and I'm willing to sacrifise a lot so it won't happen again.


The other point being halflings. If they had dropped halflings, I would not have even bought the PHB. The second point being entirely irrational, but :smalltongue:

They dropped gnomes and I'm not buying the PHB :smalltongue:


I severely doubt that is unique to your group, or even unusual. One of the things I like about skills is how they diversify the party.

But it's merely apparent diversity. Those varied skill points will rarely have an effect on the game, especially for skills that never get used. In Saga Edition, there are so many choices of talents that everyone is diverse anyway since nobody is forced to share any class features with other players. Talents also get used a lot more than skills. In D&D you can have a party of four 1st level rogues, each with spread out skill points. But in the standard dungeon crawl you'll be using the same search, disarm trap and open lock skills all the time and when it comes to combat everyone will be flanking in order to sneak attack. In Saga Edition you can have a party of six 1st level scoundrels and even if they all take the same skills they'll have to use completely differant tactics to keep useful.

In Saga Edition two characters can have a +9 mechanics check, but if one takes the Hotwire (allows mechanics to be used to bypass computer systems) talent and the other takes the demolitions (increases damage from explosives laid with mechanics skill) talent then the way they use that +9 will be very differant in game. In D&D if one character has +9 and the other has +11 then if they both pass their checks all the time the differance is immaterial.


"You might want to put more into Sense Motive for your next session, hint hint"

Except in D&D it's pointless to do so since that x4 skill point at first level makes everything that you don't put ranks into from day 1 useless. Decieding that you've made a mistake or want to change character direction in D&D and want to learn a new skill means that that skill will be at too low level to be useless or you'll have to stop advancing your current skills. You can retrain and all but that wipes part of your character history (a person is the sum of all his past experiances, take away those experiances and reduce you the person). In Saga Edition if you want to pick up a new skill you just have to multiclass and spend a feat, then you'll be okay at the skill and it doesn't hurt your old skills despite taking up character resources.


In that sense, defense does indeed scale with level.

Yes, but not in a fun way. Also dodgy classes tend to have lower hp, implying that dodging hits is supposed to be an alternative to taking them, which it isn't in D&D.

Matthew
2007-12-02, 08:03 AM
(2) A problem with character development is that, once a character is good at some skill, he cannot significantly improve that skill when gaining a level (i.e. only +1 more rank). Applies to both editions, and second edition as well.

Mainly true, but with a couple of exceptions; a Thief could plow more than +5% into a given Skill per Level and there was some wiggle room in the later system:


As a general rule, adventurers can add 1 character point to a given proficiency each time they advance a level of experience. They don’t have to use the point at the time they reach the new level. For example, Bellerana the wizard advances from 2nd to 3rd level. She spends 1 character point to
improve her rope use proficiency. And she spends another to improve spellcraft.
It is possible to create exceptions to this limitation. A character who ceases adventuring for a while, and devotes much of that time to farming or laboring in a blacksmith shop, might continually improve his agriculture or blacksmith proficiency even while he does not advance in levels in his character class.

Lord Zentei
2007-12-02, 10:56 AM
Except in D&D it's pointless to do so since that x4 skill point at first level makes everything that you don't put ranks into from day 1 useless. Decieding that you've made a mistake or want to change character direction in D&D and want to learn a new skill means that that skill will be at too low level to be useless or you'll have to stop advancing your current skills. You can retrain and all but that wipes part of your character history (a person is the sum of all his past experiances, take away those experiances and reduce you the person). In Saga Edition if you want to pick up a new skill you just have to multiclass and spend a feat, then you'll be okay at the skill and it doesn't hurt your old skills despite taking up character resources.

And in SAGA, you also gain a raft of class skills that you are "trained in", and learning new ones is difficult.

I cannot fathom how you think blowing a whole feat and an entire character level into multi-classing is less of an impediment for learning new skills than simply spending extra skill points is. You only get one new skill for each feat you spend this way, and both that and the extra level you have to take in whatever class it is can mess up your build something fierce.

Of course, in the 3.5 system you cannot advance beyond half your level plus three in cross class skill ranks... however, you are also able to multi-class in 3.5 and place all the new skill points for gaining that level into the particular skill you are after, and not have to waste a feat to gain it. The result is the same, except you retain your feat for something else. Alternatively, you can instead spread the skill points between two or more skills. Bottom line: as far as facilitating learning new skills is concerned, 3.5 can do whatever SAGA can do, and more.



Yes, but not in a fun way. Also dodgy classes tend to have lower hp, implying that dodging hits is supposed to be an alternative to taking them, which it isn't in D&D.

I never claimed it was a fun way (or even a good way), merely that it existed. :smallwink:

Cuddly
2007-12-02, 11:14 AM
I like the idea that skills are going to be rolled up into fewer skills. I hope open llock and disable device, and move silent and hide, are rolled up into the same skill. Most of the time, when the rogue wants to sneak up on someone, they should be rolling a sneak check, not two rolls, one for MS and one for Hi, followed by me rolling two opposed rolls. I like the idea of two simple rolls: Sneak vs Perception. Anything such as a noisy substrate, a zone of silence, etc. would simply add or subtract flat modifiers to the rolls.



Except... it's not.

If you want to quickly generate a character's skills, select a number of class skills equal to # + Int modifier and give them skill ranks equal to 3 + your level, where # is based on your class. (Multiclass Characters: For each class, select a number of class skills equal to # + Int modifier and give them skill ranks equal to their class level. Add +3 skill ranks to the class skills selected for whatever class was taken at 3rd level.)

The Saga system isn't any easier to use than the existing skill point system if you don't want the options the existing skill point system gives you. So the Saga system gives you nothing, but takes away a lot.

I recently wrote a lengthy essay (http://www.thealexandrian.net/archive/archive2007-11.html#20071128) about this.

Justin Alexander
http://www.thealexandrian.net

Unless it uses 5 classes, where the skill isn't on all their lists, and they've been boosting intelligence....
It may not be difficult but it sure is a time consuming chore for something the PCs are going to kill next session.

Lord Zentei
2007-12-02, 01:19 PM
Unless it uses 5 classes, where the skill isn't on all their lists, and they've been boosting intelligence....
It may not be difficult but it sure is a time consuming chore for something the PCs are going to kill next session.

Once again, if you don't want all the options, you can use standardized packages or pre-made characters.

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-12-02, 02:36 PM
Once again, if you don't want all the options, you can use standardized packages or pre-made characters.
But then you need a standardized package and/or premade character for every possible combination.

Of course if you're so certain this monster or NPC is just going to be killed off 'next session', I don't think the precise skill level really matters much. Not gonna get much of a chance to use them. Just know what it should be good at and wing it from there.

Skjaldbakka
2007-12-03, 01:27 AM
But it's merely apparent diversity. Those varied skill points will rarely have an effect on the game, especially for skills that never get used. In D&D, there are so many choices of feats and classes that everyone is diverse anyway since nobody is forced to share any class features with other players. Feats also get used a lot more than skills. In D&D you can have a party of four 1st level rogues, each with spread out skill points.

Fixed that for you.

And in a dungeon crawl, 4 rogues can vary greatly. One might use spring attack to get into a flank and back to safety while delivering a sneak attack, another might use 2WF and focus more on AC to be able to survive while in a flank. One might go for Improved Many Shot, and deliver devastating sneak attacks from a range. Another might focus on using a wand via UMD (wandstrike with wracking touch, anyone?).

That seems diverse to me. Screwed when a golem shows up, but plenty diverse.

Closet_Skeleton
2007-12-03, 08:38 AM
And in SAGA, you also gain a raft of class skills that you are "trained in", and learning new ones is difficult.

No, learning new skills is not difficult. It requires an investment of character resources. It's really easy to do though.


I cannot fathom how you think blowing a whole feat and an entire character level into multi-classing is less of an impediment for learning new skills than simply spending extra skill points is. You only get one new skill for each feat you spend this way, and both that and the extra level you have to take in whatever class it is can mess up your build something fierce.

Oh no, my build. What a pain.

You get plenty of feats in Saga Edition. Talents are more valuble and multiclassing is the easiest way to get all of them. There isn't really a class in Saga Edition that would screw up your build anyway since all of them are useful.


Of course, in the 3.5 system you cannot advance beyond half your level plus three in cross class skill ranks... however, you are also able to multi-class in 3.5 and place all the new skill points for gaining that level into the particular skill you are after, and not have to waste a feat to gain it.

Yes, you can put all those skills into one skill. But then your other skills will suck and your new skill will take a couple of levels to get up to scratch anyway, all during that time you're other skills are getting slowly less useful.


Bottom line: as far as facilitating learning new skills is concerned, 3.5 can do whatever SAGA can do, and more.

Yes, you can do more with skill points in D&D. You can also do less with those skills and it wastes too much time.


I never claimed it was a fun way (or even a good way), merely that it existed. :smallwink:

Hopefully 4e will make it more fun, or at least better.


Once again, if you don't want all the options, you can use standardized packages or pre-made characters.

This is a really stupid arguement. Did you even think it through?

You're saying that if you don't want to make complex multiclassed characters then you don't need to worry about skill points. Everybody who's been complaining likely don't want to use standardised packages and still find skill points annoying.


Fixed that for you.

:smallannoyed:


And in a dungeon crawl, 4 rogues can vary greatly.

Yes they can. But they vary even more in Saga Edition.

AstralFire
2007-12-03, 09:24 AM
So in other words, instead of rogues having one dead level, now they'll have 29 of them.

It's not a good system if there exist a very large number of options which exist, but which you'd have to be hair-brained to take.

Actually, SAGA comes with new rules on multiclassing. If you start out a Rogue and go to Fighter, you don't start out with all the Fighter 1 goodies (like the five or six bonus feats).

I personally like the changes. It resolves a lot of this "My character has huge rippling muscles and slays dragons, but would immediately drown because I never put any points in swim."

Person_Man
2007-12-03, 09:58 AM
I've played SAGA, and I have to say that I liked how Skills worked, and the change in Skills is one of the things that I'm most looking forward to in 4th ed.

A PC doesn't have to worry about what Skills they've invested in if they want to try something. They can just describe what they want to do, and the DM can tell them what to roll. And even if they've never invested in anything, they can try, and usually have a chance of succeeding. I've found that this helps to facilitate roleplaying and creative solutions to encounters. Using the 3.5 Skills mechanic, you pretty much have to think of everything you might want to do during character creation.

If a PC wants to be really great at something, they can choose to be Trained and Focused in it. And spending a feat/class ability to do so is actually meaningful and helpful (unlike 3.5 Skill Focus, which is a joke) because there are few other ways to buff a Skill (such as items, spells, etc).

However, in virtually every game I have ever DM'd, there is always at least one person who has the burning desire to have Perform, Craft, Profession, Forgery, or one of the other "useless" Skills. They often build their entire character around the idea that their PC is a cook/singer/poet/whatever. They don't care about optimization. They just want to roleplay and maybe have a some fun in combat, and they want the character sheet and the rules to reflect their character decisions, not "what's useful." Maybe they need to bring back Non-Weapon Proficiencies or something similar, in addition to the fixed Skill system?

AstralFire
2007-12-03, 10:09 AM
They often build their entire character around the idea that their PC is a cook/singer/poet/whatever. They don't care about optimization. They just want to roleplay and maybe have a some fun in combat, and they want the character sheet and the rules to reflect their character decisions, not "what's useful." Maybe they need to bring back Non-Weapon Proficiencies or something similar, in addition to the fixed Skill system?

I've found it's pretty easy to accomodate those people, with the added benefit in the Saga system that they won't be useless when they need to chase a thief through rocky terrain.

warmachine
2007-12-03, 12:38 PM
Having skill based on level does, at least, eliminate the problem of high level characters completely sucking at the skills of Spot, Listen, Balance and the like when they're cross-class. In 4e, by folding Forgery into Deception, everyone is a fair hand at forging documents. If a Rogue doesn't train in Deception, a Wizard has a higher INT bonus and is, thus, typically better at forgery. So much for sensible archetypes. Some classes should be awful at certain skills by default. This means Forgery should be split off from Deception, for a start, allowing everyone to be a fair liar, modified by CHA, but poor at forging documents. Rogues start at fair level for forgery by default because Rogues are stereotypically good at all manner of deception.

In the interests of niche protection, Rogues should able to buy good forgery but most other classes can only buy fair level. Such limitations should not apply to all skills. A Fighter should have poor Diplomacy and Knowledge Nobility unless he buys good levels because he is a member of the nobility.

Strikes me that the 3e skill names should be kept and each class lists good, fair and capped-at-fair skills. Each skill bonus from class, INT and race can improve from poor to fair to good as desired but limited by skill caps. Allows flexibilty and usable, default skill levels with archetypal and niche protection.

AstralFire
2007-12-03, 12:45 PM
If a Rogue doesn't train in Deception, a Wizard has a higher INT bonus and is, thus, typically better at forgery. So much for sensible archetypes.

Actually, that makes sense to me. The Wizard spends all of his time studying arcane language. Words are *his life*.


Some classes should be awful at certain skills by default. This means Forgery should be split off from Deception, for a start, allowing everyone to be a fair liar, modified by CHA, but poor at forging documents.

While I would have agreed with you three years ago, I find it considerably easier to give everyone Forgery in Deception; if by concept they're not good Forgers, they can turn that down. Making the Rogue or anyone else actively spend points on one of the least used skills (I've used Forgery well, but only in very specific kinds of games where the DM was encouraging unusual usages) will result in games completely ignoring a layer of the game. I can count on one hand the games I've played where Forgery or Swim was consequential.


In the interests of niche protection, Rogues should able to buy good forgery but most other classes can only buy fair level. Such limitations should not apply to all skills. A Fighter should have poor Diplomacy and Knowledge Nobility unless he buys good levels because he is a member of the nobility.

You realize that you still have to pick which skills you wish to specialize in? Frankly, I think Roy from OotS is in and of himself a strong argument against those kinds of restrictions. He's clearly gotten better at conversing as time goes on, even though it's not something he picked up specifically.

Kurald Galain
2007-12-03, 01:02 PM
Does anyone even use forgery? I've been playing for over a decade and I don't recall it ever coming up.

warmachine
2007-12-03, 01:10 PM
You realize that you still have to pick which skills you wish to specialize in? Frankly, I think Roy from OotS is in and of himself a strong argument against those kinds of restrictions. He's clearly gotten better at conversing as time goes on, even though it's not something he picked up specifically.
I'll go with Forgery been merged into Deception for usability. Unless differing skill costs are introduced, using a simple design requires odd compromises. Just have to live with it.

For me, Roy also exemplifies why I dislike the 3e skill system. In 4e, the good skills are set at 1st level, making the problem worse. Even more reason to alter my alternate design. I'll think about it later.

AstralFire
2007-12-03, 01:12 PM
Does anyone even use forgery? I've been playing for over a decade and I don't recall it ever coming up.

As a DM, I make an effort to allow all skills to shine.


In 4e, the good skills are set at 1st level, making the problem worse. Even more reason to alter my alternate design. I'll think about it later.

Spend a feat (now that class features are more like the good/powerful feats and feats are mostly like PHB feats) and you pick up some skills that you got *very good at* instead of just your general improvement in all skills. Put points in Int and you pick up skills. Works for me.

Sylian
2007-12-03, 02:08 PM
I think the Saga system is great. The skills work a lot better, and are also more logical. About picking a rogue level instead of fighter at level 1, well, if you're willing to sacrifice 12 HP and some feats just to be trained in a few more skills, sure. Remember that Saga has 3x HP at level 1, so a d6 starts with 18 HP, while a d10 starts with 30 HP. This makes the choice whether to take scoundrel or soldier a tougher choice.

warmachine
2007-12-04, 11:58 AM
As I've written before, the 4e skill system fixes one of my complaints with 3e: classes that have Spot, Listen, Balance etc. cross-class will no longer completely suck at high level. 4e allows rapid creation but so does 3e and it has finer granularity for players who want it. 4e is a step forward and a step backward.

I have a few thoughts about an alternative design: 3e but all skills get half level bonus and the max ranks that can be bought is half level plus 3. As this doubles the purchase power of skill points, the class bonus is halved. To avoid doubling the effectiveness of INT bonus, instead of more skill points per level, each INT bonus changes the level bonus of a skill to full level + 3 but no ranks can be purchased in it.

The quick-and-dirty method becomes set a number of skills at level + 3 + modifier equal to double class bonus + INT bonus. Detailed players can spend skill points per level as desired (though they have to deal with half points). In both cases, all other skills are at half level + modifier. Best of both worlds. There are no cross-class skills unless niche protection is wanted. If so, such skills don't allow purchases of rank but half level bonus still applies.

The one thing I can't solve is dealing with negative INT bonus. Any suggestions?

warmachine
2007-12-04, 12:16 PM
The maths for my design above differs from 4e in that the untrained are half level plus 3 behind the trained, rather than 5. This is more noticable at high levels. If one prefers a flat, 5 untrained penalty, the alternative design becomes 4e but no trained modifier and ranks can be purchased equal to 5 times (class bonus plus INT bonus) with max 5 ranks per skill. This is done at level 1 but at each new level, a rank can be moved from one skill to another, representing change in skill training. A skill cannot adjust rank more than 1 per level. Quick-and-dirty method remains the same and detailed players can customize as they want. Another best of both worlds.

Justin_Bacon
2007-12-04, 03:37 PM
That seems to be what 4E aims to do. Sucky skills like Profession, Craft, Use Rope, Heal, and whatever just get the axe, and you're left with the skills that everyone will use. And for those skills, the ones you have to use, why wouldn't you get better at them?

My group makes more Use Rope and Heal checks than they do Climb checks. And even if those are "worthless" skills to your group (because they apparently never use a grappling hook or tie up a prisoner), what's the big deal? If they only come up once in a blue moon, so what?

If that once-in-a-blue-moon need for a grappling hook comes up, I'd rather have a solution in place that I can use rather than needing to come up with something on the fly because someone decided a skill was "worthless" in their narrow, limited experience.


Oh, right. Because you can eliminate the need to use them with magic. Because magic, of course, is the solution to every damn thing.

Actually, no. The argument was that you shouldn't be afraid of high-level characters being able to do awesome things -- whether that awesome comes from class abilities, skills, or spells isn't really important. It's not about eliminating options, it's about keeping options open.

Which is, apparently, not what 4th Edition is about. 4th Edition is about fewer options and less flexibility. Everybody gets to be a swiss-army knife.

Yawn.


In 3.5, you basically need a wizard or magic items, or you're screwed.

... if you attempt to play the game as if you did have a wizard or magic items.

The out-of-the-box game is balanced around certain assumptions. Changing those assumptions doesn't necessarily break the game, but it does change the balance.

People who get shocked by the basic principles of reality always leave me scratching my head.


4th Edition, it seems, is being designed with those people in mind. With the idea that wizards shouldn't be all-powerful. With the idea that a group might not have an arcane spellcaster who casts fly and invisibility on them whenever they need it, so they need to be able to sneak, climb, jump, etc. on their own. They actually seem to be down on the idea that spellcasters and only spellcasters should be able to do anything.

I have no idea where you're getting this concept from. The exact opposite appears to be the case: The 4th Edition design team is going out of its way to make sure that every party will have a very specific range of abilities hard-programmed into them.

They want to make the game idiot-proof. Which is fine for the idiots, but it's rather limiting on those of us with a couple of brain cells to rub together and would prefer flexibility.



If you want to quickly generate a character's skills, select a number of class skills equal to # + Int modifier and give them skill ranks equal to 3 + your level, where # is based on your class. (Multiclass Characters: For each class, select a number of class skills equal to # + Int modifier and give them skill ranks equal to their class level. Add +3 skill ranks to the class skills selected for whatever class was taken at 3rd level.)

We hear you... But this isn't the problem. The problem is with multiclass characters. When class skills change, and some skill points are tied to one set of class skills and some aren't. Then it gets annoying.

But apparently you don't hear very well.


Agreed. Skill points are too fidly if you don't just by class level +3 in everthing.

That doesn't even make sense. Skill points only BECOME useful when you aren't maxing out your skill selections.

Well, actually, it does make sense: This comment explains why you prefer the Saga system. You don't see any value in doing anything with your skill selections except "max 'em out at every level".

I can see why, with that attitude, you don't see any value in having the skill points hanging around as detritus. But are you capable of understanding that some of us prefer the flexibility to fine-tune our skill selections in a more sophisticated manner?


Unless it uses 5 classes, where the skill isn't on all their lists, and they've been boosting intelligence....
It may not be difficult but it sure is a time consuming chore for something the PCs are going to kill next session.

No moreso than dealing with different HD sizes or looking at how shared class abiltiies stack with each other across those 5 classes.

And, yeah, if I was revising the skill system I would make Intelligence boosts retroactive so simplify the process. I'd also say that a class skill is a class skill to simplify it even further; or eliminate the class/cross-class distinction altogether.

But neither of those fixes requires you to get rid of the flexibility of skill points, so it's not an effective counter-argument.


I'll go with Forgery been merged into Deception for usability.

It makes more sense to merge it into the appropriate Craft skill. Or, in the case of a written item, the appropriate Language skill. (Although that would, obviously, require turning Language into an actual skill -- which, frankly, I'm OK with.)

Justin Alexander
http://www.thealexandrian.net

AstralFire
2007-12-04, 05:07 PM
My group makes more Use Rope and Heal checks than they do Climb checks. And even if those are "worthless" skills to your group (because they apparently never use a grappling hook or tie up a prisoner), what's the big deal? If they only come up once in a blue moon, so what?

If that once-in-a-blue-moon need for a grappling hook comes up, I'd rather have a solution in place that I can use rather than needing to come up with something on the fly because someone decided a skill was "worthless" in their narrow, limited experience.

SW didn't actually get rid of any skills, only merged them. I'd argue they didn't merge enough of them (Swim, Climb and Jump should really be one skill, I feel, just as Tumble and Balance now are.) The only skill that should really be just outright removed is Profession, since I don't think there's any benefit or necessity for that to be quantized.

goat
2007-12-04, 06:48 PM
I personally like the changes. It resolves a lot of this "My character has huge rippling muscles and slays dragons, but would immediately drown because I never put any points in swim."

Well, personally, if I threw a person who'd never really swum, wearing heavy armour and carrying a huge pack of stuff, into water, I'd probably expect them to drown.

turkishproverb
2007-12-04, 07:03 PM
Same here. A Saga-like skill system is one of the few things that could completely ruin 4e for me. And quite frankly, I'd hope WotC knows better. TSR tried something similar with "non-weapon" proficiencies in 2e. And it sucked then, compared with more customizable systems like GURPS, or Shadowrun, or even the World of Darkness.

Of course, any further attempt to dumb down the game gets decided disapproval for me.


Thank you!

Lord, I don't get it. I spend more time designing characters than most people, and even I think this isn't simpler or easier, to say nothing of how darned bland it is.


I swear, it'd be more unique to play a pregenerated starter box character from 3.0 or even 2nd edition than a scratch designed character from Saga (or 4th, from what I've been hearing.)

And the fact people are actually saying GOOD things about saga edition in this thread, claiming it makes characters more unique...

I really don't understand it. Maybe its like being a newlywed. You don't start to notice the warts this early. :smallwink:

:smalltongue:

AstralFire
2007-12-04, 07:15 PM
Well, personally, if I threw a person who'd never really swum, wearing heavy armour and carrying a huge pack of stuff, into water, I'd probably expect them to drown.

I wasn't talking about armored.

By the time you're a level 10 Fighter and not in armor, unless you've taken 'swimming incompetence' as a flaw, you shouldn't have a good chance to drown in Rough Water. Realize the distance you can fall as a 10th level Fighter and survive... and you die in choppy water? The eff? I've got a strength score of maybe 11 and I can and have swum through choppy water while actually carrying a deadweight (my adult sister). And I don't have lifeguard training or anything like that.

AstralFire
2007-12-04, 07:20 PM
I swear, it'd be more unique to play a pregenerated starter box character from 3.0 or even 2nd edition than a scratch designed character from Saga

Have you actually *played* both Saga and the previous edition of Star Wars d20? Or are you just shooting off at the mouth after having done a cursory look at Saga, not knowing anything about the setting's specifics and how to play it, and thus making assumptions? Forgive me if you have, but I find it *extremely* hard to believe. Because I don't know anyone who's played SW d20 and not thought Saga was an improvement in 9/10 ways, most importantly improving character differentiation.

The improved Multiclassing rules have a *lot* to do with it, and class talents every other level in addition to feats still hanging around says the complete opposite of what you are. Hell, it even matters now which *order* you multiclass in, since a Soldier who's learning how to be a Jedi's not going to be the same as a Jedi who's learning how to be a Soldier.

There are flaws with SWSE and I can understand not liking some of the things shown us in 4th Edition, I can even (on an intellectual level) understand disliking the replacement of skill points, even though I feel the opposite. But to get up here and claim that the Saga design system as a whole is somehow *less* individuating than the previous version of the game indicates someone who's not sure what they're talking about.

I apologize for the abrupt and harsh nature of this post, I had an immediate gut reaction. If you are more familiar with the setting than I am assuming and have a counter, please enlighten me and accept my apology. I dislike people pronouncing judgments on game systems before they have familiarity with it, and it's no better for me to be pronouncing judgments on people for the same. My unnecessary vitriol notwithstanding, I find it a very hard argument to make that Saga Core is somehow 'cookie-cutter' compared to the previous edition of SW d20 Core. The nuances between builds will be more subtle than in D&D Core given that D&D is pan-fantasy while SW is focused, but that's a consequence of having a coherent setting.

turkishproverb
2007-12-04, 07:32 PM
Have you actually *played* both Saga and the previous edition of Star Wars d20? Or are you just shooting off at the mouth after having done a cursory look at Saga, not knowing anything about the setting's specifics and how to play it, and thus making assumptions? Forgive me if you have, but I find it *extremely* hard to believe. Because I don't know anyone who's played SW d20 and not thought Saga was an improvement in 9/10 ways, most importantly improving character differentiation.

The improved Multi classing rules have a *lot* to do with it, and class talents every other level in addition to feats still hanging around says the complete opposite of what you are. Hell, it even matters now which *order* you multiclass in, since a Soldier who's learning how to be a Jedi's not going to be the same as a Jedi who's learning how to be a Soldier.

Are you trying to insult me here? I really don't get why you would suggest that otherwise.

Yes, I have played SWd20. And SWd20 Revised. And SW d20 Saga Edition. and, for good measure SW WEG.

Frankly, Message boards are the only places I've been hearing these glowing reviews of SWSE. Talking to actual gamers, I've found it by and in large reviled.


As to your points, Multi classing didn't really imporove. It mattered which order you took levels in before. Did you read revised edition? the one with the Episode 2 stuff and the repairs to multiclassing? it wasn't perfect, but it was easy to customize, removed the overpowered elements, and made it a difficult choice in character creation with the intent of multiclassing. Do you take noble and get its starting stuff/ benifits or Jedi and get those? How will you pick up force sensitive if you wait? What if you want Soldier, do you get it first for the bonus feats and risk your build?


EDIT FOR YOUR EDIT:


There are flaws with SWSE and I can understand not liking some of the things shown us in 4th Edition, I can even (on an intellectual level) understand disliking the replacement of skill points, even though I feel the opposite. But to get up here and claim that the Saga design system as a whole is somehow *less* individuating than the previous version of the game indicates someone who's not sure what they're talking about.

I apologize for the abrupt and harsh nature of this post, I had an immediate gut reaction. If you are more familiar with the setting than I am assuming and have a counter, please enlighten me and accept my apology. I dislike people pronouncing judgments on game systems before they have familiarity with it, and it's no better for me to be pronouncing judgments on people for the same. My unnecessary vitriol notwithstanding, I find it a very hard argument to make that Saga Core is somehow 'cookie-cutter' compared to the previous edition of SW d20 Core. The nuances between builds will be more subtle than in D&D Core given that D&D is pan-fantasy while SW is focused, but that's a consequence of having a coherent setting.

Thank you for the update. I now feel better about your reaction, and am glad we sorted otu intent. I do have some familiarity with it, but I won't try to go into anymore detail how, because i admit it is somewhat a matter of taste and opinion.

Glad we could try to work that out.

goat
2007-12-04, 07:54 PM
you know, the way Yoda's good at *everything* - to be good at the Force, since each individual power is not a drain on their skill points.

Nah, Yoda quite obviously gimped his language skills.

Lord Zentei
2007-12-04, 07:57 PM
But then you need a standardized package and/or premade character for every possible combination.

No. You need ONE standardized package that corresponds to the ONE type of build per class level that you're allowed in SAGA.



No, learning new skills is not difficult. It requires an investment of character resources. It's really easy to do though.

That is not what I meant by "difficult".



Oh no, my build. What a pain.

You get plenty of feats in Saga Edition. Talents are more valuble and multiclassing is the easiest way to get all of them. There isn't really a class in Saga Edition that would screw up your build anyway since all of them are useful.

You get a lot of feats in SAGA... and so? I find it interesting that you deem that screwing up a build is somehow unimportant. And whether or not there are no classes that would screw up your build in SAGA is irrelevant, since we are ultimately discussing 4th ed D&D, not Star Wars.



Yes, you can put all those skills into one skill. But then your other skills will suck and your new skill will take a couple of levels to get up to scratch anyway, all during that time you're other skills are getting slowly less useful.

That depends on the extent to which you disregard your other skills and the number of points available.



Yes, you can do more with skill points in D&D. You can also do less with those skills and it wastes too much time.

Bold = Incorrect. If you can allocate the skill points to generate something that resembles SAGA, you can do more with skill points than with SAGA, since you have other options besides that. [EDIT: due to the post below this one, let me add that when one speaks of skill points, one is not necessarily meaning the 3.5 system as-is with no improvements made to it. You seem to be basing your arguments on that unspoken assumption.]



This is a really stupid arguement. Did you even think it through?

You're saying that if you don't want to make complex multiclassed characters then you don't need to worry about skill points. Everybody who's been complaining likely don't want to use standardised packages and still find skill points annoying.

Dead wrong. It is in fact your argument that leaves much to be desired: you seem to be complaining that you will find skill points annoying when standardized packages allow you the quick and easy way of SAGA while not preventing people who want more flexibility the options they desire. Why should you care whether some other player can achieve flexibility from skill points if you also get standardized packages that allow quick and easy character generation?

AstralFire
2007-12-04, 08:05 PM
Bold = Incorrect. If you can allocate the skill points to generate something that resembles SAGA, you can do more with skill points than with SAGA, since you have other options besides that.

If you're a class with:
- A lot of skill points
- A lot of class skills

and in a campaign which:
- Warns you that ignoring skills like swimming won't turn out well

Then yes, I agree with you.

I've adopted a variant on Saga's skill system into my 3.5 games and it's done wonders for us since implementation, since it allows my PCs to:
- Still express what their character is interested in focusing on (Skill points can do that and always do)
- Incidentally improve on a number of other abilities that one would expect them to pick up in the course of a world-spanning adventure (Skill points don't do that often unless you've got 6+Int or a 4 and a high Int.)

The latter lets me throw more diverse challenges at them while being reasonably sure they can survive them, like fights which require climbing over obstacles and dueling atop thin wires.

Prepackages of skills do exactly what Saga does, simplicity, and unless you're qualifying for a multitude of odd feats or PrCs, that's honestly not really a big problem. I hold the benefit of Saga to be that you naturally progress in banal side-skills people often forget to take.

How likely is it that the 20 Fighter who's been to Acherai and Limbo and Celestia doesn't have at least a few effective Knowledge (The Planes) ranks, unless he was blindfolding himself and stopping his ears, then swinging wildly? Yet how often do you see a Fighter take those skills? Why, in-character, is he incapable of answering things anyone sentient enough to drool who'd been to those planes should be able to answer?

Obviously, he would, but he's still mechanically considered to have no significant knowledge of the planes.

Lord Zentei
2007-12-04, 08:15 PM
Dang, completely missed these earlier...


But not everyone will be able to afford to start as a rogue. If you're playing a game where everyone starts at high level then 1 level of rogue at the begining will be awesome. If you actually spend time at level 1 then a party full of rogues will suck. The wizard can't afford to lose caster levels like this (assuming this isn't thrown out for 4E) and a fighter won't be able to start with up any useful fighter abilities (assuming that fighters get useful abilities as the designers are claiming).

So, you acknowledge that Rogues will be vastly more useful as the first class level for mid to high level starting characters.



Not at all. It doesn't reduce multiclassing flexibility, it just changes your insentive to do so.

It does reduce multi-classing flexibility if your future career is limited to this extent. Whether advantages to multi-classing are also provided by some mechanism does not change that.



Yes. You can be as good as you want in any given skill. But why do you want to waste skill points on something you won't be good at. You might like the idea of giving your character 2 skill points in craft carpentry to represent his background but If I spend skill points on craft carpentry I was to be able to make chairs. Putting 2 skill points into a skill is useless as no DC will be low enough to be able to do anything and it detracts from the skills you actually want to be good at. All the skill point system does is allow you to create a negatively optimised character and what is the real value in that?

With Saga Edition's skill you can still have skills you haven't focused massive amounts of character resources on, but these skills will be useful to you.

This argument does not make sense. You're assuming that a skill point system will require you to focus "massive" amounts of character resources on things that you might find useful; that does not follow. :smallconfused: [EDIT: not all skill point systems need by identical to the 3.5 one with no changes at all, you know]

And you compare the utility of spending points on carpentry with gaining useful skills in SAGA you haven't focused resources on improving? Not exactly what I would consider a fair or honest comparison.



Saga Edition HAS NO CROSS-CLASSED SKILLS. Also, Saga Edition DCs are lower, allowing low skills to be useful. In D&D, skills you keep high have an average chance of success and everything else is impossible. In Saga Edition skills you focus in have a high chance of success and everything else is average.

Incorrect. You take your skill check at +5 if you're trained in the skill, and your class determines whether you're "trained" or not.

And SAGA DCs being lower... what's to prevent WotC from simply lowering the DC of the skill point system to allow one to be "average" in a broader range of tasks? The ability to do this is not limited to SAGA.


EDIT:


If you're a class with:
- A lot of skill points
- A lot of class skills

and in a campaign which:
- Warns you that ignoring skills like swimming won't turn out well

Then yes, I agree with you.

I've adopted a variant on Saga's skill system into my 3.5 games and it's done wonders for us since implementation, since it allows my PCs to:
- Still express what their character is interested in focusing on (Skill points can do that and always do)
- Incidentally improve on a number of other abilities that one would expect them to pick up in the course of a world-spanning adventure (Skill points don't do that often unless you've got 6+Int or a 4 and a high Int.)

The latter lets me throw more diverse challenges at them while being reasonably sure they can survive them, like fights which require climbing over obstacles and dueling atop thin wires.

Prepackages of skills do exactly what Saga does, simplicity, and unless you're qualifying for a multitude of odd feats or PrCs, that's honestly not really a big problem. I hold the benefit of Saga to be that you naturally progress in banal side-skills people often forget to take.

How likely is it that the 20 Fighter who's been to Acherai and Limbo and Celestia doesn't have at least a few effective Knowledge (The Planes) ranks, unless he was blindfolding himself and stopping his ears, then swinging wildly? Yet how often do you see a Fighter take those skills? Why, in-character, is he incapable of answering things anyone sentient enough to drool who'd been to those planes should be able to answer?

Obviously, he would, but he's still mechanically considered to have no significant knowledge of the planes.

Naturally, players who neglect skills that they are told will be important are going to suffer. Standardized skill packages can deal with this, as you say -- but the point you raise that some classes gain more skill points than others is easily fixed by adjusting the number of skill points the various classes get.

For more experienced players, the use of skill points with packages allow you additional flexibility without denying others the versatility and ease of character creation they find so attractive in SAGA.

AstralFire
2007-12-04, 08:41 PM
Naturally, players who neglect skills that they are told will be important are going to suffer. Standardized skill packages can deal with this, as you say -- but the point you raise that some classes gain more skill points than others is easily fixed by adjusting the number of skill points the various classes get.

For more experienced players, the use of skill points with packages allow you additional flexibility without denying others the versatility and ease of character creation they find so attractive in SAGA.

But what about skills we don't know will be important? The DM comes up with ideas or sometimes the PCs do when they do something unexpected. This kind of system leaves the most adventure options open. They may not be able to do something amazingly well, but in a pinch they have enough skill to believe it's a possibility. They'll take more risks.

And just throwing more skill points at people isn't the solution, either. They could just as easily throw points into other, 'stronger' skills - if you gave the Fighter a wide diversity of skills, chances of a player wanting to take 'Jump', 'Forgery', or 'Intimidate' instead of, say, 'Diplomacy' or 'Use Magic Device' won't be high.

For me, Saga-type skills eliminates a lot of this sort of problem.

Skill points is inarguably the more comprehensive system, but I found it easier to do these things without them, with minimal loss of character gradation. I've found that RP carries the way in the difference between two people with equal values in Persuasion, for example. My PCs certainly don't *feel* any less special and differentiated.

Lord Zentei
2007-12-04, 09:10 PM
But what about skills we don't know will be important? The DM comes up with ideas or sometimes the PCs do when they do something unexpected. This kind of system leaves the most adventure options open. They may not be able to do something amazingly well, but in a pinch they have enough skill to believe it's a possibility. They'll take more risks.

Packages that allow all skills to mosey slightly upwards while focusing on a key set allows just that. After all, that there is an option to customize your skills does not mean that you absolutely have to.

You can also allow mechanics that allow you to survive in a pinch... for instance, use the "skill defaults" concept from GURPS, which allows you to take tests on skill X using related skill Y with penalty Z. Or use something along the lines of action points as per d20 Modern (if they do this once or twice, the players should figure out that they need to diversify... if they still don't, they frankly deserve what they get).



And just throwing more skill points at people isn't the solution, either. They could just as easily throw points into other, 'stronger' skills - if you gave the Fighter a wide diversity of skills, chances of a player wanting to take 'Jump', 'Forgery', or 'Intimidate' instead of, say, 'Diplomacy' or 'Use Magic Device' won't be high.

In all candor, players making foolish choices when packages suggest what they should be taking is something I'm not about to lose too much sleep over.



For me, Saga-type skills eliminates a lot of this sort of problem.

Skill points is inarguably the more comprehensive system, but I found it easier to do these things without them, with minimal loss of character gradation. I've found that RP carries the way in the difference between two people with equal values in Persuasion, for example. My PCs certainly don't *feel* any less special and differentiated.

Well... that's good for them. As to whether differentiation in skills matter depends on the kind of campaign you're running. The SAGA system limits the number of kinds that can be supported.

horseboy
2007-12-04, 09:19 PM
But what about skills we don't know will be important? The DM comes up with ideas or sometimes the PCs do when they do something unexpected. This kind of system leaves the most adventure options open. They may not be able to do something amazingly well, but in a pinch they have enough skill to believe it's a possibility. They'll take more risks.

And just throwing more skill points at people isn't the solution, either. They could just as easily throw points into other, 'stronger' skills - if you gave the Fighter a wide diversity of skills, chances of a player wanting to take 'Jump', 'Forgery', or 'Intimidate' instead of, say, 'Diplomacy' or 'Use Magic Device' won't be high.

For me, Saga-type skills eliminates a lot of this sort of problem.

Skill points is inarguably the more comprehensive system, but I found it easier to do these things without them, with minimal loss of character gradation. I've found that RP carries the way in the difference between two people with equal values in Persuasion, for example. My PCs certainly don't *feel* any less special and differentiated.
I have to disagree.

But out of curiosity, how many of your adventures happen above ground? Every character in my Rolemaster group will have some climbing, riding, and swimming. Those are very common skills needed above ground. We all also have maxed Perception, because we like living. From there it's what ever you want your character to be/to do. Everybody has different characters, with different abilities and skills. It's a lot of why we don't like SAGA.

AstralFire
2007-12-04, 09:46 PM
But out of curiosity, how many of your adventures happen above ground?

What's a 'dungeon'?

It's actually something of a joke now that I seem to refuse to put the party underground or involve them in a random encounter. One of my players that's a second edition guy begged me to just run a random encounter last week when I said I was too busy with schoolwork to focus on a normal game. The idea horrified me.

(It's also a joke that for a big D&D fan, I rarely use dungeons and have an allergic reaction to dragons, but that's another story.)

However, the main game I'm running is in Eberron at the moment, and we've mostly been doing political intrigue, detective-work, and a little warmastering. They're moving to Xen'drik for a few sessions, so some of that will change, and it's nice that they won't be horrible at surviving there because they've got non-proficient skill advancement.


Every character in my Rolemaster group will have some climbing, riding, and swimming. Those are very common skills needed above ground. We all also have maxed Perception, because we like living. From there it's what ever you want your character to be/to do. Everybody has different characters, with different abilities and skills. It's a lot of why we don't like SAGA.

Basically, there's no way for most people to have sufficient skills to improve all of the minor areas they think that their character should be incidentally good at. I make use of Forgery and a number of the custom skills I've devised to shore up holes in Saga's; some of my PCs have learned these less common skills.

I also dislike actively mandating that my PCs build in a certain way, so this lets me do things like hint "Hey, you might want to grab Linguistics" without having to say it at a metagame level or forcing a decision on them. A lot like I'm sure the reasoning behind why you take those skills in Rolemaster. I don't know much about that system, but tell me, is there a Forgery equivalent in that system? One you don't really use but you can, in character, see yourself being good at it... but it's just not worth taking it, so you and your DM kind of agree not to bother without actually saying anything?

If not, then I suppose the statement's void, but I feel like Saga does away with a lot of that.

horseboy
2007-12-04, 10:44 PM
I also dislike actively mandating that my PCs build in a certain way, so this lets me do things like hint "Hey, you might want to grab Linguistics" without having to say it at a metagame level or forcing a decision on them. A lot like I'm sure the reasoning behind why you take those skills in Rolemaster. I don't know much about that system, but tell me, is there a Forgery equivalent in that system? One you don't really use but you can, in character, see yourself being good at it... but it's just not worth taking it, so you and your DM kind of agree not to bother without actually saying anything?

If not, then I suppose the statement's void, but I feel like Saga does away with a lot of that.

My fighter took musical instrument:kazoo and drug tolerance:Alcohol. :smallwink:

But no, Companion II has a chart (surprise, surprise) that 6 pages long of skills and their corresponding costs for each class. The average character will have at least 30 development points, so so long as you're not trying to do something too hard (like a fighter trying to learn a new spell list) you've got enough to raise a good selection of abilities.

Skjaldbakka
2007-12-05, 12:53 AM
By the time you're a level 10 Fighter and not in armor, unless you've taken 'swimming incompetence' as a flaw, you shouldn't have a good chance to drown in Rough Water. Realize the distance you can fall as a 10th level Fighter and survive... and you die in choppy water? The eff? I've got a strength score of maybe 11 and I can and have swum through choppy water while actually carrying a deadweight (my adult sister). And I don't have lifeguard training or anything like that.

Ah, so because falling is unrealistic, the swim skill should be too? I AM a strong swimmer, and I have ALSO nearly drowned twice in rough water. If you had lifeguard training, you would perhaps realize how much of a burden even something as simple as cotton clothing is when trying to swim.

You adult sister is nothing in comparison, as the human body floats. With the exception of very muscular or very bony individuals.

Making the Swim skill more realistic would actually make it more heinous. It would also not add much enjoyment to the game. Personally, I think the -1/5lbs gear is more realistic than -2X your AC penalty, but that got dropped mostly because a lot of people don't bother to calculate weight.

There are a lot of people that don't know how to swim. There were even more in the psuedo-medieval time period that D&D tries and fails to emulate. People that don't know how to swim tend to drown in rough water.

Justin_Bacon
2007-12-05, 01:02 AM
SW didn't actually get rid of any skills, only merged them. I'd argue they didn't merge enough of them (Swim, Climb and Jump should really be one skill, I feel, just as Tumble and Balance now are.) The only skill that should really be just outright removed is Profession, since I don't think there's any benefit or necessity for that to be quantized.

I disagree when it comes to Swim and Climb. I think it makes sense to have a movement-based skill for each type of movement, thus:

Acrobatics (for doing fancy stuff with your normal base speed)
Climb
Fly
Swim

Should all be separate skills. I would say that Balance, Jump, and Tumble can all be wrapped up into the Acrobatics skill, though, if you got rid of the only-one-attribute-per-skill aspect of the system. (If you keep that aspect, it's probably best to keep Jump separate so that it can be Strength-based check.)

Justin Alexander
http://www.thealexandrian.net

Skjaldbakka
2007-12-05, 01:05 AM
What would you roll Fly for?

Kantolin
2007-12-05, 02:08 AM
My one big flaw with Saga edition is that it's still either just as hard or harder than 3.5 D&D to get at a skill you don't have in class.

If your wizard wants to jump in 3.5, you can plug it cross class, maybe take skill focus (jump), and not have to... stop being a wizard.

In Saga, you are hereby required to stop being a wizard, then you can spend a feat (of which, to be fair, you get a heck of a lot more) to become capable of jumping.

Neither system is perfect, but peh. And everyone having it at 'cross class' really goes towards making everyone the same, so your 'particularly athletic wizard who won last year's high jumpign contest'... has nothing to reflect this. Your fighter who studied arcane lore... in fact knows about as much as the barbarian living out in the woods.

Still, I'll see - they have tons of time to tweak it.

Skjaldbakka
2007-12-05, 02:11 AM
Your fighter who studied arcane lore... in fact knows about as much as the barbarian living out in the woods.

That is not a particularly good example, as 1 rank in a knowledge skill is a significant increase from 0 ranks. As opposed to the difference 1 rank makes in say, Jump.

TheOOB
2007-12-05, 02:26 AM
I highly highly doubt 4e is going to get rid of skill points, what works for star wars doesn't necessarily work for D&D. Star Wars is a setting where all characters need to be skilled in almost all of the skills. Every character needs to be able to pilot a speeder bike, heal their allies wounds, plot a hyperspace route, and make repairs to their blaster pistol. Star Wars is a cosmopolitan setting and a character who can't perform these basic tasks is at a serious disadvantage. The lack of powerful magic and uber capstone abilities makes it so characters are meant to be created broad and versatile instead of overly specilized. Your trained skills in Star Wars arn't the only skills you can use, they are just the skills your character can use better, and they help to give some individuality to your character by giving some focus to your first class over later classes. In fact, in a Star Wars game which class each player took first, and thus what skills and starting feats you have, are often one of the few(and most definatly the biggest) deferenses between your character and your allies(barring force users, but like spellcasters in D&D, they tend to break more rules then they follow). Trained skills work fairly well for Star Wars because of this, a character has their specialties choosen at character creation(or later with feats), the things they are better at then their peers, but they are capable of almost any skill. Any character can use a medkit to heal their allies, but someone who choose to be trained in first aid will be a little better at it. The essential healing role is filled with or without their training, it's just filled a little better with.

In D&D, however, characters are more specialized, more focused, more unique. Each member of a party isn't supposed to be able to perform every skill and overcome every challenge, the characters work together, filling in eachothers weaknesses with their strengths. You don't expect the rogue to be able to heal wounds, the cleric to sneak around, the wizard to fight on the front lines, or the fighter pick pocket the corrupt baron, thats not what they are on the team for. D&D is a setting where every character doesn't have to do a little of everything, in fact characters who do tend to be considered fairly weak (see bard). A fighter gets progressively better and better at fighting then their peers at the cost of getting further and further behind say the rogue at sneaking or the cleric at healing. Sure they can multiclass and gain some of their allies abilities, but at the risk of weakening their core abilities. Skill points represent this quite well. A character who retains a single class will continue to increase their class skills higher and higher, getting better and better at them while their allies improve very little in the same skills. When you multiclass you gain an opportunity to slowly(or quickly depending on skill points/level) gain some of that classes skills in place of improving your old skills. Given time and levels you can get as good if not better at your new classes skills then your old classes skills, representing a change of focus and specialization.

The Star Wars skill system is good at what it does, allows everyone to have the generic skill set they need to survive in the galaxy and ensure your party has all it's bases covered while still allowing some characters to have a little individuality in skills based on their starting class. D&D's skill point system, on the other hand, makes people fairly focused in their choosen field, with little or no ability outside of it, creating the inter-dependent party dynamics that are the hallmark of the system, as well as allowing people to manipulate and change their skill role over time by multiclassing, something you can only do in Star Wars by wasting feats(and when over half of all the abilities you get are likely to be feats, using one up for a single skill you can allready use to some degree is a pretty hefty price).

Both systems have their advantages. Overall neither system is easier to use, as many others have mentioned you can just assign maximum skills points to every skill for D&D characters to minimize creation time(a handy trick for NPCs), though the skill point system allows you to make things more complex should you wish it choosing where each individual point goes. Star Wars offers generalists with a little focus but little ability to change that focus at later levels, D&D offers a lot of focus but little generalization, but good ability to change your focus at later levels. They both focus on different ideas and I think either system would feel out of place in the other game.

Not that either system can't be improved. I would like to see some D&D skills compressed (most notable hide/move silently as well as spot/listen/search) into fewer skills so that character archtypes that are virtually required to take all those related skills don't have to spend as much resources to do so, and I'd like to see classes get more options with skills (fighters should have decent skill points and skills like sense motive, diplomacy, and spot/listen, there should be more ways to gain non-standard skills, such as hide/move silently for a cleric, without having to multiclass away and ruin your class abilities, to allow for more character concepts.), and the Star Wars system should allow you to gain some of the skills of the classes you multiclass into without spending a valuable feat.

Kantolin
2007-12-05, 02:46 AM
That is not a particularly good example, as 1 rank in a knowledge skill is a significant increase from 0 ranks. As opposed to the difference 1 rank makes in say, Jump.

Er, I meant in the Saga system: If it's not trained, then you're as good at something as someone who isn't quite trying. I find this to be a problem.

Skjaldbakka
2007-12-05, 02:47 AM
Er, I meant in the Saga system: If it's not trained, then you're as good at something as someone who isn't quite trying. I find this to be a problem.

In that case, I agree with you. That is a problem with Saga skills in a D&D world.

Beleriphon
2007-12-05, 07:45 AM
My one big flaw with Saga edition is that it's still either just as hard or harder than 3.5 D&D to get at a skill you don't have in class.

If your wizard wants to jump in 3.5, you can plug it cross class, maybe take skill focus (jump), and not have to... stop being a wizard.

The difference is of course that in Saga you don't really need to worry that much since you don't lose all that much from taking this route, given that very little is based on class level for abilities.


In Saga, you are hereby required to stop being a wizard, then you can spend a feat (of which, to be fair, you get a heck of a lot more) to become capable of jumping.

Neither system is perfect, but peh. And everyone having it at 'cross class' really goes towards making everyone the same, so your 'particularly athletic wizard who won last year's high jumpign contest'... has nothing to reflect this. Your fighter who studied arcane lore... in fact knows about as much as the barbarian living out in the woods.

Still, I'll see - they have tons of time to tweak it.

I'm really expecting a combination of the previous skill point system and the Saga system of giving you automatic bonuses to skills as your level increases. One of the big things with the Saga system is that you can get skill rerolls from talents and even racial abilities, meaning that there is significantly more variation in characters with the same total bonus in the same skill.

TheOOB
2007-12-05, 01:54 PM
I'm really expecting a combination of the previous skill point system and the Saga system of giving you automatic bonuses to skills as your level increases. One of the big things with the Saga system is that you can get skill rerolls from talents and even racial abilities, meaning that there is significantly more variation in characters with the same total bonus in the same skill.

That would really be the optimum case, the Star Wars skill system gives you much more ways to play with your skills, almost none of which wouldn't work in a skill point system.

Draz74
2007-12-05, 03:49 PM
Both systems have their advantages. Overall neither system is easier to use, as many others have mentioned you can just assign maximum skills points to every skill for D&D characters to minimize creation time(a handy trick for NPCs), though the skill point system allows you to make things more complex should you wish it choosing where each individual point goes. Star Wars offers generalists with a little focus but little ability to change that focus at later levels, D&D offers a lot of focus but little generalization, but good ability to change your focus at later levels. They both focus on different ideas and I think either system would feel out of place in the other game.

I very much agree with most of what you said. I have to admit, though, that the Saga enthusiasts are right about it being much easier in their system to determine skills of multiclass characters.

... though they do it by saying, "Yeah, unless you burn a LOT of feats, your multiclass character will still always be pretty much the same as his original class, skill-wise. We don't really believe in the power of multiclassing, or an in-character change of focus. Once a Scoundrel, always a Scoundrel."

Which, to me, isn't a price that's worth paying for the sake of easier multiclass skill generation.

AstralFire
2007-12-05, 05:57 PM
... though they do it by saying, "Yeah, unless you burn a LOT of feats, your multiclass character will still always be pretty much the same as his original class, skill-wise. We don't really believe in the power of multiclassing, or an in-character change of focus. Once a Scoundrel, always a Scoundrel."

With fewer skills, you don't need to burn many feats - which are also reduced in power and importance now since Talents have a higher precedence, so using a feat on one isn't a big deal. The older multiclassing rules also had the problem of combinations being too unbeneficial when it came to mixing Force Users with mundanes. In reality, it was pretty hard to change your skill focuses anyway, since you started with 4 times the amount of skills at first level.

Also, if retraining makes an appearance, I don't think it'd be bad for balance to allow deprecation of a rarely used skill in favor of a new one from your current class, as long as you adhere to your original limit. Skill points couldn't do deprecation any better than this system.

TheOOB
2007-12-05, 10:29 PM
In my star wars game I implement a house rule that allows you to get skill training for one of the classes class skills instead of one of the classes starting feats when you multiclass into them. It allows a little more customization, and ensures that you always gain something from the multiclass even if you already have all the classes starting feats.

Mando Knight
2007-12-06, 12:03 AM
In my star wars game I implement a house rule that allows you to get skill training for one of the classes class skills instead of one of the classes starting feats when you multiclass into them. It allows a little more customization, and ensures that you always gain something from the multiclass even if you already have all the classes starting feats.

That's a good idea, especially since a soldier who wants Knack probably already has Point Blank Shot (the only feat that a Scoundrel starts out with that a Soldier doesn't) and could probably benefit from Stealth or Acrobatics--or a common skill that the character didn't have enough INT to get earlier.

With the Skill point system vs. SAGA system debate, I'm somewhat neutral but remember that in both, a fighter (soldier for SWRPG) can have up to about half of his character level in stealth-type skills.

Whichever one they choose, combining some redundant skills is useful--Acrobatics gives the character the capability to balance and tumble, and I, personally, would hate to be forced to choose one or the other because I took Diplomacy instead.

TheOOB
2007-12-06, 09:27 PM
Well, some combinations just make sense. Hide and Move silently should be combined, as one is fairly pointless without the other(sleight of hand could also fit), open lock and disable device should be combined, balance and tumble should be combined, spot listen and search should be combined, and I can see arguments for making climb, jump, and swim one skill. What you need to get rid of are a)skills that are very similar which it makes little sense to have one and not the other(spot, listen search, hide move silently, ect) and b)skills that are of very minor use in most games and are hard to justify taking on their own. In most D&D games magic is common enough where climb, jump, and swim are all fairly pointless, but by combining them into say Athletics they might be worth it, plus then you have a skill for any strength based athletic task, such as say running.

Mando Knight
2007-12-06, 11:20 PM
Just remember, errare humanum est. No matter how hard they try, WotC is not an omniscient and infallible god. Any game they make can be improved. Some things will improve in 4e. They may make some things worse. Thus, you can never assume 3.5e is perfect, nor that 4e is inherently flawed.

For the record, I like Saga's Skill system. Although I'm relatively new to the RPG scene, I do prefer having to worry about a skill once rather than fiddling with "which skills should I take at this level?" since they don't always apply to every session while the combat-oriented Feats, Talents, etc. apply very nicely to the combat-oriented game that is D&D. Remember... Gygax created the wargame Chainmail before OD&D. ...But that's just my experience, based off of getting SWSE after liking KotOR...

Draz74
2007-12-07, 04:23 AM
Well, some combinations just make sense. Hide and Move silently should be combined, as one is fairly pointless without the other(sleight of hand could also fit), open lock and disable device should be combined, balance and tumble should be combined, spot listen and search should be combined, and I can see arguments for making climb, jump, and swim one skill. What you need to get rid of are a)skills that are very similar which it makes little sense to have one and not the other(spot, listen search, hide move silently, ect) and b)skills that are of very minor use in most games and are hard to justify taking on their own. In most D&D games magic is common enough where climb, jump, and swim are all fairly pointless, but by combining them into say Athletics they might be worth it, plus then you have a skill for any strength based athletic task, such as say running.

I'm a little scared of even this level of skill combining. OK, not all of it: please combine Open Lock and Disable Device! But I can actually envision a character concept that Moves Silently great but isn't so good at Hiding, myself, or vice versa, so I'm not sure how I feel about combining them. Not to mention that stealth is a valuable enough ability that it's worth spending double skill points on. I have to admit, though, I've never made a character that could Move Silently but not Hide. I have made a number of characters that could Spot well but not Listen, or vice versa, and I like the way it plays out. But it's not really a foundation of their character. I guess I could go either way on that one; it would make sense to keep the number of Perception skills equal to the number of Stealth skills.

Hmmmm, maybe Spot/Listen/Search could become just Search/"Awareness" or something? Awareness is used for listening or for generally being aware of the area around you, while Search is used (among other uses) to Spot a Hiding rogue?

Balance and Tumble I have no problem combining, because Balance was such a limited skill. Since Climb/Jump/Swim are such different skills realistically, that I'd rather keep them separate. And then make it so magic doesn't make them obsolete in 4E. :smalltongue:

Werewindlefr
2007-12-07, 08:25 AM
Hmmmm, maybe Spot/Listen/Search could become just Search/"Awareness" or something? Awareness is used for listening or for generally being aware of the area around you, while Search is used (among other uses) to Spot a Hiding rogue?
No way. Someone losing his eyes should still be able to hear. I hope they'll make "sneak" a single skill, but "spot" and "listen" two separate skills. Especially since poor-sighter people often compensate by developing better hearing.

hewhosaysfish
2007-12-07, 10:41 AM
No way. Someone losing his eyes should still be able to hear. I hope they'll make "sneak" a single skill, but "spot" and "listen" two separate skills. Especially since poor-sighter people often compensate by developing better hearing.

How would the opposed rolls work, if "Sneak" was one skill but Spot/Listen were two?

Thrawn183
2007-12-07, 03:33 PM
My problem with the skill system in general is the inability to gain ranks in skills other than during level-ups (this was actually mentioned earlier).

If I have a character that stops adventuring and goes off to live with the elves he could go 20 years and never learn the language because he never leveled... I literally couldn't RAW mechanically have him learn the language without leveling.

Oh, and I really like the idea of level based minimums. Its disappointing to me what happens to fighters when it comes to skills.

Sleet
2007-12-07, 03:39 PM
No way. Someone losing his eyes should still be able to hear.

That's easily dealt with in other games. "This perception check is sight-based; you're blinded, you automatically fail." Done.

Edit: I just hope they call it "Perception" or "Notice", rather than "Glorious Meteor Presence." :smallwink:

Mando Knight
2007-12-07, 03:48 PM
How about if the character becomes blind, he automatically fails any vision-related check, but that doesn't affect any hearing-based check... the DM would have to decide whether the check is related to hearing or seeing... That would allow you to combine Spot/listen/search into one skill (search really is just an application of spot...), just as it is in KotOR (Awareness) or SAGA (Perception). This would free up skills to put into Balance/Tumble (definitely should be one skill...), Stealth (Definitely combine Move Silently and Hide... If you're any good at sneaking around silently you had better know Hide...), or any other skill that you normally wouldn't have the ability to use. Of course, we can't combine too many skills, otherwise everone will be a jack-of-all-trades... and THAT would be bad ("Let me disable the trap!" "No, ME!" "Me me me me me me me me me!"...).

Werewindlefr
2007-12-07, 05:22 PM
How about if the character becomes blind, he automatically fails any vision-related check, but that doesn't affect any hearing-based check... the DM would have to decide whether the check is related to hearing or seeing... That would allow you to combine Spot/listen/search into one skill (search really is just an application of spot...), just as it is in KotOR (Awareness) or SAGA (Perception).
Someone can have good ears and not good eyes, or the opposite, which means he wouldn't fail the bad checks but have a bad bonus.
I'm using AE's system: spot and listen are both opposed to sneak, but one or the other is used depending on the circumstances.

Mando Knight
2007-12-07, 05:39 PM
Yeah, I thought of that too, the player would add a note next to the skill on the character sheet reminding him/her that the character is missing an eye or something...

Kurald Galain
2007-12-07, 05:50 PM
"spot" and "listen" two separate skills. Especially since poor-sighter people often compensate by developing better hearing.

The issue with that is that you're using extra rules all the time, but you only need those rules to deal with the rare exception - considering how infrequently characters in RPGs end up blinded or deafened.

MaxMahem
2007-12-07, 10:06 PM
Count one more supporter in the SAGA's style skill group. I have played a campaign in it and it works wonderfully. My only griefs are that jump, climb, and swim should probably have been combined into athletics, and that Use the Force does not scale approprieatly with Saves and BAB (making force powers overpowered).

I haven't found that characters become cookie cutters. SAGA's makes trained skills known a valuable resource (as opposed to D&D where they are basically just a rogue or bard class feature). So parties skills are generally more spread out then they are in D&D. Where typically the skill-monkey knows a few skills and everybody else pretty much does without.

Also the argument that two scoundrels or scouts are likely to be identical is a red herring, as you could easily say this about two rogues or rangers in D&D. They are both choosing from the same skill list so if they choose to focus in the same things their skills are likely to be virtually identical (the odd skill point diffrence here or there hardly counts). Indeed the SAGA character are possibly more likely to be unique as they get to choose their class features from a list of talents and multi-classing is more encouraged. It is of course possible to have two scoundrels who focus on different things (we had two in our party), but SAGAs (like D&D) is also built around the idea of a party of various classes, not just a group of rouges.

--

Not addressed in depth in this thread is the issue that Magic makes most skills totally pointless in any case. Spider Climb is totally superior to climb pre-epic levels and is a second level spells. Glibness, Invisibility, Silence, Knock, Detect Traps, Identify, Detect Lies, Animate Rope, Fly, all make various skills pretty pointless to take as they not only replace the skills, but also are generally superior to the skills they replace.

Which is why D&D (in my experience) has generally been a game of class abilities and magic items, with skills playing a vary minor role. Quite simply magic and class abilities are so much better than skills players try and find way to AVOID using skills, rather than looking for chances to use them. After the party has fly climb and jump are rarely if ever used any more. After the party has circle of invisibility, you can forget about hide.

--

Lastly I'm surprised how some people are clamoring for the skill list to stay split up as it is. This makes skills weaker and more tedious then unifying them does. Indeed D&D (which isn't and has never been a skill based game) long skill list is one of its major problems. Games like GURPS and Shadowrun which are MUCH more focused on a characters skills don't go into the level of detail that D&D does in some cases.

horseboy
2007-12-08, 12:32 AM
Someone can have good ears and not good eyes, or the opposite, which means he wouldn't fail the bad checks but have a bad bonus.
I'm using AE's system: spot and listen are both opposed to sneak, but one or the other is used depending on the circumstances.

How often does someone play Zatoichi in your games?

TheOOB
2007-12-08, 01:32 AM
Considering that almost every other PnP RPG out there has perception as a single skill, and applies sights and/or hearing mods when applicable, I don't think it's a stretch to have D&D do the same. The problem with how skills are now is that a lot of characters, especially rogues, have so many skills they need to invest in that they don't have any skill points to spread around.

Take a human rogue with 12 Int (or a non human rogue with 14 int). They gain 10 skill points a level, and assuming at level one they put 4 points into every skill that means they pick 10 skills. They are almost required to take open lock and disable device, thats what a rogue is there for. Disable device is worthless without search. They should also take spot and listen because in the standard 4 person party they are the only ones who have it as a class skill and ambushes are one of the leading causes of TPKs. They also need hide and move silently because they are rogues and don't have enough hp to risk being seen or heard when they don't want to. Thats allready 7 of your 10 skills right there, and most of these skills arn't really optional, they are things a rogue needs to do their job right. This doesn't even include skills that are really useful but not essential to a rogue such as tumble, use magic device, climb, jump, bluff, diplomacy, disguise, sense motive, or gather information, all of which are insanely useful for a rogues craft. A by this point even a high int human rogue is out of skill points, and they haven't even had a chance to consider side skills such as knowledge, perform, craft, or profession. And they can't rely on their team-mates for skills because in the average 4 person party all their other team members are struggling with 2 + int skill points a level and crappy skill lists, making their troubles even worse then a rogues.

So long as you have a good 15-25 good useful skills (counting craft and profession each once, but counting each knowledge seperatly assuming it's useful), no one character will be able to have every skill and there will be plenty of room for customization. Sure a high int rogue would be able to have a good majority of the skills available to them, but thats what they get for being a rogue who put a high stat in int, the ability to be extreamly versatile and adaptable. Unlike in the current system where there is about 45 skills, which unless your 4 person party is averaging 11+ skills a character you arn't hitting, especially since some skills are preferable to have on multiple characters (notably social skills and the perception skills).

Also, another note is the low skill classes should have more class skills. For some reason a fighter doesn't have heal, sense motive, spot, or listen, despite the fact that those are all skills a trained fighting man would learn. And despite the fact that they are D&Ds knights in shining armor they don't even learn diplomacy, making them worthless in social situations, and even more pointless out of combat. Heck, I'd even go as far as to eliminate class skills all together, if it is vital that one class gets it and another doesn't, make it a class feature instead of a skill. Why shouldn't my fighter know how to play a lute, or my wizard be an accomplished debater? Skills are where your are supposed to customize your character, yet more so then any other aspect skills feel more like a limitation then a choice. This doesn't just apply to D&D, Star Wars is often as bad or worse.

Mando Knight
2007-12-08, 03:07 PM
Yeah, there are a few skills in SAGA that I wish that Soldiers had... and I don't feel like multiclassing...

Werewindlefr
2007-12-08, 03:58 PM
The issue with that is that you're using extra rules all the time, but you only need those rules to deal with the rare exception - considering how infrequently characters in RPGs end up blinded or deafened.

No. Blindness or Deafness are exaggerations. My point was that the quality sight and hearing are not correlated. Making them correlated has an advantage (simplification) and a flaw (it goes against verisimilitude). For Hide and Move siltently, I thought that the sacrifice of verisimilitude wasn't that big, since you usually learn to master both at once. For hearing and sight, not really. But that's a minor annoyance at most for me: I can just create 2 new skills. However, reworking the skill system, well, I don't think it will work without reworking the rest of the gaming system.

Draz74
2007-12-08, 05:03 PM
However, reworking the skill system, well, I don't think it will work without reworking the rest of the gaming system.

So rework the rest of the gaming system. :smallwink:

Thank you, everyone who is participating in this thread. I think I finally figured out, more or less, how skills will work in my homebrew system, thanks to it. :smallcool:

Fhaolan
2007-12-08, 05:55 PM
No. Blindness or Deafness are exaggerations. My point was that the quality sight and hearing are not correlated. Making them correlated has an advantage (simplification) and a flaw (it goes against verisimilitude). For Hide and Move siltently, I thought that the sacrifice of verisimilitude wasn't that big, since you usually learn to master both at once. For hearing and sight, not really. But that's a minor annoyance at most for me: I can just create 2 new skills. However, reworking the skill system, well, I don't think it will work without reworking the rest of the gaming system.

Of course, if you have spot and listen as separate skills, you must also have sniff and and lick skills, for those are possible senses that can be used. Oh, and we don't want to bring verisimilitude into it, because if we want to play *that* game, I don't actually need glasses, I just need to spend more time training up my spot skill, right? :smallbiggrin:

TheOOB
2007-12-08, 11:47 PM
Perception is acually much easier to use as DM then separate sense checks. A goblin is sneaking up on your party, what skill do you use? Do you see the goblin out of the corner of your eye? Do you hear the goblins footsteps. What if it hasn't bathed in a while so smell is your best bet to sense it. What if you have blind sense or tremor sense? What skill do you use then?

With a single perception skill you always know what skill to use, and can apply modifiers based on the situation. A human trying to smell if a substance is an alkaline or an acid would receive a penalty because their sense of smell is quite poor, and a hero with magical goggles would receive a bonus on checks related to sight.

Sleet
2007-12-09, 12:48 AM
Of course, if you have spot and listen as separate skills, you must also have sniff and and lick skills...

No, we can't have that, as it would lead to GMs saying "Give me a Lick check..." which would break my brain.

TheOOB
2007-12-09, 02:49 AM
No, we can't have that, as it would lead to GMs saying "Give me a Lick check..." which would break my brain.

Don't forget the feel skill, you never know when a feeling roll might come in handy.

turkishproverb
2007-12-09, 02:55 AM
Don't forget the feel skill, you never know when a feeling roll might come in handy.

oh, lord, that could be bad. My group always calls taking 20 a cop out, because it makes things easy, and someone shortened it to cop for take 10.


If they make that I skill, noone could live down taking 10 in it.

Fhaolan
2007-12-09, 02:59 AM
Don't forget the feel skill, you never know when a feeling roll might come in handy.

I honestly think a GM calling for a Feel Check is just asking for it. It's more subtle than a Lick Check or Sniff Check, but is equally as damaging to brain matter. :smallbiggrin:

TheOOB
2007-12-09, 04:38 AM
If I was in control of the skill list, it would look something like this:

Acrobatics(Dex) - Covers most dexterity based physical feats, tumbling, balancing, escaping bounds, ect.
Athletics(Str) - Covers most strength based physical feats, climbing, jumping, running, ect.
Craft(Int) - Pretty much unchanged, though the crafting system could be improved.
Disable Device(Int) - Picking locks, disarming traps, ect.
Handle Animal(Cha) - Speaks for itself.
Intimidate(Cha) - Speaks for itself.
Investigate(Int) - Like search, but more the finding of clues and information and interpretation of data rather then the physical act of finding something.
Knowledge(Int) - Speaks for itself.
Language - Speaks for itself.
Larceny(Dex) - Mostly sleight of hand, but expanded to more general thief tricks, including use rope.
Medicine(Int) - Covers healing, anatomy, ect.
Negotiation(Cha) - Covers your ability to make deals and such. Also lets you sense bluffs.
Perform(Cha) - You choose one specialty upon taking perform, and all other types take a -2 penalty. A feat will allow you all perform types with no penalty, and a +2 bonus if you use multiple types of perform at once.
Perception(Wis) - Your ability to notice the world around you.
Profession(Wis) - Very little changes.
Ride(Dex) - Speaks for itself
Scribing(Int) - Your ability to convey and interperate written information. Includes decipher script and forgery.
Socialize(Cha) - Ability to converse with others and fit in, used to impress people and improve their opinion, also to gather information.
Spellcraft(Int) - Covers your ability to identify spells and use ritual magic. You don't have to be a caster to perform rituals and stuff, but they are the ones who get this as a skill.
Stealth(Dex) - Your ability to escape notice.
Subterfuge(Cha) - Covers most acts of concealing the truth, from bluffing to pretending you are someone you are not(aka. disguise). Can also be used to sense bluffs.
Survival(Wis) - Speaks for itself.

note on some nixed skills

Concentraition - virtual requirement of casting classes, would be changed to a simple caster level check, making it a skill is pointless.
Use Magic Device - Like wild empathy, this makes way more sense as a class ability then a skill, something to give rogues and bards a distinct advantage.

Werewindlefr
2007-12-09, 08:53 AM
Of course, if you have spot and listen as separate skills, you must also have sniff and and lick skills, for those are possible senses that can be used. Oh, and we don't want to bring verisimilitude into it, because if we want to play *that* game, I don't actually need glasses, I just need to spend more time training up my spot skill, right? :smallbiggrin:
No need for irony here. I mentioned that didn't believe that for spot and listen, the drawbacks of grouping exceeded, for me, the advantages. I didn't say the same for lick and sniff, probably, mind you, because those are so rarely used in human beings that the advantages of not having specific skills for them far outweigh the drawbacks.

I think I did mention comparing advantages and drawbacks. It's not something that can be split from my previous post, so please do not omit it when analyzing or you end up writing fallacies.


Anyway, I would probably use TheOOB's skill list with minor change. The only one I can think of is splitting perception in two, sight and hearing. With feats giving bonus either to instant perception or careful examination, instead of a separate search skill.

Closet_Skeleton
2007-12-09, 10:00 AM
That doesn't even make sense. Skill points only BECOME useful when you aren't maxing out your skill selections.

Skill points only become relevent when you aren't maxing out skills.


I can see why, with that attitude, you don't see any value in having the skill points hanging around as detritus. But are you capable of understanding that some of us prefer the flexibility to fine-tune our skill selections in a more sophisticated manner?

I can that you might want to do more fine tuning. But the fact is that it just makes characters with skills at too low levels to be useful.


I swear, it'd be more unique to play a pregenerated starter box character from 3.0 or even 2nd edition than a scratch designed character from Saga (or 4th, from what I've been hearing.)

And the fact people are actually saying GOOD things about saga edition in this thread, claiming it makes characters more unique...

I've said it before; skill points only make you look unique.

Lord Zentei
2007-12-09, 10:56 AM
I can that you might want to do more fine tuning. But the fact is that it just makes characters with skills at too low levels to be useful.

Nothing could be further from the truth. If your skills are only useful when they are maxed out (as opposed to being moderately high), your DM is simply assigning too high DCs to the rolls.


I've said it before; skill points only make you look unique.

They certainly make you more unique than everyone of the same class having identical skill sets.

Kurald Galain
2007-12-09, 11:17 AM
If I was in control of the skill list, it would look something like this:
That looks remarkably like the list on a White Wolf character sheet :)


Nothing could be further from the truth. If your skills are only useful when they are maxed out (as opposed to being moderately high), your DM is simply assigning too high DCs to the rolls.
But the problem is that if the DM gives DCs designed for moderately high skills, then these can also be passed with a bit of luck and zero ranks in the skill. This is because at low to mid levels, the range of the die roll is significantly greater than the range of the skill levels.

Lord Zentei
2007-12-09, 11:34 AM
But the problem is that if the DM gives DCs designed for moderately high skills, then these can also be passed with a bit of luck and zero ranks in the skill. This is because at low to mid levels, the range of the die roll is significantly greater than the range of the skill levels.

And this is different from the SAGA edition how, precisely?

As for the range of the die being too high, that's a feature of the d20 system itself. You can avoid this by allocating higher max ranks and giving more skill points, allowing a greater range of skill levels.

Fhaolan
2007-12-09, 12:40 PM
No need for irony here. I mentioned that didn't believe that for spot and listen, the drawbacks of grouping exceeded, for me, the advantages. I didn't say the same for lick and sniff, probably, mind you, because those are so rarely used in human beings that the advantages of not having specific skills for them far outweigh the drawbacks.

I think I did mention comparing advantages and drawbacks. It's not something that can be split from my previous post, so please do not omit it when analyzing or you end up writing fallacies.

Don't mind me. I tend to enter topics with a joke, not to be taken very seriously. :smallbiggrin: However, I try to contribute *something* eventually.

Actually, now that you mention it, that is an interesting point. The skills for spot and listen (and the skill list in general) do indeed assume a humanistic point of view. Monsters have problems with that list. Scent and other feats make up the lack a little, but to be ... symetric (I'm not sure that's the right word, but it's the best I can think of)... and allow for non-human creatures, if you do need to have the other senses as skills if you use individual skills for senses at all.

Personally, I have a thing for symetry, so I would prefer either the sense-based skills merged into one with some kind of racial modifiers based on senses (Humans have -8 to perception on scent-based checks), etc. Or have all the senses skilled out so that non-humans follow the same rules.

In that same vein, fly is a perfectly valid skill. Nominally humans have no use for it, but I can see flying creatures needing to make fly skill checks to perform advanced maneuvers. But since humans normally don't need such a thing, it's not in the skill list.

Greenfaun
2007-12-09, 01:15 PM
OK... but then if you start as a Rogue:1 and go Rogue:1/Fighter:9, do you get the Rogue skills at character creation and then the HD and BAB of a fighter thereafter?

Er, no, but only because they've mentioned that every class will get the same BAB progression, 1/2, like wizards in 3.5. The difference between good-at-fighting and bad-at-fighting will be entirely in class powers, and stay at roughly the same proportion for all 30 levels.

I haven't seen anything about HD yet, so maybe. Also, we really don't know much about multiclassng, period.

Closet_Skeleton
2007-12-09, 02:02 PM
They certainly make you more unique than everyone of the same class having identical skill sets.

But that doesn't really happen in Saga Edition and is just as likely to happen in D&D. Saga Edition has more differance between two characters of the same class than D&D does, though this is mostly due to the talent system (but many talents interact with skills, so it does have an effect there). A Saga Edition Scoundrel gets 4 trained skills and 10 class skills (discounting knowledge skills). Even with a decent intelligence he'll only have just over half of his class skills trained (though he can train them all if he spends a feat and has 20 Int or 18 and human bonus skill, but that is no way a typical character). Since combined skills (which 4th edition is practically confirmed to have) are more useful than normal skills, there are no bad options for him to take so two scoundrels will probably share a few skills but are unlikely to all take the same skills.

If you take knowledge skills into account then characters get even more varied, since there are so many you can't waste skills getting them all, so characters will tend to only have 1. This is true in D&D as well, but your comment had no real meaning to either system.

Kurald Galain
2007-12-09, 02:14 PM
And this is different from the SAGA edition how, precisely?
I didn't say it was.



As for the range of the die being too high, that's a feature of the d20 system itself.
That's a rather novel usage of the word "feature".

Lord Zentei
2007-12-09, 03:23 PM
Er, no, but only because they've mentioned that every class will get the same BAB progression, 1/2, like wizards in 3.5. The difference between good-at-fighting and bad-at-fighting will be entirely in class powers, and stay at roughly the same proportion for all 30 levels.

Same BAB progression...?

Right, one more reason not to buy this.


But that doesn't really happen in Saga Edition and is just as likely to happen in D&D. Saga Edition has more differance between two characters of the same class than D&D does, though this is mostly due to the talent system (but many talents interact with skills, so it does have an effect there). A Saga Edition Scoundrel gets 4 trained skills and 10 class skills (discounting knowledge skills). Even with a decent intelligence he'll only have just over half of his class skills trained (though he can train them all if he spends a feat and has 20 Int or 18 and human bonus skill, but that is no way a typical character). Since combined skills (which 4th edition is practically confirmed to have) are more useful than normal skills, there are no bad options for him to take so two scoundrels will probably share a few skills but are unlikely to all take the same skills.

This does not increase the variation beyond D&D since there remains little or no fine tuning of skill levels beyond trained/not trained. As for talents... what is there to prevent them from being used in a skill point system? It's just Feats by any other name (only with re-rolls instead of +2 to two skills).

And no, it is not "just as likely to happen in D&D", since variation in point allocation is greater than variation in trained skill selection. This is a fact. Indeed, it is the very point of the SAGA system to simplify things and reduce options in favor of speed at character generation.



If you take knowledge skills into account then characters get even more varied, since there are so many you can't waste skills getting them all, so characters will tend to only have 1. This is true in D&D as well, but your comment had no real meaning to either system.

Oh?



I didn't say it was.

Then my point remains.


That's a rather novel usage of the word "feature".

:smallconfused:

Dausuul
2007-12-09, 04:54 PM
That's a rather novel usage of the word "feature".

Not really. "Feature" as euphemism for "bug" has been around for years. :smallsmile:

Closet_Skeleton
2007-12-09, 05:02 PM
Oh?

Niether 3rd Edition D&D nor Saga Edition d20 Star Wars ends up with "everyone having identical skill sets".

Kurald Galain
2007-12-09, 06:46 PM
Then my point remains.

Well, not really... somebody said that skills weren't useful unless maxed out. You respond that this is only a problem if the DM uses high DCs for the skill checks - but as I said, not using high DCs for the skill checks means that those checks can feasibly be made by a character without ranks in the relevant skill (in low to mid level, at the least), which means that a non-maxed skill not all that useful (because it doesn't differ all that much from an untrained skill).

turkishproverb
2007-12-09, 08:07 PM
Well, not really... somebody said that skills weren't useful unless maxed out. You respond that this is only a problem if the DM uses high DCs for the skill checks - but as I said, not using high DCs for the skill checks means that those checks can feasibly be made by a character without ranks in the relevant skill (in low to mid level, at the least), which means that a non-maxed skill not all that useful (because it doesn't differ all that much from an untrained skill).

knowledge of various sorts can be very useful when not maxed out. Ride can. So can many other skills.

horseboy
2007-12-09, 10:03 PM
knowledge of various sorts can be very useful when not maxed out. Ride can. So can many other skills.

Yeah, it's really only, what? The perceptions, vs. hiding skills that you need infinite of. Even spellcraft you "only" need 25 ranks in.

Really, once you've got a +10 to swim while wearing your full plate, do you really need any more?

Lord Zentei
2007-12-10, 10:34 AM
Niether 3rd Edition D&D nor Saga Edition d20 Star Wars ends up with "everyone having identical skill sets".

It was a hyperbole. The skill sets of SAGA have much less flexibility than those of D&D. That was the point.


Well, not really... somebody said that skills weren't useful unless maxed out. You respond that this is only a problem if the DM uses high DCs for the skill checks - but as I said, not using high DCs for the skill checks means that those checks can feasibly be made by a character without ranks in the relevant skill (in low to mid level, at the least), which means that a non-maxed skill not all that useful (because it doesn't differ all that much from an untrained skill).

Indeed. However, I further responded "and this differs from SAGA how, precisely?" If your objection can be applied to SAGA as well as D&D, then it is not a valid counterpoint to reservations about the switch from skill points to the SAGA system.

kjones
2007-12-10, 11:03 AM
I thought it might be helpful to this discussion if I went through the D&D skill list one by one and identified which ones can be useful when not "maxed out" and which ones always benefit from additional ranks. A * will indicate possible untrained use, since this is relevant to the discussion. Generally, things with flat DCs are the ones that don't need to be maxxed out, but there are exceptions.

The point here is that some challenges (like finding/disabling traps) will generally scale with level, while others (moving across an icy surface) will not.

* Appraise: Flat DCs, 20 is high. Additionally, everyone in the party can make the check. Don't bother.

* Balance: Flat DCs, but theoretically they could go up to 35 or so. Stack this with ACP and the odds can get pretty dicey. So, while you don't have to max this out, putting more ranks generally won't hurt, since you won't be automatically make every check for some time.

* Bluff: Opposed. Max it.

* Climb: Similar to Balance, there are fixed DCs, but they can get pretty high, especially when you try to move half your speed and stuff like that. Useful across the spectrum.

* Concentration: Opposed to damage rolls, spell DCs, etc. Max it.

Craft: Fixed DCs. You'd be stupid to max it.

Decipher Script: Does anyone ever use this? Anyway, fixed DCs, max of 30.

* Diplomacy: Per RAW, this is just too cheesy to consider in this context, but if you use Diplomacy by the RAW, go ahead and max it to hit that DC 50.

Disable Device: If you have a mean DM like me, who derives great pleasure from concocting nasty traps, the DCs will get very, very high.

* Disguise: Opposed. Max it.

* Escape Artist: One word: Grapple. Max it.

* Forgery: If you ever use this, it's opposed by other Forgery checks, so if you put a few ranks in it, you'll probably have a higher bonus than anyone else.

* Gather Information: Fixed DCs. Get your total bonus up to +20 or so and you're good.

Handle Animal: Fixed DCs, most below 25. Like craft, only a fool would max this.

* Heal: Unless you regularly go up against nasty poisons/diseases and lack a cleric, you'll usually only use this for stabilization and natural healing, both of which have low, fixed DCs.

* Hide: Opposed. Max it.

* Intimidate: Opposed. Max it.

* Jump: See Balance and Climb.

* Knowledge: Unless you're Pun-Pun, you really only need to be able to hit DC 30.

* Listen: Opposed, but it depends. If you're using it in a scouting capacity, you'll probably be all right without maxing it. If you're using it to find people who are moving silently, max it.

* Move Silently: Opposed. Max it.

Open Lock: See Disable Device.

* Perform: Per skill use, maxing it is useless; in its bardic capacity, maxing it is necessary. Besides, who takes Perform other than bards and emo wizards?

Profession: See Craft.

* Ride: Fixed DCs, max is 20.

* Search: DCs will scale with level. Max it.

* Sense Motive: Opposed. Max it.

Sleight of Hand: Opposed. Max it.

Spellcraft: DCs are <30. As long as you can hit this 100%, you're good.

* Spot: Opposed. Max it.

* Survival: Max it if you have Track or need to feed a lot of people.

* Swim: See Climb, Jump, Balance.

Tumble: You really only need to be able to hit DC 15 or so with regularity.

UMD: You'll probably end up maxing this just to hit those high DCs.

* Use Rope: If you're into that sort of thing, that is, you tie people up a lot, max it.


I think where a lot of the contention is coming from is the fact that a lot of important skills (Hide, Move Silently, Search) have DCs that will essentially scale with level, and so to be effective with these skills, one needs to max them out. There are a lot of skills (as can be seen above) that remain useful even when not maxed. However, a lot of these skills (Appraise, Knowledge) are less "useful" than the aforementioned ones, so they get less recognition in these sorts of arguments.

As to what this means for 4th edition, it's beyond me.

Closet_Skeleton
2007-12-10, 11:58 AM
It was a hyperbole.

Yes and it makes you look like a bigot regardless of your intentions.


The skill sets of SAGA have much less flexibility than those of D&D. That was the point.

It isn't the point you said in that sentance. Saga does not reduce flexibility, it rebalances it.


I thought it might be helpful to this discussion if I went through the D&D skill list one by one and identified which ones can be useful when not "maxed out" and which ones always benefit from additional ranks. A * will indicate possible untrained use, since this is relevant to the discussion. Generally, things with flat DCs are the ones that don't need to be maxxed out, but there are exceptions.

When there are multiple options, and one is obviously better than the others, we call this a "broken part of the system". Some skills being pointless when maxed out and others being neccesary when maxed out is broken. Saga Edition at the same time stops smart people abusing the skill system and stops the skill system from abusing less astute or experianced people. I see this as a good thing.

Saga Edition has three stages of mastery, untrained, trained and focused. D&D (pre epic) has 23 stages of mastery + other obscure bonuses (in core this is limited to focused, synergy bonuses and +2/+2 feats, as well as spells and magic items, effectively making 26 stages of mastery). However D&D's massive ammounts of stages are unnecesary since there are only 7 stages of difficulty (DC 0, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30), at least for the sanely designed skills. The first two of these stages might as well not exist since they're too easy to pass and the third and fourth stages are about the same if you can take 10. 26 stages of mastery are utterly unnecesary when pitted against 5 stages of difficulty. Opposed checks by their nature don't have this problem, but if you cut down on the insanity present in non-opposed checks they don't miss much. D&D's skill point simply isn't so well thought against its success system.

Another thing I like about Saga Edition skills is that an NPC can take skill focus and be a master historian/hacker/hunter while only being level 1. In D&D the world's greatest Opera Singer can probably wrestle to death a small bear. This would be a brilliant feature if force powers weren't so powerful, so if 4e D&D abilities don't work that way then the expert can start making sense.

Lord Zentei
2007-12-10, 06:28 PM
Yes and it makes you look like a bigot regardless of your intentions.

That's got to be the most incredible thing ever posted. Are you aware that "bigot" is a term used for such despicable things as racism and sexism? And here, you're using it about my using a hyperbole to disparage a game system. That's just... unbelievable.



It isn't the point you said in that sentance.

Yes, it was the point. If you were aware of the fact that the above was hyperbole, you were aware of this fact.



Saga does not reduce flexibility, it rebalances it.

"Re-balance flexibility" does not make any sense. You can claim that it re-balances the skill system, but that does not mean that it doesn't also reduce flexibility at the same time.

turkishproverb
2007-12-10, 06:48 PM
Yes and it makes you look like a bigot regardless of your intentions.

Wow, overreact AND misunderstand insulting words much?


Fact is, Skills in Saga are much less flexible, and not entirely sensible either.