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

[Lord Zentei]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 about this.

Justin Alexander
http://www.thealexandrian.net

[Renegade Paladin]

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]

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 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]

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? 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.

[Matthew]

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? 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.

Maybe.

[Lord Zentei]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[Sleet]

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]

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).