4E: Skills fix

[Isomenes]

I had an opportunity to peek at the skill system in 4E, and I'm mightily disappointed by what I've seen. As far as I can tell, the only thing separating two epic level characters (one trained in a skill and the other untrained), assuming that their levels and ability score modifiers for a given skill are equal, is a flat +5 bonus. This is...silly.

So instead, I'm thinking of "fixing" skills. Instead of adding half character level, it seems reasonable that untrained skills ought to be used with a modifier of a smaller fraction--say, 1/3 or even 1/4. In this manner, skills are still viewable as lived experience, but for trained skills, the difference is much more pronounced without being terribly broken.

Either that, or just scuppering the 4E skill system in favor of 3.5. :smallbiggrin:

Does this make sense?

[Dark Tira]

Well considering that +5 to a skill is already the equivalent of a 10 level difference, I don't know if you really need any more than that. Have you actually tried the 4th skill system yet? It works pretty well as is.

[Artanis]

I had an opportunity to peek at the skill system in 4E, and I'm mightily disappointed by what I've seen. As far as I can tell, the only thing separating two epic level characters (one trained in a skill and the other untrained), assuming that their levels and ability score modifiers for a given skill are equal, is a flat +5 bonus. This is...silly.

So instead, I'm thinking of "fixing" skills. Instead of adding half character level, it seems reasonable that untrained skills ought to be used with a modifier of a smaller fraction--say, 1/3 or even 1/4. In this manner, skills are still viewable as lived experience, but for trained skills, the difference is much more pronounced without being terribly broken.

Either that, or just scuppering the 4E skill system in favor of 3.5. :smallbiggrin:

Does this make sense?
If you mean "make sense" in that your statement is coherent and legible, yes.

If you mean "make sense" in that you want to know whether it would be a good idea to totally scrap and/or revamp rules that you yourself admit you have not even USED yet, then no, no it does not make even the slightest amount of sense.

[Isomenes]

If you mean "make sense" in that your statement is coherent and legible, yes.

If you mean "make sense" in that you want to know whether it would be a good idea to totally scrap and/or revamp rules that you yourself admit you have not even USED yet, then no, no it does not make even the slightest amount of sense.

No, nobody's actually play-tested this stuff. No way no how.

I'll admit that my objection is abstract rather than based on empirical gameplay, but are you seriously implying that a difference of +5 matters so much when the base modifiers are up to 17 (after ability modifiers) and the DCs are 35 or lower?

[SamTheCleric]

No one's playtested it?

It's the same skill system used in Star Wars Saga Edition that has been out for over a year... and well loved.

And considering that "medium" DCs for a skill at level 30 are 35... if you even have your +15 from levels... you need to roll a 20 to hit it.

[Artanis]

No, nobody's actually play-tested this stuff. No way no how.

I'll admit that my objection is abstract rather than based on empirical gameplay, but are you seriously implying that a difference of +5 matters so much when the base modifiers are up to 17 (after ability modifiers) and the DCs are 35 or lower?
First off, it depends on the skill. On an opposed or scaling check, that +5 makes a BIG difference, especially if you're opposed by somebody with an equal (or even worse, higher) modifier. However, even on a static DC, you'd be surprised at what +5 will do for your odds if you actually run the numbers.

If you would need an 11-15 showing on your d20 to succeed*, an extra +5 means you can just take 10.

If you would need 16-20 showing on your d20 to succeed, an extra +5 can DRASTICALLY increase your chances of success (upping the odds by six times in the case of going from needing a 20 to needing a 15).

If you would need a 21-25 showing on your d20 to succeed, an extra +5 makes it possible, whereas not being trained makes the check totally impossible.



Let's use your example of DC 35 vs. +17 level and equipment. You need an 18 showing on your d20 to succeed. +5 brings it to needing a 13 on your d20, which nearly triples your chances of success (eight roll values vs. three roll values). If you have +3 worth of stats, that lets you take 10, whereas an untrained person would need to have that stat at a minimum of 26 to get to take 10.



So as you can see, you do not need to give a bajillion points of modifiers to make a drastic difference in the chances of succeeding. You can have a DC low enough for some untrained shmuck to have a chance of hitting while still making it a BIG advantage to be trained, even if that training seems small.



*By "X showing on the d20", I mean that X+modifiers would reach the needed DC.



Edit: Also, what Yakk said.

[Yakk]

The d20 system is affine. In that, if you subtract 10 from both your roll modifier and your target number, things remain exactly the same.

On the other hand, if you double your skill modifier ... there is no similar rescaling of target numbers that leaves things the same.

In 3e they didn't quite understand this. That is why modifiers to d20 rolls scaled with level -- the result was that at medium-high levels, many actions where auto-success or auto-fail, with rarely anything in between.

In 4e, modifiers to d20 rolls do not scale out of control. Generally the only scaling modifiers are: half your level, 1 stat per d20 roll, and 1 implement bonus.

Rarely you can add a 2nd stat bonus (or penalty) to the same d20 roll -- but usually that is a side effect of winning on a previous roll. And in 4e, the max value that stat have scale relatively poorly with level.

What you are describing is adding a new scaling modifier. This means that at low levels, the benefit of being "skilled" is less than at high levels, relative to unskilled players. Which means that skill checks start falling under the "anything that a skilled person can possibly fail at, an unskilled person has no hope at" pattern of 3e.

You may like this, but that isn't the feel that 4e is aiming for. They want skilled people to have an edge (ie, a 50% chance of success instead of a 25% chance) but not to dominate (a 75% chance, while anyone else has a 5% chance) completely.

[TheOOB]

There are also uses for many skills that are trained only, and there are feats(and likely there will be more in the future) that let you do something special but require you to be trained in the skill.

[Friv]

If you want more skill importance, I suggest adding two new feats. A Paragon feat that adds +3 to a skill that you've Trained in, let's call it "Skill Focus", and an Epic feat that adds an additional +2 on top of that. Let's call it "Skill Mastery".

This way, you have a few degrees of skill, while keeping things normal at low-levels, and not going crazy on differences.

[Crazy_Uncle_Doug]

I may be off base here, but doesn't seem a bit odd to be suggesting fixes to a game that officially is not in current release until the 6th?

Until we've had time to play, I'd wait to "fix" problems.

[Artanis]

If you want more skill importance, I suggest adding two new feats. A Paragon feat that adds +3 to a skill that you've Trained in, let's call it "Skill Focus", and an Epic feat that adds an additional +2 on top of that. Let's call it "Skill Mastery".

This way, you have a few degrees of skill, while keeping things normal at low-levels, and not going crazy on differences.
There's already a Heroic-tier Skill Focus that does exactly what you suggest. Another +2 on top of that would be TOTAL overkill.




I may be off base here, but doesn't seem a bit odd to be suggesting fixes to a game that officially is not in current release until the 6th?

Until we've had time to play, I'd wait to "fix" problems.
Precisely.

[Draz74]

It's the same skill system used in Star Wars Saga Edition that has been out for over a year... and well loved.

... by some, and hated by others.

[Tsotha-lanti]

I'll admit that my objection is abstract rather than based on empirical gameplay, but are you seriously implying that a difference of +5 matters so much when the base modifiers are up to 17 (after ability modifiers) and the DCs are 35 or lower?

Math is your friend.

A difference of +5 in a d20 test is a difference of 25% in success. In games that use percentage skill systems (such as all versions of RuneQuest), the technical term for going up against someone with a 25% advantage in skill over you is "Bloody Stupid."

This difference will be compounded in any effort (such as a skill challenge) where multiple successes are required.

It's not quite as good, of course, as it would be if the tests used multiple dice (where small bonuses compound are very significant in harder tests, but less so on easier ones).

[Isomenes]

Sigh. When you talk dirty math like that, I don't have much choice but to believe you. :smallamused:

I am hoping that a full read-through will dispel my ingrained 3.5 instincts, then. (It's hard to wean myself off the pure crack that is the skill point system, after all.)

But still, I can't get over the concept that someone completely untrained in a skill is a modest chance away from besting a character who made the skill his life's focus. It just seems odd. I guess this is just one of the things that we'll see coming out in the wash.

[Jimp]

I suppose you could directly swap out the system for 3.5's skill system. I don't have my books yet, so I don't know how much of an impact that would make on other 4e features though.

[Yakk]

So suppose you are a "good" person at a skill.

You have +4 in the stat (+1ish every tier) and +5 trained.

The other guy is not so good. +1 in the stat, +1ish every 2 tiers.

At level 1:
+9 vs +1
at level 11:
+15 vs +6
At level 21:
+21 vs +12
At level 30:
+27 vs +17

Now, let's suppose we are looking at a task that the high-skill guy has a 10% chance of failing at -- the high-skill guy fails on a 1 or 2.

Success chance (note that the challenge is getting harder as you get higher levels):
L 1, DC 11: 90% vs 50%
L 11, DC 18: 90% vs 45%
L 21, DC 24: 90% vs 45%
L 30, DC 30: 90% vs 40%

Now you have to win twice before you fail once:
L 1, DC 11: 81% vs 25%
L 11, DC 18: 81% vs 20%
L 21, DC 24: 81% vs 20%
L 30, DC 30: 81% vs 16%

see the difference?

By level 30 you also have a ridiculous number of feats -- burning one on skill focus isn't so hard, giving you another +2 to your skill.

A non-trained person with lots of talent (high stat) might beat you out if you are talentness (low stat) in 4e.