PDA

View Full Version : Those of you who don't like Skill Points



Draz74
2008-01-06, 09:57 PM
So I remember a recent discussion on 4e skills, where quite a few posters were complaining about why they don't like the idea of Skill Points, and greatly prefer the scaling-by-level system of skills presented in SWSE.

I have two major questions (for now) to these people:

(1) I'm under the impression that this Boolean Trained/Non-Trained Scaling Skill System in Saga kind of cripples multiclassing as far as skills go. A Scoundrel 1 / Jedi 8 will still look more like a Scoundrel, in terms of skills, than like a Jedi (if he took the Scoundrel level first). Is this true?

If so, can anyone think of an easy way to change it, using Scaled-by-level Skills?

(2) Would people still be against Skill Points if:

- there were no half-ranks; a skill point put into a skill always got you a full rank;
- permanent changes to Intelligence weren't an issue
- skill points weren't quadrupled at first level

?

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-01-06, 10:03 PM
I really hate the 3.x system. I wish class skills were far more common than cross class(why, exactly, is the priest not expected to know about the nobility or how to swim)? Also, I think they should eliminate the max ranks thing, reduce the number of points gained by leveling, and make you get more initially. That way, 1st level NPC's can be good at what they do, and a level 1 acrobat might be better at his job than a level 5 generalist thief.

Talya
2008-01-06, 10:08 PM
Huh.

I like both systems, and see problems with both systems as well. I'd like to see a hybrid of them...

What if you could train skills only up to level/2 (round up), so your maximum training in a skill would be 10 points...but you still gained +1 to all skill rolls at every other level?

See, I agree with the Saga idea of everyone getting skill boosts, even if they aren't trained in the skill (some uses can only be done trained, regardless.) A level 20 jedi will "spot" better than a level 1 jedi, even if neither is trained. However, once you train and take focus, you have no ability to boost them higher other than by levelling.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-01-06, 10:13 PM
That's what I don't like, though. Why should someone who doesn't fight, just works on noticing things, be worse at it than a generalist at higher levels? How would you stat a circus acrobat? Max jump, tumble, balance, but nothing else, no other focus, and somehow they're worse at it than a rouge of a level higher than them with 7 maxed skills.

Of course, I prefer point-based systems over leveling, so maybe that's just me.

RagnaroksChosen
2008-01-07, 11:10 AM
...why, exactly, is the priest not expected to know about the nobility or how to swim? ...That way, 1st level NPC's can be good at what they do, and a level 1 acrobat might be better at his job than a level 5 generalist thief.

first off swim isn't something people back then did even sailors were petrofied of water because they couldn't swim. so a priest not knowing how to swim isn't realy some thing that out of the ordinary, actualy on the contrary a priest knowing how to swim would be odd. also the knowing about nobility mabye he stayed in and learned more about his Religion (ya know Knowledge religion) or mabye he learnd how to ride a horse or some thing else. alot of people may not know any thing about the nobility in there land except mabye names which i wouldn't require a roll for.

I love the skill point system. Scaling systems don't allow enough freedom i feel all restricted.

Then again ususaly max out important ones and go for more of a jack of all trades kinda feel (unless im playing some thing with 2+ int)

kamikasei
2008-01-07, 11:33 AM
first off swim isn't something people back then did even sailors were petrofied of water because they couldn't swim. so a priest not knowing how to swim isn't realy some thing that out of the ordinary, actualy on the contrary a priest knowing how to swim would be odd.

I was under the impression that sailors specifically refused to learn to swim, because it was unlucky (tempting fate by preparing for it)? Have we a medievalist available to confirm for us that ye olden people just plain didn't learn to swim?


also the knowing about nobility mabye he stayed in and learned more about his Religion (ya know Knowledge religion) or mabye he learnd how to ride a horse or some thing else. alot of people may not know any thing about the nobility in there land except mabye names which i wouldn't require a roll for.

"Maybe" he learned this or that isn't a reason for him not to have Skill X available as a class skill. It's a reason for him to put points into this or than and not into Skill X. If something is a cross-class skill then it's actively harder for you to get good at it than at a class skill, even if you do try. You're not making a case for why a cleric with points enough for Knowledge (religion) and Knowledge (nobility & royalty) both can put the same number of points into both and end up half as good at the latter.

Draz74
2008-01-07, 11:37 AM
I love the skill point system. Scaling systems don't allow enough freedom i feel all restricted.
Then, no offense (because I mostly agree with you), but this thread wasn't addressed to you. I really am looking for feedback from the people who don't like Skill Points.


also the knowing about nobility mabye he stayed in and learned more about his Religion (ya know Knowledge religion) or mabye he learnd how to ride a horse or some thing else.
Sure, but that could be represented by, you know, putting skill points into Knowledge (Religion) or Ride instead of Knowledge (Nobility & Royalty). Sstoopidtallkid wasn't saying that all Clerics should be required to put ranks in Know (N&R), he was just saying it shouldn't be cross-class for them.

Matthew
2008-01-07, 11:39 AM
Actually, we don't know how many people knew how to swim 'back then' (whenever that may be). What is apparently true is that many Sailors in the eighteenth century did not know how to swim. That doesn't make them afraid of water, it makes them afraid of drowning on the open sea.

Certainly, Vegetius, writing in the fourth century AD, informs us that all Roman Soldiers should be proficient at swimming as part of their military training and there are many anecdotes of people swimming without any remark as to it being unusual.

RagnaroksChosen
2008-01-07, 12:36 PM
"Maybe" he learned this or that isn't a reason for him not to have Skill X available as a class skill. It's a reason for him to put points into this or than and not into Skill X. If something is a cross-class skill then it's actively harder for you to get good at it than at a class skill, even if you do try. You're not making a case for why a cleric with points enough for Knowledge (religion) and Knowledge (nobility & royalty) both can put the same number of points into both and end up half as good at the latter.

I see your point. What i should have said was that the reason for him to not know any thing about n&r is that his life as a cleric doesn't head well to knowing who the kings 3rd nephew once removed is. there for if he was studying up on the happenings of n&r he would detract from his studies in one of his primary classes. That being said, that is why i belive the skill is cross class becuase he wouldn't exactly have easy access to things like that.

Now this is just an opinion. I also belive that skill selection and what is class/cross class is based Majorly on fluff(especialy what knowledges people get).

I think that the other system would be to restrictive. although i could understand that system could be much simpler and better for people who run alot of Dungion delving or high paced games. We used to run at our local gaming store dnd games similar to a rogue ternemant for 40k. make a char send them into a premade dongion hack and slash type(basicaly similar to dnd minitures from what i understand)

RagnaroksChosen
2008-01-07, 12:41 PM
"Maybe" he learned this or that isn't a reason for him not to have Skill X available as a class skill. It's a reason for him to put points into this or than and not into Skill X. If something is a cross-class skill then it's actively harder for you to get good at it than at a class skill, even if you do try. You're not making a case for why a cleric with points enough for Knowledge (religion) and Knowledge (nobility & royalty) both can put the same number of points into both and end up half as good at the latter.

I see your point. What i should have said was that the reason for him to not know any thing about n&r is that his life as a cleric doesn't head well to knowing who the kings 3rd nephew once removed is. there for if he was studying up on the happenings of n&r he would detract from his studies in one of his primary classes. That being said, that is why i belive the skill is cross class becuase he wouldn't exactly have easy access to things like that.

Now this is just an opinion. I also belive that skill selection and what is class/cross class is based Majorly on fluff(especialy what knowledges people get).

I think that the other system would be to restrictive. although i could understand that system could be much simpler and better for people who run alot of Dungion delving or high paced games. We used to run at our local gaming store dnd games similar to a rogue ternemant for 40k. make a char send them into a premade dongion hack and slash type(basicaly similar to dnd minitures from what i understand)

RagnaroksChosen
2008-01-07, 12:45 PM
Sorry about the double post guys the computer screwed up and i got antsy

Draz74
2008-01-07, 01:34 PM
No prob - just Edit and hit the "Delete" button for one of them.

MorkaisChosen
2008-01-07, 01:52 PM
I see your point. What i should have said was that the reason for him to not know any thing about n&r is that his life as a cleric doesn't head well to knowing who the kings 3rd nephew once removed is.

Some Clerics wouldn't. Others might be the Court Chaplain or even the King's cousin twice removed- so they would know about the N&R.

Counterspin
2008-01-07, 02:43 PM
1) Yes and 2) Yes. I like the boolean setup for it's simplicity. I almost never play a character or run an npc who is single classed, and the boolean system dramatically eases character creation. Since the skill system for D&D is pretty much an entirely unrealistic kludge, it might as well be an efficient one.

Corlis
2008-01-07, 02:47 PM
(1) I'm under the impression that this Boolean Trained/Non-Trained Scaling Skill System in Saga kind of cripples multiclassing as far as skills go. A Scoundrel 1 / Jedi 8 will still look more like a Scoundrel, in terms of skills, than like a Jedi (if he took the Scoundrel level first). Is this true?Yeah, he'll look more like a Scoundrel, skill-wise, which is one thing I don't like about boolean skills.


(2) Would people still be against Skill Points if:

- there were no half-ranks; a skill point put into a skill always got you a full rank;
- permanent changes to Intelligence weren't an issue
- skill points weren't quadrupled at first level?
I don't really hate skill points, so I'd be fine even without those things. What I don't like about skill points is that it leads to level 20 Fighters who have been around the world, battled with demons, travelled the planes, hob-nobbed with royalty, bartered with dwarves, and gotten ambushed by Drow, but are still no better at Knl (Geography), Knl (arcana), Knl (The Planes), Knl(Royalty), Sense Motive, or Spot, than they were at level 1, or at least not without spreading their almighty 2 skill points / level out over ridiculous areas. Simply put, I think a player should get somewhat better at some skills by default, or at least with just a minimal expenditure of resources. As it stands, a level 20 wizard probably won't have ranks in Sense Motive, and therefore could easily be taken in by a level 1 Expert with maximized Bluff and skill focus.

Of course, while the boolean skill method does fix this, it introduces even more problems, so I don't think either is a really good solution.

Talya
2008-01-07, 03:12 PM
Yeah, he'll look more like a Scoundrel, skill-wise, which is one thing I don't like about boolean skills.


I don't really hate skill points, so I'd be fine even without those things. What I don't like about skill points is that it leads to level 20 Fighters who have been around the world, battled with demons, travelled the planes, hob-nobbed with royalty, bartered with dwarves, and gotten ambushed by Drow, but are still no better at Knl (Geography), Knl (arcana), Knl (The Planes), Knl(Royalty), Sense Motive, or Spot, than they were at level 1, or at least not without spreading their almighty 2 skill points / level out over ridiculous areas. Simply put, I think a player should get somewhat better at some skills by default, or at least with just a minimal expenditure of resources. As it stands, a level 20 wizard probably won't have ranks in Sense Motive, and therefore could easily be taken in by a level 1 Expert with maximized Bluff and skill focus.

Of course, while the boolean skill method does fix this, it introduces even more problems, so I don't think either is a really good solution.

This. In its entirety. This is exactly my thoughts and problems with both systems. Some hybrid of them might be best.

valadil
2008-01-07, 03:41 PM
Maybe I'm just being nostalgic, but MERP had my favorite skill point system ever. There were several sets of skills. Each class got 15 points spread across those sets. I can't remember the specifics but it would be something like this:

Weapon Skills: 1 handed edge, 2 handed edge, missile, and blunt.
Stealth Skills: Hide, Move Silently, Ambush, Tracking
Athletics: Swim, Climb, Jump

So warriors would get 5 ranks per level in weapons but 0 or 1 in stealth while rogues had 2 or 3 in weapons but 4 in stealth. There were also rules for transferring between groups. I think each rank bought 5 points in a skill. As I recall, intelligence had no bearing on skills per level, though it may have had some influence at the start of the game.

Additionally there were bonuses in each set based on your class. IIRC warriors got +3/level to all weapons. So a level 10 warrior automatically had +30 with a weapon he hadn't used before. This was a good way to represent skills that someone should have picked up over 10 levels even if the player couldn't afford those skill points otherwise.

This is a little more complicated than D&D, but it makes for better fine tuning between classes in my opinion. If it were up to me I'd not only use weapon based skills (in place of BAB), but also use skills for either schools or elements of magic.

Where MERP went overly complicated was in the purchase of ranks. My memory is a little fuzzy still but I think one rank bought one dot, three ranks bought two, and five ranks bought three. Or something. At any rate it wasn't linear and enforced diminishing returns for specialist fighters. I like the idea in theory, but in practice it was unnecessary since you had to track how many ranks you got, how many pips you could buy, and that each pip was worth +5 to your skill. I'd cut this part entirely but keep the skill sets.

Mando Knight
2008-01-07, 04:13 PM
(1) I'm under the impression that this Boolean Trained/Non-Trained Scaling Skill System in Saga kind of cripples multiclassing as far as skills go. A Scoundrel 1 / Jedi 8 will still look more like a Scoundrel, in terms of skills, than like a Jedi (if he took the Scoundrel level first). Is this true?

If so, can anyone think of an easy way to change it, using Scaled-by-level Skills?

(2) Would people still be against Skill Points if:

- there were no half-ranks; a skill point put into a skill always got you a full rank;
- permanent changes to Intelligence weren't an issue
- skill points weren't quadrupled at first level

1) Yeah, the skills for a Scoundrel 1 / Jedi 8 will still look like a Scoundrel in terms of skills unless you dump feats into it or increase your INT modifier...

2) I hate half-ranks... it limits your cross-class skills to 1/4 of your class skills for the same effort... so if you multi into a class that has a now-class skill that you have tried to train for the last several levels, your max is two times higher and it increases at twice the speed. I have no problem with the 4x for first level bit, though.

That said, characters in Star Wars are supposed to be more Jack-of-all-trades characters than D&D ones, so the 1/2 level bonus makes sense in that context, but not necessarily in a medieval fantasy as it lacks the common education and the traveling about the galaxy on a frequent basis for even low level characters.

Draz74
2008-01-10, 02:30 AM
Thanks for those of you who have contributed. This is starting to feel quite helpful.


Yeah, he'll look more like a Scoundrel, skill-wise, which is one thing I don't like about boolean skills.
Me, too. Hence the question. :smallcool:


What I don't like about skill points is that it leads to level 20 Fighters who have been around the world, battled with demons, travelled the planes, hob-nobbed with royalty, bartered with dwarves, and gotten ambushed by Drow, but are still no better at Knl (Geography), Knl (arcana), Knl (The Planes), Knl(Royalty), Sense Motive, or Spot, than they were at level 1, or at least not without spreading their almighty 2 skill points / level out over ridiculous areas. Simply put, I think a player should get somewhat better at some skills by default, or at least with just a minimal expenditure of resources.

Very valid concerns. But which skills should improve automatically, and what mechanic should they use? Because "all of them" and "bonus equal to half your level" doesn't sit well with me.

Talic
2008-01-10, 02:42 AM
Bear in mind, just because a priest doesn't train in Swim doesn't mean he can't swim.

He just can't swim with a large amount of weight, nor can he swim in really bad weather.

Taking 10 will allow him to cross a pool or some such. That makes him a lot like an average person, as far as swimming goes.

Kizara
2008-01-10, 06:36 AM
Bear in mind, just because a priest doesn't train in Swim doesn't mean he can't swim.

He just can't swim with a large amount of weight, nor can he swim in really bad weather.

Taking 10 will allow him to cross a pool or some such. That makes him a lot like an average person, as far as swimming goes.

Not to mention Bull's Strength, Water Breathing, Freedom of Movement, Water Walk, Air Walk, Divine Power, etc etc.

Yea, cause ranks in SWIM make or break a cleric build....

Rad
2008-01-10, 07:10 AM
the real problem with skills, as many have pointed out, is that a Wiz 20 has no sense motive to speak of, and that it lets things like the diplomancer happen. Hide and Move Silently also need magic or other supernatural abilities to be countered by anybody but a spot specialist.
The trouble comes from the fact that everybody likes to have a laugh when the party rogue single-handedly picks the pocket from the guy at the bar, and to have him actually do it in your games (without it being a suicidal act) you need rules that give him a fair chance of success. The problem is that then the same group needs rules to steal something that is significant to the plot and those rules are not geared in the right direction anymore.

The problem is that your 20th level wizard is no better than a 1st level commoner at spotting.


I don't think that cross-class skills are the reason of the bad in skills (I think it would be much worse without them); the skills system as written works fine if nobody tries to break it at low levels (low as in 1-3) where the initial ranks are pretty much the only ranks, the stats are meaningful and feats and class abilities are few and precious. The skill system as written does not work at high levels even if nobody tries to break it. Some patches are the insane DCs that arise for locks and traps, which look quite artificial if you ask me, but they do not cut it.

o no, I don't think the rules proposed by the OP would do any good. The thing that really kills skills is the way they scale up with level, but taking away levels from DnD is not something you can do and still call it DnD after all...

Your turn :-)

warmachine
2008-01-10, 08:24 AM
For no 1, instead of Trained/Untrained, a character has ranks equal to 5 times the number of Trained allocations regardless of level. A skill has a maximum of 5 ranks allowed. At each new level, ranks can be transferred between skills but each skill can only change by 1 rank. As total skill modifier increases by 1 per level anyway, removing a rank means the total modifier stays the same, representing a neglected skill.

If one wishes character skills to match class skills, there could be a rule that 1 rank must be removed from skills not listed in the class and, if possible, added to a class skill that hasn't increased in rank nor hit the 5 rank maximum. This represents neglect of skills non-class skills and emphasis on new class skills.

If one wishes to enforce class Trained allocation limits, to avoid a Jedi starting with Scoundrel to get higher, Scroundel number of ranks forever, this gets messier. Calculate the ranks allowed by the new class and adjust character ranks by adding or subtracting ranks from skills but keeping limits: skills only change by 1, max ranks is 5, add ranks only to class skills, always subtract 1 rank from non-class skills. These limits can prevent dropping or reaching to the new class limit in one level but this just represents gradual forgetting or learning skills.

In this way, a Scoundrel 1/Jedi 1 will still be much like a Scoundrel but will have gradually lost most Scoundrel skills when reaching Scoundrel 1/Jedi 8.

Matthew
2008-01-10, 09:01 AM
Very valid concerns. But which skills should improve automatically, and what mechanic should they use? Because "all of them" and "bonus equal to half your level" doesn't sit well with me.

How about if the DM simply awarded Skill Points based on events in the campaign, rather than via an explicit X/Level mechanic? To some extent, this is already possible in D20 via Circumstance Modifiers [i.e. "Actually, I've been to the frozen north and I'm telling you right now that the people there are not ten feet tall."]

Telonius
2008-01-10, 09:23 AM
Random idea ... each Class already has class skills, but almost nobody takes all of the Class Skills. What if we keep the current skill point system; but for every three levels in a single class or PRC, a character gets a +1 untyped bonus for all class skills (doesn't stack with feats that give additional class skills). How does that sound? It would benefit skillmonkeys a little more, but they're supposed to be skillful anyway. It would also give a modest penalty to one- or two-level dips.

Kioran
2008-01-10, 10:05 AM
Random idea ... each Class already has class skills, but almost nobody takes all of the Class Skills. What if we keep the current skill point system; but for every three levels in a single class or PRC, a character gets a +1 untyped bonus for all class skills (doesn't stack with feats that give additional class skills). How does that sound? It would benefit skillmonkeys a little more, but they're supposed to be skillful anyway. It would also give a modest penalty to one- or two-level dips.

Working on this....with a little spin:

- There is no such thing as double cost or lower limit for cross-class skills
- Max Ranks work like they did before
- Each class gains ranks in their class skills equal to half their lvl, making their acquisition cheaper and easier
- Each class also gains a reduced amount of skillpoints, which can be used to buy skill ranks, as usual (meaning 4 times the amount at lvl 1, normal thereafter). A Character also receives 5 bonus skill points at lvl 1, because they do not have any class-skill points yet. They serve to max out your class skills or pursue unconventional choice, but a character receives a smaller amount:

2 ranks/lvl = 0 ranks/lvl + int Bonus
4 ranks/lvl = 2 ranks/lvl + int Bonus
6 ranks/lvl = 4 ranks/lvl + int Bonus
8 ranks/lvl = 5 ranks/lvl + int Bonus

Characters can, if they possess poor intelligence, have 0 ranks per lvl, making them effectively unable to specialize in anything because theyīre to dumb. They have their 5 free points, but thatīs it.

Net effect, as far as I estimate:
- Every class gains a base proficiency with all skills in itīs portfolio. The class skill list becomes vitally important, but even dull characters will perform adequately in several auxilliary functions
- Itīs a lot easier to acquire unconventional knowledge, making things a little easier. Itīs, however, also more expensive than maxing class skills
- High Intelligence becomes a lot more powerful for skills, so iīd recommend a Wizard/beguiler nerf to go with this.

Comments?

Telonius
2008-01-10, 10:52 AM
So each class would give +1 ranks to all class skills at level 2, 4, 6, etc.

I'm really not sure that changing around the ranks/level is the best way of going about it. At level 20, a 10-INT non-human fighter would currently get 46 points, but be able to arrange them however he wants. Under the proposed system, he'd get 70 points, but only in the Fighter skills; with 5 points (all from first level) to arrange however he wants.

Contrast that to an 18-INT wizard. Assume non-human and no INT stat boosts (not realistic I know, just for the example). Currently he'd get 138 skill points, arranged however he wants. With the new system, he'd get 150 points in his class skills, plus 81 to arrange however he wants.

Or, a 16-INT rogue. Currently, 253 skill points. New system: 290 points in class skills, 157 aranged however.

In each of those cases, you're giving the classes more class skill points than they're able to get in total under the old system. Total skill points would almost double.

Kioran
2008-01-10, 11:13 AM
So each class would give +1 ranks to all class skills at level 2, 4, 6, etc.

I'm really not sure that changing around the ranks/level is the best way of going about it. At level 20, a 10-INT non-human fighter would currently get 46 points, but be able to arrange them however he wants. Under the proposed system, he'd get 70 points, but only in the Fighter skills; with 5 points (all from first level) to arrange however he wants.

Contrast that to an 18-INT wizard. Assume non-human and no INT stat boosts (not realistic I know, just for the example). Currently he'd get 138 skill points, arranged however he wants. With the new system, he'd get 150 points in his class skills, plus 81 to arrange however he wants.

Or, a 16-INT rogue. Currently, 253 skill points. New system: 290 points in class skills, 157 aranged however.

In each of those cases, you're giving the classes more class skill points than they're able to get in total under the old system. Total skill points would almost double.

Iīve actually considered this dilemma on my way to the hardware store aand back (I work that way, thinking on the bycycle), since this is a work in progress - and the most important thing is that class skills need a new definition:

Old:
Class skills are your portfolio and the skills you can be reasonably proficient with

New:
Class skill are your primary portfolio and the skills you automatically pick up as you go along.

If one were to use my new skill system, one would have to trim the class skill lists considerably - why give the Wizard automatic knowledge skills? He can buy them anyway, just like any ihter skill. Under the new rules, you can pick up every skill you like, so it doesnīt have to be a class skill for you to use it.

With this new paradigm, all classes need new class skill lists. The Wizard, for example, would get Concentration, Decipher script, Knowledge Arcana, Spellcraft + plus another two knowledges, chosen at creation. 6 skills, thatīs it.
The Fighter would get all athletics skills (Jump, Swim, Climb), Ride, Spot, Listen, Handle animal and Intimidate. Smart Fighters pick up additional skils, but their limited suite of skills is beneficial as is.

And so on. Classes with long lists get them trimmed to those skills they do indeed automatically pick up, classes with powerful int based class Features suffering a little more than others in the process. The net result should be more skill ranks, in total, but less maxed skills for all but the skillmonkeys.


Unfortunately, this has turned out to be less of a quick fix, but is viable if one invests work :smallannoyed:

EDIT: Upon further consideration, Iīd say the formula for the amount of class skills per class would be

8 Skills
- 2 for Int-based spellcasting
+ 2 for all classes considered secondary or primary skillmonkeys (Rangers, monks, Rogues)
+ 2 for all 5 ranks/lvl classes

having 6-12 Skills you acquire automatically seems about right, leaving me to the task of finding appropriate ones for each class. And everyone who dumps intelligence and happens to be member of a class with few skill ranks has to make to with passing proficiency with a few skills, tough...
The only thing that breaks down with this system is using skill ranks for PrC qualification, at least for Fighter PrCs and a few of the caster PrCs.......

Draz74
2008-01-10, 09:41 PM
For no 1, instead of Trained/Untrained, a character has ranks equal to 5 times the number of Trained allocations regardless of level. A skill has a maximum of 5 ranks allowed. At each new level, ranks can be transferred between skills but each skill can only change by 1 rank. As total skill modifier increases by 1 per level anyway,
Only at some levels, unless you're doing something very different from Saga.


removing a rank means the total modifier stays the same, representing a neglected skill.
OK, good point; I was going to object that I didn't want multiclassing characters to actually get worse at anything, but this is fair.


If one wishes character skills to match class skills, there could be a rule that 1 rank must be removed from skills not listed in the class and, if possible, added to a class skill that hasn't increased in rank nor hit the 5 rank maximum. This represents neglect of skills non-class skills and emphasis on new class skills.

If one wishes to enforce class Trained allocation limits, to avoid a Jedi starting with Scoundrel to get higher, Scroundel number of ranks forever, this gets messier. Calculate the ranks allowed by the new class and adjust character ranks by adding or subtracting ranks from skills but keeping limits: skills only change by 1, max ranks is 5, add ranks only to class skills, always subtract 1 rank from non-class skills. These limits can prevent dropping or reaching to the new class limit in one level but this just represents gradual forgetting or learning skills.

In this way, a Scoundrel 1/Jedi 1 will still be much like a Scoundrel but will have gradually lost most Scoundrel skills when reaching Scoundrel 1/Jedi 8.

Noble effort. Still bugs the people who just hate keeping track of "skill points" as a concept, and involves a lot of bookkeeping too. But at least the bookkeeping is only at the time of leveling up, and only if you choose to inflict yourself through multiclassing.

Could lead to a lot of slow decision-making for even single-class characters when they level: "Hmmm, is my next adventure going to involve as much Stealth as the past adventure did? It seems, given our quest, that it will actually be more Computer-heavy."

Overall, I think this is an improvement on the Saga system (at least for multiclassers), but I'm not going to use it in my D&D.


How about if the DM simply awarded Skill Points based on events in the campaign, rather than via an explicit X/Level mechanic? To some extent, this is already possible in D20 via Circumstance Modifiers [i.e. "Actually, I've been to the frozen north and I'm telling you right now that the people there are not ten feet tall."]

Too easy for "squeaky wheel" munchkin players with timid/beginner DMs to end up having a munchkin character who's excellent at everything. :smalltongue:

Draz74
2008-01-10, 10:14 PM
Unfortunately, this has turned out to be less of a quick fix, but is viable if one invests work :smallannoyed:

Hey, I'm not afraid of investing work; I started this whole topic because I'm trying to write a whole new system. :smallcool: Unfortunately, this isn't really what I was looking for, because I'm trying to get rid of Class Skills existing altogether. But it's still a cool enough idea that I want to bounce it around a bit more in discussion.

I like the idea of free ranks in class skills, but I'm not sure I like your formulas for reduced numbers of skill points. Especially so Intelligence-based.

Another sticky issue is that, according to some comments on this thread, some skills should really be class skills for everyone. E.g. Spot, Listen, Sense Motive, and Knowledge (Geography) (or Knowledge (Local) in campaigns that stay in one place). I'm not sure how to deal with this, because I'm not ready to give everyone bonus ranks in these skills. So I'm going to ignore this issue for now.

How about this.
Class Skills:

Barbarian: Intimidate, Jump, Ride, Survival, Swim
Bard: Concentration, Diplomacy, Knowledge (History), Listen, Perform
Cleric: Concentration, Heal, Knowledge (Religion)
Druid: Concentration, Handle Animal, Heal, Knowledge (Nature), Survival
Fighter: Intimidate, Jump, Ride
Monk: Balance, Jump, Knowledge (Religion), Sense Motive, Tumble
Paladin: Diplomacy, Handle Animal, Knowledge (N&R), Ride
Ranger: Handle Animal, Heal, Knowledge (Nature), Listen, Ride, Spot, Survival, Swim
Rogue: Disable Device, Escape Artist, Gather Information, Hide, Move Silently, Open Lock, Search, Sense Motive, Tumble
Sorcerer: Bluff, Concentration, Knowledge (Arcana), Spellcraft
Wizard: Concentration, Decipher Script, Knowledge (Arcana)

Then you get a number of skill points per level:
1+Int - Cleric, Paladin, Wizard
2+Int - Barbarian, Druid, Fighter, Sorcerer
3+Int - Bard, Monk, Ranger
4+Int - Rogue

If we use any form of this idea, it also synergizes well with OneWinged4ngel's recent idea of a new Skills Synergy system:

Break apart any overpowered skills (UMD) into sub-skills. Add a lot more synergy bonuses between various skills. However, instead of synergy granting you a flat +2 bonus when you have 5 ranks, synergy instead gives you one free rank of the "receiving" skill, whenever you buy three ranks of the "source" skill. So when you get 3 ranks of Sense Motive, and when you get 6, and 9, 12, 15, 18, and 21, each time you get a free rank of Diplomacy. This can't allow you to go over your normal level-based limit of ranks.


EDIT: Upon further consideration, Iīd say the formula for the amount of class skills per class would be

8 Skills
- 2 for Int-based spellcasting
+ 2 for all classes considered secondary or primary skillmonkeys (Rangers, monks, Rogues)
+ 2 for all 5 ranks/lvl classes

Rrrrrrmm. Nah. For one thing, I think this shouldn't be so formulaic; it should be done on a case-by-case basis based on balance (a little bit) and verisimilitude (more).

Also, no classes are "5 ranks/lvl classes". :smalltongue: So I'm not sure what that was supposed to mean.


The only thing that breaks down with this system is using skill ranks for PrC qualification, at least for Fighter PrCs and a few of the caster PrCs.......

Hmmm, yeah, that's tricky, at least for low-Int characters.

RandomFellow
2008-01-10, 10:49 PM
...

I don't really hate skill points, so I'd be fine even without those things. What I don't like about skill points is that it leads to level 20 Fighters who have been around the world, battled with demons, travelled the planes, hob-nobbed with royalty, bartered with dwarves, and gotten ambushed by Drow, but are still no better at Knl (Geography), Knl (arcana), Knl (The Planes), Knl(Royalty), Sense Motive, or Spot, than they were at level 1, or at least not without spreading their almighty 2 skill points / level out over ridiculous areas....

Personally, I find skill ranks the 'best' of the available options. My 'fix' for people wandering everywhere and 'learning things' is:


Knowledge: Local is replaced with Knowledge: <Region Name>. Knowledge: <Region Name> may be substituted for any other knowledge check when the check is related to the region. (e.g. Instead of making a Knowledge: Nature check about the ogres of the Canton Archipelago you could make a Knowledge: Canton Archipelago check.)

In addition, all characters receive 1 bonus skill rank in Knowledge: <Region Name> per month spent in a location (up to what their max ranks in Knowledge: Local would normally be e.g. A 3rd level wizard would have 6 ranks while a 3rd level fighter would have 3 ranks.). This is mostly an IC reward, during character creation you can only choose one 'region' to have max ranks in Knowledge: <Region Name>.


Not perfect, but it does give a 'life traveling experience' bonus of sorts.

Subotei
2008-01-11, 07:49 AM
Why not just make it easy and get rid of skill points.

Class skills rank = the number of levels in that class (plus ability mod as usual)

Non-class skills rank = the half the number of levels (plus mod) unless its a trained only skill (UMD etc)

Round as usual.

Cross-classers would just have to total up the ranks eg:

Rogue 6/2 Fighter 2 (ignoring stat bounses) would have 8 ranks in climb (both classes skill) , 6 in UMD (trained for the rogue) and 7 in use rope (class for rogue, non-class for fighter).

This would lead to slightly higher skills, but a slight adjustment of DC would ensure thing don't get too easy too early.

Also I would adjust some of the knowledge skills so that they're not just trained.

Kioran
2008-01-11, 08:52 AM
Hey, I'm not afraid of investing work; I started this whole topic because I'm trying to write a whole new system. :smallcool: Unfortunately, this isn't really what I was looking for, because I'm trying to get rid of Class Skills existing altogether. But it's still a cool enough idea that I want to bounce it around a bit more in discussion.

I like the idea of free ranks in class skills, but I'm not sure I like your formulas for reduced numbers of skill points. Especially so Intelligence-based.
How about this.
Class Skills:

Barbarian: Intimidate, Jump, Ride, Survival, Swim
Bard: Concentration, Diplomacy, Knowledge (History), Listen, Perform
Cleric: Concentration, Heal, Knowledge (Religion)
Druid: Concentration, Handle Animal, Heal, Knowledge (Nature), Survival
Fighter: Intimidate, Jump, Ride
Monk: Balance, Jump, Knowledge (Religion), Sense Motive, Tumble
Paladin: Diplomacy, Handle Animal, Knowledge (N&R), Ride
Ranger: Handle Animal, Heal, Knowledge (Nature), Listen, Ride, Spot, Survival, Swim
Rogue: Disable Device, Escape Artist, Gather Information, Hide, Move Silently, Open Lock, Search, Sense Motive, Tumble
Sorcerer: Bluff, Concentration, Knowledge (Arcana), Spellcraft
Wizard: Concentration, Decipher Script, Knowledge (Arcana)

Then you get a number of skill points per level:
1+Int - Cleric, Paladin, Wizard
2+Int - Barbarian, Druid, Fighter, Sorcerer
3+Int - Bard, Monk, Ranger
4+Int - Rogue

The reduced amount of skill points is necessary, otherwise we give away tons of skills for free. So we need a reduction in skill points. But I agree on one point: making it too intelligence base is unnecesary cruelty. That is the reason why the more skilled classes receive more base ranks than in your suggestion, so that less of them depends on actually having Int.
However, I think excessive mercy for characters with negative int-modifier is uncalled for - itīs entirely possible to be reduced to your class skill list if one is Elanesque in ones stupidity.

Regardless, throwing the Fighters and Sorcerors a bone is a good thing, while Iīd inflict serious pain on druids. They can get class skills for their nature stuff, or actually avoid dumping int.

So Iīd go (compromise) with:

1+ Int: Cleric, Druid, Wizard, Paladin
2+ Int: Barbarian, Fighter, Monk, Sorc
4+ Int: Bard, Ranger
5+ Int: Rogue

These "unbound" ranks can be reduced to zero by low Int.

I agree that a formula for the amount of class skills is a bad idea, but still think class skills should roughly correlate with the classes skillmonkeyness. 4 class skill at a minimum, 6 as the baseline and 10 as a maximum, handing out a few less than before. The amount of class skills normally corresponds to the amoun of unbound ranks, though there can be deviations up or down the track.

The reason for this is that some classes (Monk is a strong example, as is Ranger) have a broad spectrum of abilities that come Naturally to them, but have a narrow Focus within their range of abilities - these classes have a higher aomunt of class skill
Other classes have a very narrow focus, and usually only pick up few things as they go along, living in their ivory tower. Some also might have a broad repertoire, but usually only master a small amount of it. They get less class skills. Examples would be Wizard or Bard. My suggestion:

Class Skills:

Barbarian: Intimidate, Jump, Listen, Ride, Survival, Swim
Bard: Concentration, Diplomacy, Knowledge (History), Listen, Perform (any two)
Cleric: Concentration, Diplomacy, Heal, Knowledge (Religion), knowledge(the planes), Spellcraft
Druid: Concentration, Handle Animal, Heal, Knowledge (Nature), Survival
Fighter: Climb, Handle Animal, Intimidate, Jump, Ride, Swim
Monk: Balance, Climb, Jump, Listen, Move Silently, Sense Motive, Spot, Tumble
Paladin: Diplomacy, Handle Animal, Knowledge(nobility), Knowledge (Religion), Ride, Sense Motive
Ranger: Handle Animal, Heal, Knowledge (Nature), Knowledge (Geography), Listen, Ride, Spot, Survival, Swim
Rogue: Disable Device, Escape Artist, Gather Information, Hide, Move Silently, Open Lock, Search, Sense Motive, Sleight of hand, Tumble
Sorcerer: Bluff, Concentration, Knowledge (Arcana), Spellcraft
Wizard: Concentration, Decipher Script, Knowledge (Arcana), Spellcraft


Another sticky issue is that, according to some comments on this thread, some skills should really be class skills for everyone. E.g. Spot, Listen, Sense Motive, and Knowledge (Geography) (or Knowledge (Local) in campaigns that stay in one place). I'm not sure how to deal with this, because I'm not ready to give everyone bonus ranks in these skills. So I'm going to ignore this issue for now.

Justly so. If anyone told me "Everyone picks up all the knowledge as he goes along, Iīd call bull. If traveled for a while, and Iīve met all kinds of people, and some of them go through life almost blind, either because they lack the mental capacity(low Int) or possess a very narrow Focus and have little time for different stuff (Class with few skills).
Others actually learned the language in their time abroad, or picked other useful stuff (not only people of the opposite sex). But itīs far from automatic. If one wants to refelct the fact one has traveled far, well then, take a few ranks in knowledge(x) or a class like Horizon Walker which grants them as class skills.
Useful skills should be paid for, and thatīs the bottom line.


If we use any form of this idea, it also synergizes well with OneWinged4ngel's recent idea of a new Skills Synergy system:

Break apart any overpowered skills (UMD) into sub-skills. Add a lot more synergy bonuses between various skills. However, instead of synergy granting you a flat +2 bonus when you have 5 ranks, synergy instead gives you one free rank of the "receiving" skill, whenever you buy three ranks of the "source" skill. So when you get 3 ranks of Sense Motive, and when you get 6, and 9, 12, 15, 18, and 21, each time you get a free rank of Diplomacy. This can't allow you to go over your normal level-based limit of ranks.

Hmm, breaking apart powerful skills like UMD might actually make sense, in this Instance breaking it up into "Use Arcane device" which handles spell trigger items or spell completion items, while "Use Magic device" handles command word items, or other continuous items like weapons, cloaks etc.

That Sinergy idea, however, is certainly incompatible. Another source of free ranks would muddy the waters too much. I do think increasing the sinergy bonus by 1 rank per 5 ranks beyond the first five is a good idea though.


Rrrrrrmm. Nah. For one thing, I think this shouldn't be so formulaic; it should be done on a case-by-case basis based on balance (a little bit) and verisimilitude (more).

Verisimilitude cannot be prime concern for this, as itīs a balancing issue first and foremost, otherwise the classes with the cooler flavor would automatically be stronger, and itīs difficult to say what actually is a class skill and what isnīt. Verisimilitude should not be broken, but the skill system, as a way of representing a characters prowess out of combat, should be as balanced as the combat system.


Hmmm, yeah, that's tricky, at least for low-Int characters.

For me, in the end, the solution consists of lowering the entry requirement to some PrCs skill wise, but otherwise leave most as they are. There is a Feat in CA that allows buying 5 skill ranks for a skill, so people should pick up that one if they want to qualify at the earliest juncture despite actually being to dumb to do so. The cost of a feat may at least partially set of th benefits gained by dumping int.

Telonius
2008-01-11, 10:04 AM
Why not just make it easy and get rid of skill points.

Class skills rank = the number of levels in that class (plus ability mod as usual)

Non-class skills rank = the half the number of levels (plus mod) unless its a trained only skill (UMD etc)

Round as usual.

Cross-classers would just have to total up the ranks eg:

Rogue 6/2 Fighter 2 (ignoring stat bounses) would have 8 ranks in climb (both classes skill) , 6 in UMD (trained for the rogue) and 7 in use rope (class for rogue, non-class for fighter).

This would lead to slightly higher skills, but a slight adjustment of DC would ensure thing don't get too easy too early.

Also I would adjust some of the knowledge skills so that they're not just trained.

The problem with that would be a character whose fluff says he's skilled in something other than what's on the class skill list. A very suspicious Fighter, for example, could currently have maximum ranks in Sense Motive and be better at Sensing Motive than a particularly gullible Paladin (mechanically represnted by having very few Sense Motive ranks). But if skill points were removed entirely and done like you described, this "suspicious fighter" would never be able to sense motives better than the "gullible paladin" - even if (within the fighter's fluff) the Fighter served as his regiment's interrogator.

There are ways to overcome this. Granting one or more additional class skills to every character, to distributed however they like, could allow for a better mechanical representation of a character's fluff. But just removing skills entirely tends to pigeonhole characters.