# Untrained/trained Skills....Noooo!



## mach1.9pants (Oct 2, 2007)

Hi All,
I was reading through the 'star wars' stuff that 'might' be relevent to 4E. And I was appalled to see that skills are either trained or untrained. I hope that this will not apply to 4E, please someone put my worries to rest 'cos I am excited about another edition. If not, your roll would be:
"1/2 character level + relevant ability modifier + 5 (if trained) + 5 (if Skill Focus)" 
I have two MAJOR problems with this:
1. It stops any characters having any flavour through their skill choices, you can do anything you want (fine if your a Jedi, not so if you are a Ftr/Pal etc).
2. A 20th level (or so) adventurer -often with very high abilities- who has never picked up a sculpters tools in his life will be able to make things like an old master, who, lets face it, is unlikely to advance beyond 5th level cos he won't get any XP doing sculpture!
Adventurer: 10+4[ish] vs 2+2[ish]+5+5
Hopefully it is not happening......
Share your 2p...
M1.9P


----------



## Jhulae (Oct 2, 2007)

I love the SWSE Skill Rules.

I always max the most important skills for my character, and that's what those rules emulate to me.

I also like the PHB2 bard alternate ability, and the SWSE rules emulate that too.

I'm hoping they will be similar.


----------



## Gloombunny (Oct 2, 2007)

I disliked the concept when I first heard of it, but the more I heard it talked about and the more I thought about it the better it seemed.

Yeah, it's a little weird when you look at high-level adventurers vs low-level artisans, but y'know what?  I don't think that really matters.  D&D is a game about adventurers.  It doesn't need to flawlessly model how good the village basket-weaver is at basket-weaving.  No system is going to be perfect, and if this system's imperfections have to do with high-level adventurers being really good at stuff that almost never comes up in-game anyway, then so what?  Besides, it's my understanding that SWSE skills still have "trained only" uses, so the high-level guy without training is still markedly inferior to the low-level specialist in some important ways.

I'm not sure what you mean about characters not having any flavor through their skill choices.  Don't you still decide which skills to be trained in and whether or not to Focus in them?


----------



## WyzardWhately (Oct 2, 2007)

mach1.9pants said:
			
		

> Hi All,
> I was reading through the 'star wars' stuff that 'might' be relevent to 4E. And I was appalled to see that skills are either trained or untrained. I hope that this will not apply to 4E, please someone put my worries to rest 'cos I am excited about another edition. If not, your roll would be:
> "1/2 character level + relevant ability modifier + 5 (if trained) + 5 (if Skill Focus)"
> I have two MAJOR problems with this:
> ...




The way you limit this is with trained/untrained uses.  An adventurer can't perform brain surgery, no matter what kind of bonus he'd theoretically get to the heal roll, if he isn't trained.  Similar with craft.  You can cobble together an awesome raft out of barrels and detritus, in order to escape a desert island, using your big-ass bonus.  However, you cannot carve David out of marble, because you're not trained.

Simple.


----------



## Irda Ranger (Oct 2, 2007)

Jhulae, Gloombunny and WyzardWhately all make valid points.  The only thing I'd like to add is that the 4e designers have already said they've removed the Profession Skill, and I think Craft too, so you "old master" concern is right out the window.  The Skills rules are supposed to model stuff that heroic-fantasy adventurers are good at (picking locks, sneaking, etc.).  It was never itended to allow you to "stat up" Leonardo da Vinci.

Trained vs. Untrained is a good way of modelling a lot of things, I think.  You should really give it some more thought, and playtest it.


----------



## pawsplay (Oct 2, 2007)

Jhulae said:
			
		

> I love the SWSE Skill Rules.




I tolerate them. For Star Wars.


----------



## WyzardWhately (Oct 2, 2007)

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> Jhulae, Gloombunny and WyzardWhately all make valid points.  The only thing I'd like to add is that the 4e designers have already said they've removed the Profession Skill, and I think Craft too, so you "old master" concern is right out the window.  The Skills rules are supposed to model stuff that heroic-fantasy adventurers are good at (picking locks, sneaking, etc.).  It was never itended to allow you to "stat up" Leonardo da Vinci.
> 
> Trained vs. Untrained is a good way of modelling a lot of things, I think.  You should really give it some more thought, and playtest it.




Profession I'd get rid of, Craft I'd probably keep...forging masterwork swords and stuff like that is still kinda cool.  Who can forget the intro to LotR where Sauron pounds away in his forge, making the One Ring?

I'm not saying there's no other way to do it, and in fact a few crafting feats or talents would be pretty damn awesome, but Craft I think there's a need for. I'd be willing to have there be only one Craft skill instead of Craft: X, though.


----------



## mach1.9pants (Oct 2, 2007)

I see that if you just cannot do some things unless trained it takes a lot of my worries away about the artisan disparity, even more if craft/profession is gone.
But it sill has the problem of decreasing your characterisation, I like (esp NPCs- I DM) that have interesting skill sets that trick my PCs. Without being able to put 'a few' skills here and there tha goes out the window. It will be a real waste to use an entire 'trained' slot(?) on an 'off class' skill. Ifyou want (as Jhulae does) to max out your skills- go ahead. But it takes away peoples options if you, like me with my NPCs and PCs (we don't just dungeon bash; a lot of social interaction etc- wider skill set), want to spread it around. 
Still, as always, shouldn't be hard to house rule 
M1.9P


----------



## brehobit (Oct 2, 2007)

Yeah,
I'd miss the craft and profession skills.  Most of my PCs have some of those.  Heck, back in 2nd ed, I used NWP for character things, not pounding things (so smithing, not healing or whatever).  I hope something like that continues.  

My longest running character is suppose to be a master smith...  I want a good way to model that.

Mark


----------



## mach1.9pants (Oct 2, 2007)

brehobit said:
			
		

> Yeah,
> I'd miss the craft and profession skills.  Most of my PCs have some of those.  Heck, back in 2nd ed, I used NWP for character things, not pounding things (so smithing, not healing or whatever).  I hope something like that continues.
> 
> My longest running character is suppose to be a master smith...  I want a good way to model that.
> ...



COuldn't agree more, not everyone wants to be a specialist killer- some of us want to spend a few (not all) of our points on 'non-standard' skills...


----------



## Branduil (Oct 2, 2007)

Um, link to the "no craft/profession" thing?


----------



## Arashi Ravenblade (Oct 2, 2007)

Some people I know like to actually play those useless Artisan characters. I know its not a majority or anything.
And the whole way SWSE does skills is just dumb. The way things work there is very little different between one characters skills and anothers. Just who rolls better. The way D&D skills work seem fine. I can have PC's who all might have the same skills, same ability scores even, but they might choose to do their skill points in such a unique way that it seems to me SWSE wont allow, nor will D&D 4e if they go that route.
Im not one to play a usless character, im a min-maxer, but I realize that other people do that kind of play. D&D 3.5 was all about options. Even if they went overboard. Seems like 4e is taking several steps backwards and one step to the side in favor of video game like design, where everything have a combat use.


----------



## Gloombunny (Oct 2, 2007)

mach1.9pants said:
			
		

> COuldn't agree more, not everyone wants to be a specialist killer- some of us want to spend a few (not all) of our points on 'non-standard' skills...



I'd like to be able to say that my character is good at those things without having to take away points from my adventuring capabilities.  The way I see it, not having rules for skills like Profession is _better_ for people who like characters who are good at that sort of thing.


----------



## WayneLigon (Oct 2, 2007)

I've been used to this for some time, since that's almost the way Blue Rose does skills as well. I can see the complaints about it, but really it seems to have more good points than bad. Whatever happens, I'd like to see us get away from the 2+int bonus skill point classes. I'm playing in a PRP right now and there's about 10 skill points I could easily put in my fighter character just from his background. But, I can't. I'd rather have the occassional 'never picked up a flute before but I know how to play it really well' problem than the 'I've lived my entire life around horses, so I should have some Handle Animal and Ride, but no, I had to spend stuff on class-specific skills I can use in adventuring ... that I have not done yet'.


----------



## Scholar & Brutalman (Oct 2, 2007)

Branduil said:
			
		

> Um, link to the "no craft/profession" thing?




From here:



> Skill system – familiar but truncated. Getting rid of tailor, rope use, etc. Focus on the skills that are really useful in an encounter. Saga edition is a significant stride forward and should be considered a preview. Same for profession, etc. We want characters making acrobatics, bluff, jump, etc. No characters will be stuck at 10th level saying “oh I never invested in that.” Hide/Move Silent are brought together. Now an important part of your character, and here’s how to apply it to an encounter. It’s rarely a check and done, it’s now, I make a check, and they react to it. What happens now.




It doesn't explicitly say they're getting rid of Craft, but there are no Craft skills in SAGA, just a single mechanics skill and a web enhancement for using it to improve items.


----------



## Irda Ranger (Oct 2, 2007)

Gloombunny said:
			
		

> I'd like to be able to say that my character is good at those things without having to take away points from my adventuring capabilities.  The way I see it, not having rules for skills like Profession is _better_ for people who like characters who are good at that sort of thing.



Correct.  Now you can be a black smith too (in your day job) without having to divert resources from Skills you actually use while adventuring.  

People; break away from the 3e mind-set.  Your character's character record/sheet is only a subset of who they are and what they are capable of.  Are the a blacksmith? Cool. Right it down on the character history / misc. notes section.

The point of the 4e design process what "Being a blacksmith or tailor has zero effect on your ability to be a Fighter or Mage, so we're taking it out of character level advancement."  That doesn't mean your character can't be a blacksmith.  If he is, just write it down.  Done.  Think if as "Rule 0 for Players."  It's as easy (and as unnecessary to have rules for) as writing a character history.


----------



## mach1.9pants (Oct 2, 2007)

I can see why people want it in (especially for the poor old fighter/paladin/cleric etc of 2 skills) but I prefer the flexibility of individual skills. Oh we house rule giving more skill points, everybody gets 2 more and rogues 4- thats you sorted WayneLigon 
I think it is a dumbing down, and it is much easier to present trained/untrained as an alternative than the other way around. I want more more more options, things like skills which don't slow you down -in game- should be encouraged. You can sort the complications out side of session time


----------



## Branduil (Oct 2, 2007)

I don't think it's much of a dumbing down when the vast majority of people maxed out a few skills anyway. Heck, the PHB pretty much tells you to do just that.


----------



## Stone Dog (Oct 2, 2007)

I hate skill ranks in D&D with a burning passion.  I've seen so many people who couldn't perform basic tasks at half their capacity because they insisted on making their skill ranks match their characterization.  Great.  You'd successfully modeled a 10th level rogue who can't pick a cr5 lock because you've insisted on spreading your ranks around to match your character.  I'm sure the party would appreciate that, but they are riddled with poison darts now.  They look kinda miffed.

Granted, I'd like a little more granularity when it comes to the skills than just untrained, trained and focused.  However I seriously doubt this has to be more than untrained, dabbler, trained, focused and mastered.

SWSE edition skills work so close to perfectly (yes, I know... for me) that I can't tell the difference with the naked eye.  I'll never use skill ranks the way 3rd edition does them again.


----------



## maggot (Oct 2, 2007)

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> The point of the 4e design process what "Being a blacksmith or tailor has zero effect on your ability to be a Fighter or Mage, so we're taking it out of character level advancement."  That doesn't mean your character can't be a blacksmith.  If he is, just write it down.  Done.  Think if as "Rule 0 for Players."  It's as easy (and as unnecessary to have rules for) as writing a character history.




I disagree that being a blacksmith has zero effect on the game.  I can see it come up every so often.  Pick a more useful profession for an adventurer like sailor and it can come up a lot.  Having "just put it in your background" can lead to min-maxers writing long backgrounds that touch on every profession needed (I was a blacksmith, then a tailor, then a sailor).  Why not have the rules help out here a bit?


----------



## drothgery (Oct 2, 2007)

mach1.9pants said:
			
		

> Share your 2p...




There have been several threads here about the SWSE skill system that have discussed its merits in detail. Most recently here, less than three weeks ago.


----------



## Felon (Oct 2, 2007)

mach1.9pants said:
			
		

> Hi All,
> I was reading through the 'star wars' stuff that 'might' be relevent to 4E. And I was appalled to see that skills are either trained or untrained. I hope that this will not apply to 4E, please someone put my worries to rest 'cos I am excited about another edition. If not, your roll would be:
> "1/2 character level + relevant ability modifier + 5 (if trained) + 5 (if Skill Focus)"
> I have two MAJOR problems with this:
> ...




As others will point out, in SWSE you don't outsculpt or otherwise outperform anyone if what you're attempting is a trained-only use of a skill and you happen to be untrained at it.

What the SWSE skill system does well is allow for the notion that as adventurers gain experience, they accrue self-confidence and resourcefulness. This allows these larger-than-life characters to attempt things that lesser men wouldn't dare without the benefit of a two-to-six-week course beforehand. If you have learned to accept level-based increases in BAB and saving throws, I'm not sure why this would be a problem. And if it's OK for a Star Wars character to get this benefit, I'm not sure why it should be begrudged to a hero in a fantasy setting.

Again, this bonus isn't going to help you at a trained-only skill use if you aren't trained in the skill. The upshot is that this can allow everyone to participate in a skill-based challenge, as opposed to the current familiar scenario where some people getting bored of sitting on the bench and push the party into resorting to brute force because that's the one and only area of the game that all characters are decent at.

Where SWSE screws up is that doesn't allow for the fact that low-level characters can rack up large bonuses very quickly. They kept 15 as the basic DC for skil uses, and a 20 will still net the majority of uses of any skill, and you can still take 10. This all leads to characters that peak early, and mediocre amounts of skill being not much less useful than an amazing amount of skill (for checks that use static DC's anyway). They really needed to incorporate some of the concepts behind skill challenges from Iron Heroes.


----------



## Li Shenron (Oct 2, 2007)

WyzardWhately said:
			
		

> The way you limit this is with trained/untrained uses.  An adventurer can't perform brain surgery, no matter what kind of bonus he'd theoretically get to the heal roll, if he isn't trained.  Similar with craft.  You can cobble together an awesome raft out of barrels and detritus, in order to escape a desert island, using your big-ass bonus.  However, you cannot carve David out of marble, because you're not trained.
> 
> Simple.




True until the 30th level character takes the feat (or whatever, but 99% there's going to be something like this) which turns an untrained skill into trained, and suddenly he goes from not being able to use it to being just as good as the guy who's being doing that for 30 levels.

Something similar could happen also in 3.x (you can spend all your new skill points in one new skill), but not at this degree.


----------



## mach1.9pants (Oct 2, 2007)

drothgery said:
			
		

> There have been several threads here about the SWSE skill system that have discussed its merits in detail. Most recently here, less than three weeks ago.



Sorry about that but I cannot find where the search forum bit is d'oh, I did look


----------



## FadedC (Oct 2, 2007)

maggot said:
			
		

> I disagree that being a blacksmith has zero effect on the game.  I can see it come up every so often.  Pick a more useful profession for an adventurer like sailor and it can come up a lot.  Having "just put it in your background" can lead to min-maxers writing long backgrounds that touch on every profession needed (I was a blacksmith, then a tailor, then a sailor).  Why not have the rules help out here a bit?




I don't think you need a detailed set of rules to cover something that will only come up once in a blue moon like that. If a player is blacksmith the DM can rule that he can do blacksmithing type stuff in the unlikely even that it comes up. If he's a sailor and an adventure takes place on the ship the DM can do the same. I don't see many players trying to minmax their history given how rarely most of these things will have a concrete advantage in the game, and how easily the DM can say that the player can't do anything well enough because he's so unfocused in his non adventuring career.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Oct 2, 2007)

mach1.9pants said:
			
		

> Hi All,
> I was reading through the 'star wars' stuff that 'might' be relevent to 4E. And I was appalled to see that skills are either trained or untrained. I hope that this will not apply to 4E, please someone put my worries to rest 'cos I am excited about another edition. If not, your roll would be:
> "1/2 character level + relevant ability modifier + 5 (if trained) + 5 (if Skill Focus)"
> I have two MAJOR problems with this:
> ...




1. How does it stop characters having flavour through their skill choices? One fighter might be a knight trained in Ride and Intimidate, another might be an outdoorsman trained in Climb and Swim. Very different flavour from their skill choices.

2. A 20th level adventurer might have the same raw skill check in an untrained skill as a low level master - but skills in SWSE typically have certain 'trained only' uses. To take your sculpting analogy, perhaps carving in wood can be done untrained, but carving a marble statue is trained only. The 20th level fighter can whittle a pretty good wooden deer, but give him a block of marble and he is stumped, while the old master just gets straight to it.

3. D&D 4th Edition skills are not exactly the same as Star Wars Saga Edition skills (source: 4e news page, which refers to:  http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=3774436&postcount=59)


----------



## mach1.9pants (Oct 2, 2007)

To answer:
1. Yes they are different but not as different as the ftr with an interest in history [1 rank Knowledge(History)] and poetry [1 rank profession(poet)] and still the rest in ride etc etc. I didn't mean stop and should have said reduce.
2. I didn't realise this and agreed that reduces my worry in a previous post
3. Yep, I hope they are ALOT different 
M1.9P
ps nice website!


----------



## Aloïsius (Oct 2, 2007)

The solution : divide skills between adventuring skills, things heroes should become good at, whatever their class, and non-adventuring skills, things only some heroes may be interested with. The first one use SSE rules, the other have a basic status of "non competent".

Thus you have : 

check = ability score +1/2 character level  (if adventurer skill) + relevant ability modifier + 5 (if trained) + 5 (if Skill Focus)

Problem solved. Just give characters two non adventuring skills at first level, and another one every few level (5 or so, I don't know).

You can add restricted skills with the same principle : things like scry (why did they removed it in 3.5 ? THIS was a great skill !, autohypnosis etc...)

And this will reduce the insta-chirurgian expert effect : you need one feat/ or level to gainbasic  competence in a restricted area, another one (a few levels later) to be trained, and still another one (more levels later) to be an expert.



> They really needed to incorporate some of the concepts behind skill challenges from Iron Heroes



Remember who is working on 4e


----------



## Tharen the Damned (Oct 2, 2007)

There are two big in the skill system. If they would get rid of these, most issues would be fixed.

1) No/ not enough base knowledge. Sure you can use skills untrained but the only bonus you get is your ability bonus. That is not enough. If you get a base knowledge (say 5 ranks or so) in your untrained skills you might actually use them and succeed. This does not include skills that have to be trained.

2) linear progression. In the real world if you lear a new skill, lets say a new language, at first you progress very fast but after a while the progress slows down. You have absorbed the basics and now tackle the more complicated things. You still get better but at a slower rate. If D&D would use a skill system with diminishing returns the DCs would not have to be so ridiculous high for some tasks. A 1st level rogue can barely disable a simple trap but a high level rogue disables a magical Deathtrap with his feet while his hands are bound. Some might find this heroic. I think it is absurd.

3) Specialisation. There is no real Specialisation in D&D. Sure you can max out and add Skill Focus. But that does not simulate the total dedication for one skill enough. I would say, get rid of the x skill ranks per level per skill. Let every Player decide if he wants to specialize or stay generalist. The changes from 2) will cap the linear progression. So a Specialist will be much better than a generalist but with diminishing returns.

Combine 1) , 2) and 3) into a skill system and all PCs can try basic things like hiding or swimming and have a chance to succeed.


----------



## Aloïsius (Oct 2, 2007)

Tharen the Damned said:
			
		

> 1) No/ not enough base knowledge. Sure you can use skills untrained but the only bonus you get is your ability bonus. That is not enough. If you get a base knowledge (say 5 ranks or so) in your untrained skills you might actually use them and succeed. This does not include skills that have to be trained.



I don't understand what you mean, there. Skills are usualy opposed roll. untrained VS untrained -> chances of success. Untrained VS trained -> very little chance of success. Just set the DC right for common, easy task (climbing a rope etc...) so that you don't need a trained skill to do it.



> 2) linear progression. In the real world if you lear a new skill, lets say a new language, at first you progress very fast but after a while the progress slows down. You have absorbed the basics and now tackle the more complicated things. You still get better but at a slower rate. If D&D would use a skill system with diminishing returns the DCs would not have to be so ridiculous high for some tasks. A 1st level rogue can barely disable a simple trap but a high level rogue disables a magical Deathtrap with his feet while his hands are bound. Some might find this heroic. I think it is absurd.



Unless you use skill points and XP à la Ars Magica, this is not possible without cumbersome tables. And I think D&D4 will be simpler than that. 



> 3) Specialisation. There is no real Specialisation in D&D. Sure you can max out and add Skill Focus. But that does not simulate the total dedication for one skill enough. I would say, get rid of the x skill ranks per level per skill. Let every Player decide if he wants to specialize or stay generalist. The changes from 2) will cap the linear progression. So a Specialist will be much better than a generalist but with diminishing returns.



When do you choose to specialize ? D&D is not skill-centric, I doubt they will use that. Maybe you can have a special feat "total dedication" that gives you another +5 in a skill, but -3 in every other skills...


----------



## Baby Samurai (Oct 2, 2007)

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> The Skills rules are supposed to model stuff that heroic-fantasy adventurers are good at (picking locks, sneaking, etc.).  It was never itended to allow you to "stat up" Leonardo da Vinci.





Exactly, someone like Mozart of Jimi Hendrix would have an obscene amount of Ranks in Perform (instrument), but wouldn't have more than a few hp.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Oct 2, 2007)

Tharen the Damned said:
			
		

> There are two big in the skill system. If they would get rid of these, most issues would be fixed.
> 
> 1) No/ not enough base knowledge. Sure you can use skills untrained but the only bonus you get is your ability bonus. That is not enough. If you get a base knowledge (say 5 ranks or so) in your untrained skills you might actually use them and succeed. This does not include skills that have to be trained.
> 
> ...



2) I think that's what Star Wars does pretty well - Skill Training and Skill Focus grant you a high bonus fast, and for more, you need a long time.

I think what's also interesting are the reroll talents and racial abilities for skills - essentially, your success rate becomes more consistent, but even if you feel somewhat challenged by a task, your comrades who are less focussed still have a chance to succeed. Pure bonuses would mean that anything you find hard to do becomes impossible for your comrades. Which is fine for lock-picking and disable device, but not so great for skills that everybody uses.


----------



## Goken100 (Oct 2, 2007)

One of the designers as much as said that the skill system in D&D won't be the same as in SW SAGA.  I'm hoping for some kind of mid-way point between 3.5 and SAGA.

By the way, for those lovers of 3.5 skills, check the math on a high level character.  Go ahead, I'll wait.  
...
There were errors weren't there?  Maximums exceeded?  Cross-class rules violated?  Synergies forgotten?  The designers are aware.  Thus, something better shall emerge.


----------



## Henrix (Oct 2, 2007)

The skill system is one of my greatest worries for the new edition. I really think that being able to customise the characters is essential. And just having skills relevant to encounters seems boring.


----------



## Bagpuss (Oct 2, 2007)

mach1.9pants said:
			
		

> If not, your roll would be:
> "1/2 character level + relevant ability modifier + 5 (if trained) + 5 (if Skill Focus)"
> I have two MAJOR problems with this:
> 1. It stops any characters having any flavour through their skill choices, you can do anything you want (fine if your a Jedi, not so if you are a Ftr/Pal etc).




Your flavour comes from what you decide to be trained in. If you aren't trained they you aren't going to be very good at all.



> 2. A 20th level (or so) adventurer -often with very high abilities- who has never picked up a sculpters tools in his life will be able to make things like an old master, who, lets face it, is unlikely to advance beyond 5th level cos he won't get any XP doing sculpture!




So a 1st level character can be as good as a legendary character (the sort of person that should be able to turn their hand to anything with a good chance of success) at something they have specialised in.

Plus if you know SWSE skill then creating a mastercraft work of art like that of a professional sculptor would be a "trained" use of the skill so the 20th level character could make a reasonable shape, but anyone could tell it was the work of the amateur. 

Not seeing the problem.


----------



## Klaus (Oct 2, 2007)

mach1.9pants said:
			
		

> Hi All,
> I was reading through the 'star wars' stuff that 'might' be relevent to 4E. And I was appalled to see that skills are either trained or untrained. I hope that this will not apply to 4E, please someone put my worries to rest 'cos I am excited about another edition. If not, your roll would be:
> "1/2 character level + relevant ability modifier + 5 (if trained) + 5 (if Skill Focus)"
> I have two MAJOR problems with this:
> ...



 You're forgetting quite a few things:

1) You must be "Trained" in a skill in order to Take 10.
2) You get next-to-no numerical modifiers to skills, so your base ability becomes more significant.
3) You get several "Trained Only" uses of skills, even for skills that have "Untrained" uses.
4) You have several Talent Trees in SWSE that modify some skill uses (allowing re-rolls, or faster uses of skills, etc).

So you have quite some flexibility there, beyond the simple difference between Bob having +8 and Ted having +10.


----------



## Tharen the Damned (Oct 2, 2007)

Aloïsius said:
			
		

> I don't understand what you mean, there. Skills are usualy opposed roll. untrained VS untrained -> chances of success. Untrained VS trained -> very little chance of success. Just set the DC right for common, easy task (climbing a rope etc...) so that you don't need a trained skill to do it.




Ok, to make it clearer. In D&D, if you do not have the climb skill you have a hard time climbing even if you are a healthy strong PC and get Ability bonuses. So you are strong and healthy and can not climb this Tree because you have no skill ranks. This is even more ridiculous for a Str. 10 commoner.
To even this out, everybody should have at least some ranks in climbing and other skills that everybody can try to use without training.




			
				Aloïsius said:
			
		

> Unless you use skill points and XP à la Ars Magica, this is not possible without cumbersome tables. And I think D&D4 will be simpler than that.




You could make it easier. Maybe make the first 5 ranks cost 1 point each, the next 5 ranks cost 2pts each and so on. I am to lazy to do the math for this to get a beautiful curve that is horizontal at 20th or for 4th at 30th level.



			
				Aloïsius said:
			
		

> When do you choose to specialize ? D&D is not skill-centric, I doubt they will use that. Maybe you can have a special feat "total dedication" that gives you another +5 in a skill, but -3 in every other skills...




This is something that irks me, because it essentially demeans the skill type characters like the rogue. In the RAW the best door opener in the world is the rogue with the best Dex Stat booster and magical equipment. Not the one with the most skill ranks as they will be maxed out anyway.
But you are right I think, they will not complicate the skill system as D&D is not a skill focussed system.


----------



## Tharen the Damned (Oct 2, 2007)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> 2) I think that's what Star Wars does pretty well - Skill Training and Skill Focus grant you a high bonus fast, and for more, you need a long time.
> I think what's also interesting are the reroll talents and racial abilities for skills - essentially, your success rate becomes more consistent, but even if you feel somewhat challenged by a task, your comrades who are less focussed still have a chance to succeed. Pure bonuses would mean that anything you find hard to do becomes impossible for your comrades. Which is fine for lock-picking and disable device, but not so great for skills that everybody uses.




Hi Mustrum, do you know the german RPG "Midgard das Fantasy Rollenspiel"?
If I look for a brillant skill system, I look at Midgard.

S.T. Cooley Publishing tried something similiar with "Buy the Numbers"


----------



## FourthBear (Oct 2, 2007)

I think the guiding principle that should inform what skills should be statted out is: will the character be rolling for this skill at least every other adventure with a significant impact on the game.  While giving a character one rank in Knowledge (architecture) or Profession (baker) or Perform (poetry) might seem very flavorful, unless the character is actually rolling for it regularly, it's pointless bookkeeping.  I think that such character traits should indeed be separated from the adventuring skills section.  Just like you don't need to spend points for your character to have a busy-body sister or to only wear the color blue, you shouldn't have to spend skill points to write poetry in your spare time.  

Now,  if you are in a campaign where poetry is an important part of the campaign and you regularly need to submit poems and roll on Perform (Poetry) to overcome challenges (and the result of that roll actually matters), then you should definitely add Poetry to the skills list.  The same applies to Profession (Sailor) and any skill that a particular campaign might need.  However, in my experience, flavor skills are either never rolled for or the DM tosses the character a bone once or twice in a campaign and then fudges so that the result is significant.


----------



## an_idol_mind (Oct 2, 2007)

I think one of the more underrated aspects of skill ranks is that they allow a character to alter their talents as they advance. As a bard, I might keep my Perform skill maxed out. But if my fighter dabbles in playing the lyre, I might want to toss a few ranks in Perform and then leave it as is, reflecting it as a talent but not one that is as well-developed as, say, his ability to intimidate people. As another example, I might have a survivalist character who spent all his life in the woods, thus having no ranks in any social skills. But if his adventures eventually bring him into dealings with a noble court, he might slowly gain some Diplomacy ranks, taking 1 or 2 as he levels up and learns about the world outside the forest. The current system allows for these little quirks, while also making it easy for folks who want to keep their best skills maxed out to do so. I don't see the Saga system as being as flexible in this way, particularly when it comes to learning new skills later in an adventuring career.

Of course, this is just my preference. 4th edition D&D seems to be developing into a game that runs counter to this and many other preferences of mine -- which is fine and dandy, as long as it ends up appealing to a broader audience. It is worth noting that the skill system is one of the easier things to tweak and house rule in the game. I could do a Saga-style skill system with 3rd edition pretty easily, and I'm pretty sure I'll be able to do a 3e-style skill system with 4th edition if I want to.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Oct 2, 2007)

mach1.9pants said:
			
		

> ps nice website!




Hey thanks!

I must update it again one of these days


----------



## Nebulous (Oct 2, 2007)

WyzardWhately said:
			
		

> The way you limit this is with trained/untrained uses.  An adventurer can't perform brain surgery, no matter what kind of bonus he'd theoretically get to the heal roll, if he isn't trained.  Similar with craft.  You can cobble together an awesome raft out of barrels and detritus, in order to escape a desert island, using your big-ass bonus.  However, you cannot carve David out of marble, because you're not trained.
> 
> Simple.




This is my understanding as well, and this is something that simply needs to be understood by the GM and explained to the players.  Um, or vice-versa.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Oct 2, 2007)

Tharen the Damned said:
			
		

> 1) No/ not enough base knowledge. Sure you can use skills untrained but the only bonus you get is your ability bonus. That is not enough. If you get a base knowledge (say 5 ranks or so) in your untrained skills you might actually use them and succeed. This does not include skills that have to be trained.




In SWSE your bonus isn't just your ability bonus - it includes half your level too. This means that by 10th level any of the party can have a go at swimming, or driving, or riding or piloting the starship (although they might not want to try *landing* the starship!).

And if your 10th level character comes from a desert world and never sees water, just agree with the DM that 'I can't swim' and treat yourself as having 0 ranks (rather than using the +7 or whatever you might ordinarily be 'entitled' too)


----------



## Henry (Oct 2, 2007)

an_idol_mind said:
			
		

> I think one of the more underrated aspects of skill ranks is that they allow a character to alter their talents as they advance. As a bard, I might keep my Perform skill maxed out. But if my fighter dabbles in playing the lyre, I might want to toss a few ranks in Perform and then leave it as is, reflecting it as a talent but not one that is as well-developed as, say, his ability to intimidate people.




This is the thing that bugs me most about the Saga Edition's skill system - the loss of the "fine-tuning." I could see hybrid systems which give a certain amount of base bonus, then allow you to add a small pool of "customization points," but the blanket bonuses which are given to SW characters would bug me if I played one regularly in a long-term game. For one-offs or characters I care little about (like NPCs), I LOVE the generic "max out X skills" approach.

It's kind of like buying a soft, medium, or hard mattress, versus owning a SelectComfort bed.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Oct 2, 2007)

mach1.9pants said:
			
		

> A 20th level (or so) adventurer -often with very high abilities- who has never picked up a sculpters tools in his life will be able to make things like an old master




That is not true at all.  The old master will be at least +10 above him.  +5 for being Trained in it, and most likely another +5 for having Skill Focus.


----------



## Henry (Oct 2, 2007)

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> That is not true at all.  The old master will be at least +10 above him.  +5 for being Trained in it, and most likely another +5 for having Skill Focus.




I think he's saying the +10 the 20th level person is getting is going to put him on parity with the hypothetical low-level "old master," who's getting his +10 from the training and the focus. Now, counting the whole concept of re-roll abilities, stuff you can only do when trained, etc. there's still enough difference, but it is jarring to a 3E mindset to see an untrained 20th level guy with a +10 to +14 to some skill.


----------



## Celebrim (Oct 2, 2007)

Henry said:
			
		

> This is the thing that bugs me most about the Saga Edition's skill system - the loss of the "fine-tuning." I could see hybrid systems which give a certain amount of base bonus, then allow you to add a small pool of "customization points," but the blanket bonuses which are given to SW characters would bug me if I played one regularly in a long-term game.




I think it bugs me even more than that.  The problem I have with it is that you might as well not have a skill system at all.  The old notion for 1st edition of 'secondary skills' where, if the task is in the province of your secondary skill, you automatically succeed and if it isn't then you don't works just as well without the now useless (and time consuming) formality of dice rolling.

The notion of near universal competancy discourages me as a DM from even bothering with skill challenges.  Everyone can swim?  Well, then swimming isn't a hazard, it's an option.  Everyone can climb?  Well, then climbing isn't a hazard or an obstacle, it's an option.


----------



## Baby Samurai (Oct 2, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Everyone can swim?  Well, then swimming isn't a hazard, it's an option.




It still is if you are in an aquatic situation that requires a DC 25 Swim check and you are 20th level and untrained (10 + Str modifier) etc.


----------



## FireLance (Oct 2, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> I think it bugs me even more than that.  The problem I have with it is that you might as well not have a skill system at all.  The old notion for 1st edition of 'secondary skills' where, if the task is in the province of your secondary skill, you automatically succeed and if it isn't then you don't works just as well without the now useless (and time consuming) formality of dice rolling.
> 
> The notion of near universal competancy discourages me as a DM from even bothering with skill challenges.  Everyone can swim?  Well, then swimming isn't a hazard, it's an option.  Everyone can climb?  Well, then climbing isn't a hazard or an obstacle, it's an option.



It's not a system of universal competence. It's a system of relatively constant differential between the most and least skilled members of the party. My guess is, 4e will also recommend that hazards scale with the level of the party, so that at any one time, the least skilled PC will have a low chance of success (say, 25%), while the most skilled PC will have a low chance of failure (say, 25%). If everyone has to make an individual check, and there is no way for a more skilled PC to help a less skilled PC, and there is some penalty for failure, then it makes each skill check interesting for every player - the player of the least skilled PC because he just might succeed, and the player of the most skilled PC because he just might fail.


----------



## Aust Diamondew (Oct 2, 2007)

WyzardWhately said:
			
		

> The way you limit this is with trained/untrained uses.  An adventurer can't perform brain surgery, no matter what kind of bonus he'd theoretically get to the heal roll, if he isn't trained.  Similar with craft.  You can cobble together an awesome raft out of barrels and detritus, in order to escape a desert island, using your big-ass bonus.  However, you cannot carve David out of marble, because you're not trained.
> 
> Simple.




Can't emphasize this point enough.


----------



## jasin (Oct 2, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> The notion of near universal competancy discourages me as a DM from even bothering with skill challenges.  Everyone can swim?  Well, then swimming isn't a hazard, it's an option.  Everyone can climb?  Well, then climbing isn't a hazard or an obstacle, it's an option.



Well, everyone can swim and climb in 3E too. It's just that in Saga, greater heroes tend to be better than lesser heroes at everything.

But I think you're completely off the mark as far as skill challenges are concerned. It seems to me that Saga skills should encourage the use of obstacles or hazards that require skill use.

In 3E, if you throw a 10th-level party into a situation which requires DC 20 swim checks, it'll be moderately challenging for the expert swimmer with +15 swim, while the wizard with -1 swim is just _gone_. The typical solution to this is: don't use such situations.

Similarly, you very rarely see a party trying to sneak into a guarded castle, because at least some people will _suck_ at sneaking. A typical 10th-level cleric has little chance of sneaking past even a 1st-level warrior with cross-class ranks in spot and listen. So you just send the sneak to scout things out, and then use a frontal assault, or magic to replace skills.

I still haven't gotten the chance to try out SWSE, but it seems to me that the skill system makes it much easier to dump the whole party overboard into the sea or make them run across narrow beams. +5 for trained and +5 for focus means that there's still significant differences between the intellectual wizard, the athletic fighter and the expert swimmer pirate captain, but it should be much easier to create skill-based obstacles without either overwhelming some of the party or making it an utter non-effort for others.


----------



## Nifft (Oct 2, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> The notion of near universal competancy discourages me as a DM from even bothering with skill challenges.  Everyone can swim?  Well, then swimming isn't a hazard, it's an option.  Everyone can climb?  Well, then climbing isn't a hazard or an obstacle, it's an option.



 You are ignoring the possibility that a given thing can be a hazard / obstacle at low level, and then turn into a valid option at high level. Like fighting in a burning building where you take Fire damage each round -- at low level this will kill you fast, at high level it's just good atmosphere.

I really like that PCs will gain mundane options which keep up with their current magical options. (Like, they can't climb, because it's easier to buy an item which lets them fly. How lame is that?)

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Oct 2, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> I think it bugs me even more than that.  The problem I have with it is that you might as well not have a skill system at all.  The old notion for 1st edition of 'secondary skills' where, if the task is in the province of your secondary skill, you automatically succeed and if it isn't then you don't works just as well without the now useless (and time consuming) formality of dice rolling.



Why is die rolling useless? Don't you roll attack rolls anymore either, since everybody has a Base Attack Bonus?

Dice Rolling can be useless - in any situation in which there is no penalty for failure, it's mostly meaningless. That's probably why the D&D 4 skill system focuses on encounter relevant skills (an encounter isn't always a combat), because that's the point where there is something at stake. (And it's why there are Take 10 and Take 20 rules in 3rd Edition).



> The notion of near universal competancy discourages me as a DM from even bothering with skill challenges.  Everyone can swim?  Well, then swimming isn't a hazard, it's an option.  Everyone can climb?  Well, then climbing isn't a hazard or an obstacle, it's an option.



Skill Challenges can still be very important if there is some context to them that makes them meaningful. Climbing or Jumping as part of overland travel isn't especially important (except for a few hilarous scenes  ), but during combat, it can mean a big difference. 

And even in 3rd edition, everybody can swim or climb. But the difference between the trained and untrained climber means that at some point, either the trained character feels he has have wasted half of his ranks in the skill, or the untrained one is simply left out and can not overcome the hazard. 

In 3rd Edition, Hide and Move Silently are rare skills among the classes. A Rogue might sometimes try to scout the area, but it's extremely dangerous to go around alone - despite him having maxed his skill. It would feel a lot better if the Fighters and Clerics in the party good keep close nearby, and not make any attempt at stealth useless.


----------



## Remathilis (Oct 2, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> The notion of near universal competency discourages me as a DM from even bothering with skill challenges.  Everyone can swim?  Well, then swimming isn't a hazard, it's an option.  Everyone can climb?  Well, then climbing isn't a hazard or an obstacle, it's an option.




Not I. In fact, it makes me WANT to use skills more often since everyone has a chance of making those rolls. Often times, unless the PCs had no choice, if a task involved a skill they were untrained in (and a real penalty for failure) they'd skip it and send someone (if any) who had ranks in it because they KNEW they'd fail but the guy who had ranks would most likely succeed. However, if EVERYONE has some ability to make easy DCs as they advance in level, it opens up the entire party to the challenge, not just rewarding the one PC who put ranks in it (He's rewarded by the fact he's practically guaranteed success via die bonus, talent or re-roll). 

Example: The Four Iconics are chasing an imp through an ancient dungeon to recover a magical item needed. The imp flies across a chasm filled with burning lava. Hanging over the chasm is 3 iron discs suspended from chains on the ceiling. To cross, each PC must make a DC 15 jump check (with enough room for a Running start) and a DC 10 balance check when they land (to not send the iron disc gyrating and fall in). 

In 3.X, only the rogue has invested in jump and balance (at 5th level, lets say she has +8 ranks, +1 str/+3 dex, +2 synergy, and +2 for being a halfling, so +13 jump and +15 balance total.) She can make those jumps if she "doesn't roll a one" on the die and cannot fail the balance. The fighter has ranks in jump (+8, +3 str, -5 armor = +6 total) but nothing in balance (+1 dex, -5 armor = -4) so he needs to make four rolls over 11 and four over 14 to pursue. He's staying behind. The cleric (+2 str, +0 Dex, -5 armor = -3 jump/-5 balance) is even worse off. He'll play cards with the fighter. The wizard (+0 str, +2 dex = +0 jump +2 balance) is very screwed as well, unless she has_ fly_ memorized then why even bother with the pendulums? 

So you have a hazard/encounter that one PC aces easily, two have practically no chance of success with, and one can either ace or fail depending on her spell selection. The pendulums might as well be an iron wall for two or three of those players, since they are now out of the action.

IN SAGA: Same party, same imp, same DCs. The Rogue has (5 train + 2 level + 1 str/3 dex + some re-roll for being a halfling) equals jump +8, acrobatics +10. She has to roll a above a 7 and then a 1. Not bad, but not guaranteed. The fighter (5 train in jump +2 level +3 str/+2 dex -5 armor*) has a +5 jump and -1 acrobatics. He has to roll better than 10 on each dice, which is easier than his 3.x colleague has it. The Clerc still is screwed (+2 str/+0 dex, +2 level, -5 armor = jump -1, acrobatics -3) but he could do it with action points or some skill-boosting magic. The wizard (+0 str/+2 dex, +2 level = +2 jump, +4 acrobatics) has a decent chance roll better than a 13 and 6, respectively. (and she'll probably have some manner of movement magic on tap thanks to the new magic system, but I digress).

In this scenario, the PCs are a little more likely to try to the maneuver and pursue. They are even MORE likely to do so if the cleric and fighter doff their heavy armor. What is a roadblock in 3.x is a feasible challenge in saga/4e. The same can be applied to falling overboard on a high-sea encounter (swim), following a goblin warg-rider on horseback (ride), trying to avoid sleepy guard (stealth), or actually having a chance to avoid an ambush from a group of assassins (perception). Even if the bonus isn't all that high, the fact it allows them to attempt them rather than setting the DC so low the rogue isn't challenged or so high that the fighter, cleric and wizard can't succeed.


----------



## Nifft (Oct 2, 2007)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> Not I. In fact, it makes me WANT to use skills more often since everyone has a chance of making those rolls.
> [...]
> What is a roadblock in 3.x is a feasible challenge in saga/4e. The same can be applied to falling overboard on a high-sea encounter (swim), following a goblin warg-rider on horseback (ride), trying to avoid sleepy guard (stealth), or actually having a chance to avoid an ambush from a group of assassins (perception). Even if the bonus isn't all that high, the fact it allows them to attempt them rather than setting the DC so low the rogue isn't challenged or so high that the fighter, cleric and wizard can't succeed.



 QFT.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## GreatLemur (Oct 2, 2007)

I'm not too comfortable about a d20 skill system that doesn't let me buy individual ranks, or skills that go up passively along with character level.  The former doesn't reflect how I build my characters now, and the latter doesn't support the way I think of high-level characters and specialization.  Still, I do have to admit that a simpler, Saga-Edition-style skill system will make character-building a _lot_ less annoying for some players.



			
				Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> People; break away from the 3e mind-set.  Your character's character record/sheet is only a subset of who they are and what they are capable of.  Are the a blacksmith? Cool. Right it down on the character history / misc. notes section.
> 
> The point of the 4e design process what "Being a blacksmith or tailor has zero effect on your ability to be a Fighter or Mage, so we're taking it out of character level advancement."  That doesn't mean your character can't be a blacksmith.  If he is, just write it down.  Done.  Think if as "Rule 0 for Players."  It's as easy (and as unnecessary to have rules for) as writing a character history.



Frigging _absolutely_.  When my archer player says "I grew up on a farm; can I tell if the cow needs to be put out of its misery?", I don't ask if she's got ranks in Knowledge (nature) or Profession (farmer); I just tell her "Oh, yeah.  That cow needs to die."



			
				Nifft said:
			
		

> You are ignoring the possibility that a given thing can be a hazard / obstacle at low level, and then turn into a valid option at high level. Like fighting in a burning building where you take Fire damage each round -- at low level this will kill you fast, at high level it's just good atmosphere.
> 
> I really like that PCs will gain mundane options which keep up with their current magical options. (Like, they can't climb, because it's easier to buy an item which lets them fly. How lame is that?)



Damn good points.  I just hope that 10th-level Wizards aren't going to end up being inexplicably just as good at picking locks as 1st-level Rogues.


----------



## Baby Samurai (Oct 2, 2007)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Why is die rolling useless? Don't you roll attack rolls anymore either, since everybody has a Base Attack Bonus?




Yep, that's one of the problems with 3rd edition – your average 15th level warrior type can pretty much smack any monster in the MM unless they roll a natural "1".


----------



## BryonD (Oct 2, 2007)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> In this scenario, the PCs are a little more likely to try to the maneuver and pursue. They are even MORE likely to do so if the cleric and fighter doff their heavy armor.



Which ends up meaning that they all solve the problem like rogues.  I vastly prefer the idea that each character use their own traits and distinct advantages to overcome problems.  
You have implied that because they could not solve the problem through skill checks that they simply could not solve the problem.  This is not the case.  Setting it up where everyone can just skill check through is both boring and a cheap detraction from the rogue's strength.  

It makes sense that a rogue should be able to do these things.  It makes no sense whatsoever that any and every wizard should be able to.  In 3X you can build a wizard who can jump and balance if that is your desire, but you are not forced away from the wizard archetype.  It is up to you.  As I read your example I see no story reason that a wizard should gain these abilities.  It sounds to me like a cheap gamist workaround that flies completely in the face of the feel of what an archtypal wizard should be.


----------



## Wormwood (Oct 2, 2007)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> Even if the bonus isn't all that high, the fact it allows them to attempt them rather than setting the DC so low the rogue isn't challenged or so high that the fighter, cleric and wizard can't succeed.




IN 3.5, I only use skills as the basis of _individual _challenges, because I know that four of the five other players have no chance of succeeding. As a group challenge, skills are fairly useless to me. 

SAGA is _definitely _a step in the right direction.


----------



## Cadfan (Oct 2, 2007)

jasin said:
			
		

> Well, everyone can swim and climb in 3E too. It's just that in Saga, greater heroes tend to be better than lesser heroes at everything.
> 
> But I think you're completely off the mark as far as skill challenges are concerned. It seems to me that Saga skills should encourage the use of obstacles or hazards that require skill use.
> 
> In 3E, if you throw a 10th-level party into a situation which requires DC 20 swim checks, it'll be moderately challenging for the expert swimmer with +15 swim, while the wizard with -1 swim is just _gone_. The typical solution to this is: don't use such situations.




Oh, its worse than that.

See, the characters with Swim as a class skill haven't put points into it because they know you won't put a swimming encounter in the game because the Paladin and Cleric with platemail armor and no ranks in Swim will instantly drown, and you're not a jerk like that.  They put their points in something they expect to use instead.

Now no one has any ranks in Swim.  So even a DC 10 swimming problem at level 10 is too much, because the best swimmer in the party is the ranger using Swimming untrained, with his +2 strength and -1 armor check penalty.  He's got a +1, the wizard has a +0, and the rest of the party is negative from armor.


----------



## FireLance (Oct 2, 2007)

BryonD said:
			
		

> It makes sense that a rogue should be able to do these things.  It makes no sense whatsoever that any and every wizard should be able to.  In 3X you can build a wizard who can jump and balance if that is your desire, but you are not forced away from the wizard archetype.  It is up to you.  As I read your example I see no story reason that a wizard should gain these abilities.  It sounds to me like a cheap gamist workaround that flies completely in the face of the feel of what an archtypal wizard should be.



To me, it's a matter of presentation. When the rogue easily jumps across a chasm due to his athletic skill, the wizard mutters an incantation and summons the Winds of Wahoo to bear him aloft. In game terms, that gives him a bonus equal to half his level on his Jump checks.


----------



## Falling Icicle (Oct 2, 2007)

I don't like the way Saga edition handles skills at all. I want characters that have strengths and weaknesses. I don't think every character should be a jack of all trades. As others have said, why even have a skill system at all if you're going to give every character skill at everything?


----------



## jasin (Oct 2, 2007)

Baby Samurai said:
			
		

> Yep, that's one of the problems with 3rd edition – your average 15th level warrior type can pretty much smack any monster in the MM unless they roll a natural "1".



Why is this a problem?

I'm not particularly bothered by it neither thematically (awesome swordsmen very rarely outright miss you, the best you can hope for is to just be nicked instead of severely wounded), nor in terms of playability (you hit all the time with your best attack, but you easily might miss with your weaker ones, and monsters take a lot more to put down than a single hit).


----------



## Dave Turner (Oct 2, 2007)

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> Jhulae, Gloombunny and WyzardWhately all make valid points.  The only thing I'd like to add is that the 4e designers have already said they've removed the Profession Skill, and I think Craft too, so you "old master" concern is right out the window.  The Skills rules are supposed to model stuff that heroic-fantasy adventurers are good at (picking locks, sneaking, etc.).  It was never itended to allow you to "stat up" Leonardo da Vinci.
> 
> Trained vs. Untrained is a good way of modelling a lot of things, I think.  You should really give it some more thought, and playtest it.



Precisely.  In 4E, you don't have to stat up a master craftsman in the same way you did that for 3E.  I don't know how (or if) they'll handle that, but your second concern is likely not a real one.


----------



## jasin (Oct 2, 2007)

BryonD said:
			
		

> Which ends up meaning that they all solve the problem like rogues.  I vastly prefer the idea that each character use their own traits and distinct advantages to overcome problems.



So in the specific examples mentioned (being tossed overboard, sneaking past guards or needing to jump and balance your way across a chasm) how should the wizard, fighter and cleric solved them, for the ideal experience in terms of tone and atmosphere?


----------



## FireLance (Oct 2, 2007)

Falling Icicle said:
			
		

> I don't like the way Saga edition handles skills at all. I want characters that have strengths and weaknesses. I don't think every character should be a jack of all trades. As others have said, why even have a skill system at all if you're going to give every character skill at everything?



Because not all characters will be equally skilled. Might as well ask why have a saving throw system since all characters have a chance to save, or why make a differentiation between Fortitude, Reflex and Will since everybody's saving throws will increase in the long run. 

In the same way that a rogue could expect to succeed on a Reflex save 75% of the time when everyone else in the party expects to fail 75% of the time, we can have a skill check that a rogue expects to succeed at 75% of the time while everyone else expects to fail 75% of the time. But - and this is what makes the die roll interesting for all the players - the rogue could still fail, and everyone else could still succeed.


----------



## Baby Samurai (Oct 2, 2007)

jasin said:
			
		

> (you hit all the time with your best attack, but you easily might miss with your weaker ones





And that brings up that the fact that the clunky, dribbling iterative attacks mechanic is going bye-bye (thank god).


----------



## mmu1 (Oct 2, 2007)

I'm not a fan of the SWSE system.

While I actually like the idea of giving everyone who's supposed to be a heroic adventurer _some_ basic competency at everyday tasks, so that we don't have ridiculous situations like a 10th level Cleric needing to cast Air Walk to get over a wall, because his Climb check is pathetic (and I like the idea of consolidation of certain skills) I think the Saga system goes too far and, like is often the case with new editions, replaces old problems with a whole new set.

For one thing, I'm not sure I really buy the "simplicity" argument - you might not have to add lots of small numbers together (frankly, it never ceases to amaze me how much trouble some people claim to have with skill points, but to each his own) but now, with skills having significantly different Trained and Untrained uses, you'll be spending more time checking what exactly you can or can't do with a skill, and people who are bad with rules get some new ones to forget or mis-remember.

Second, I see people complain that 3E/3.5 forced them to choose between spending ranks in a way that supported their character background and ways that made their character a better adventurer. I don't see how the SWSE solution - making it impossible to train in skills you don't have as class skills at all (unless you spend a feat on it) - is an improvement. If anything, it makes it even less advantageous to pick atypical skills to improve, even with characters getting more feats than ever.

I think I'd much rather see a system which simply allowed the purchase of a set of "background" skills before you began to advance in a class and worry about class/cross class costs.


----------



## mmu1 (Oct 2, 2007)

Baby Samurai said:
			
		

> And that brings up that the fact that the clunky, dribbling iterative attacks mechanic is going bye-bye (thank god).




To be (perhaps, if they stick to the SWSE model) replaced with a new multiple attack mechanic under which you just miss a lot when making multiple attacks unless fighting absolute mooks. :\


----------



## Henry (Oct 2, 2007)

jasin said:
			
		

> So in the specific examples mentioned (being tossed overboard, sneaking past guards or needing to jump and balance your way across a chasm) how should the wizard, fighter and cleric solved them, for the ideal experience in terms of tone and atmosphere?




For me, the rogue gets his chance to shine by being first across. The wizard uses his fly spell to ferry others across, or he (or the cleric, depending) creates a bridge from the wall of ice or wall of stone spell ( i think wall of stone can still do that, but I know wall of ice can) for the others, or he whips out his jump potion, or the cleric air walks them across. In other words, the Rogue doesn't have his thunder stolen by the others using action points to succeed at the same thing he just did without one.

However, I can also see the appeal of having multi-competent characters instead of one specialist in each party.


----------



## Baby Samurai (Oct 2, 2007)

mmu1 said:
			
		

> To be (perhaps, if they stick to the SWSE model) replaced with a new multiple attack mechanic under which you just miss a lot when making multiple attacks unless fighting absolute mooks. :\




I don't know, as I haven't got my hands on 4th Ed yet…


----------



## Greg K (Oct 2, 2007)

As a GM, I would not mind the skill system as an option for NPC generation.  However, as a player, I have despised the Star Wars Saga skill system since its use was revealed and refuse to play the game in large part to the skill system.  The same went for the skill system in Blue Rose and I was glad to see GR drop it for True20.


----------



## BryonD (Oct 2, 2007)

Henry said:
			
		

> For me, the rogue gets his chance to shine by being first across. The wizard uses his fly spell to ferry others across, or he (or the cleric, depending) creates a bridge from the wall of ice or wall of stone spell ( i think wall of stone can still do that, but I know wall of ice can) for the others, or he whips out his jump potion, or the cleric air walks them across. In other words, the Rogue doesn't have his thunder stolen by the others using action points to succeed at the same thing he just did without one.
> 
> However, I can also see the appeal of having multi-competent characters instead of one specialist in each party.



Exactly.  Sometimes you actually have to (shudder) rely on other party member's strengths.
The fighter just may need help.  And later, when that frost giant comes charging at them, the rogue will know that he and the fighter are even.


----------



## BryonD (Oct 2, 2007)

jasin said:
			
		

> So in the specific examples mentioned (being tossed overboard, sneaking past guards or needing to jump and balance your way across a chasm) how should the wizard, fighter and cleric solved them, for the ideal experience in terms of tone and atmosphere?



Also, it is not required that one capture "the ideal experience" for them to be opposed to the idea that skills should grate completely against the grain in terms of tone and atmosphere.

The specific answers can vary wildly.  But I would expect them to run in a manner consistent with how it has very satisfactorily occured in my 3X games for the past 8 years.


----------



## Celebrim (Oct 2, 2007)

Remathilis: You could make a better example that doesn't debunk itself as quickly, but the basic problem would still be there.  If you present a challenge that is beyond that of what ordinary people can do, its always going to be an individual challenge, not a group challenge unless every member of the group plays a similar character.



			
				Remathilis said:
			
		

> Often times, unless the PCs had no choice, if a task involved a skill they were untrained in (and a real penalty for failure) they'd skip it and send someone (if any) who had ranks in it because they KNEW they'd fail but the guy who had ranks would most likely succeed.




If there is a real penalty for failure, then smart players are going to avoid the obstacle unless the probability of success is nearly 100% and the loss incurred by failure is less than the reward of success.

In the example you site, I'm not sure that even my rogue is going to try the three disks unless I have a feat that lets me take 10 on my jump and balance checks regardless of the situation.  I probably wouldn't attempt it with one disk, much less three.  The odds of failure for are hypothetical rogue are 19% (roll 4 d20's no 1s) with the results of failure being falling into the lava and dying.  I don't think so.  I'm going to be looking for alternative solutions, because there are only so many chances of death you can risk before you die.

No one else in the party dares that jump.  The fighter's odds of death are still nearly 100% even with the SAGA rules.  So nothing changed.  You still avoid anything that isn't what you do if there is a significant risk involved.  The challenge is still about the one character that can do it.

Before you go trying to tweak the example, there is something even more important that you are missing that is going to haunt any example you come up with.

All you've really done is created power inflation.  You can set those DC's to whatever you want.  My generally strategy for a group challenge is to set them to whatever would be slightly challenging for an ordinary person or athelete.  In other words, I'd select DC's more around DC 5 than DC 15.  In some cases, I tend to throw out DC 0 challenges where the idea is, 'This should be fairly easy, but if you have some sort of penalty (dump stat, armor check, flaw) you actually have to pay for it in risk.'  So, with a slight variant on the encounter you suggested - DC 5 for the jump and the balance check and a 30' spiked pit rather than lava - I can challenge the whole party _as the system exists now_.  For the example you suggest, all that you've really done with the SAGA system is increased the size of the numbers.

In both cases, pursuit is going to come from those characters where atheletics is thier thing, and the other characters aren't going to shine (or shine as much) or they are going to use one of thier strengths to face the challenge in thier fashion (cleric summons a flying create to use as transport, wizard casts fly, fighter resorts to long range missile fire to take down imp, etc.)  Or, rogue gets to jump across the rings two at a time (awsome!) and the rest scramble along behind as best as they can while reminding themself what the 'Use Rope' skill is for.



> IN SAGA:...Even if the bonus isn't all that high, the fact it allows them to attempt them rather than setting the DC so low the rogue isn't challenged or so high that the fighter, cleric and wizard can't succeed.




Except, as I've shown, that's exactly what you've still got.  You've run into a famous engineering law: "if the probability of something isn't 0, then its damn close to 1."  In this case, if the character's probability of succeeding in each step isn't 95%, then the chance of failure is nearly 100%.  In both scenarios, the rogue has a near 100% chance of success, and everyone else has a nearly 100% chance of failure.  So you've added only power inflation, while rendering the more trivial ordinary challenges outside of these specially designed scenarios pointless.  No net improvement, no easier to design for (as your failure with this example demonstrates), and loss of flexibility, flavor (most instances of a class have the same skills) and versimlitude ("What do you mean my desert nomad can't swim?  Haven't you heard of oasis?  Maybe he learned to swim cooling off in the cistern!  By the rules I qualify for being just as good of a swimmer as that fighter over there who spent his youth as a polynesian fisherman!").


----------



## Stone Dog (Oct 2, 2007)

mmu1 said:
			
		

> I'm not a fan of the SWSE system. ... I think the Saga system goes too far and, like is often the case with new editions, replaces old problems with a whole new set.



Probably a good thing SWSE is a specific variant of early 4e then, tuned to Star Wars rather than D&D.   We can get a rough idea what 4e might look like from checking out SWSE, but it has been altered to fit a specific cinematic style.  While I hope that skill ranks are gone forever, there are lots of ways that SWSE skills can be tweaked to have more granularity to match certain concepts.


----------



## BryonD (Oct 2, 2007)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> Oh, its worse than that.
> 
> See, the characters with Swim as a class skill haven't put points into it because they know you won't put a swimming encounter in the game because the Paladin and Cleric with platemail armor and no ranks in Swim will instantly drown, and you're not a jerk like that.  They put their points in something they expect to use instead.
> 
> Now no one has any ranks in Swim.  So even a DC 10 swimming problem at level 10 is too much, because the best swimmer in the party is the ranger using Swimming untrained, with his +2 strength and -1 armor check penalty.  He's got a +1, the wizard has a +0, and the rest of the party is negative from armor.



Are you suggesting that the party should not have any weaknesses?  Or is swimming just an expection, and if so why is it an exception?

I can't imagine how one could be so self constrained that any use of swim checks regarding an unskilled party would consitute being a jerk.  I think that is a patently absurd declaration.  If the fighter in full plate knows he can not swim then there are vast options for using that to add tension to a game.  Letting the fighter just know it isn't a threat because, well just because we don't want it to be, would suck.


----------



## Henry (Oct 2, 2007)

BryonD said:
			
		

> I can't imagine how one could be so self constrained that any use of swim checks regarding an unskilled party would consitute being a jerk.  I think that is a patently absurd declaration.  If the fighter in full plate knows he can not swim then there are vast options for using that to add tension to a game.  Letting the fighter just know it isn't a threat because, well just because we don't want it to be, would suck.




It's also where using the jetsam from the sinking ship to avoid drowning comes in.  And if the characters decide to go swimming without a life preserver, and with full armor, then their new characters will have swim, I guarantee it.  But then, that's how our gaming group rolls, a little bit of the old style of, _"if you're unprepared then you'll have a much harder time of it," _ rather than depending on the GM to take it too easy on us.


----------



## Howndawg (Oct 2, 2007)

Jumping in with my two cents worth.  One advantage of the trained/untrained system vs the skill point system is it makes the job a heck of a lot easier on the DM.  Let's face it, there are some players out there who just cannot deal with the skill point system.  Each time they advance a level, they either spend too many, too few, or get confused about the whole class/cross-class skill thing.  In the last campaign I ran, I was cursed to have a couple of them in my group.  I encouraged them to make things easy on themselves by just maxing out on a few skills, but one of them refused to do so.  I was constantly going over his skill list and correcting it.  It was a royal pain in the rumpelstiltskin.  With the trained/untrained system, DM's will not have to play character editor as much as in 3e.  I embrace that change.

Howndawg


----------



## FireLance (Oct 2, 2007)

BryonD said:
			
		

> Also, it is not required that one capture "the ideal experience" for them to be opposed to the idea that skills should grate completely against the grain in terms of tone and atmosphere.
> 
> The specific answers can vary wildly.  But I would expect them to run in a manner consistent with how it has very satisfactorily occured in my 3X games for the past 8 years.



I thought that multiclassing worked very satisfactorily in 1e and 2e, but I also think that the 3e multiclasing system is a vast improvement.

As for going against the grain of tone and atmosphere, the key issue is whether you take the view that characters have to train or otherwise make a specific effort to achieve greater competence in their skills, or whether the general experience of adventuring is enough to acquire greater competence in certain areas, in much the same way that general adventuring allows the character to acquire greater competence in fighting (BAB) and greater resistance to various effects (saving throws). For some people, it seems strange that a character might have made 100 Spot checks by the time he reached 20th level, and still be no better at Spotting danger than the day that he started adventuring.

If you can accept that general adventuring can make a character better at Spot, then the question becomes one of where you draw the line with respect to improving skills. If Spot, then what about Listen, or Concentration, or Climb, or Jump, or Balance, or Tumble, or Swim, or Survival, or Sense Motive, or Search, or Spellcraft, etc.


----------



## kenmarable (Oct 2, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> I think it bugs me even more than that.  The problem I have with it is that you might as well not have a skill system at all.  The old notion for 1st edition of 'secondary skills' where, if the task is in the province of your secondary skill, you automatically succeed and if it isn't then you don't works just as well without the now useless (and time consuming) formality of dice rolling.
> 
> The notion of near universal competancy discourages me as a DM from even bothering with skill challenges.  Everyone can swim?  Well, then swimming isn't a hazard, it's an option.  Everyone can climb?  Well, then climbing isn't a hazard or an obstacle, it's an option.



Although I wish there was at least a concrete example of this (yeah, previews are never fast enough), comments by WotC R&D indicate that in 4e skills won't just be "make a check, then you succeed or fail" but something more like "make a check, that check impacts how things play out". It's a subtle difference (that might wind up being no difference at all), but to me it sounds like skill checks won't just be "pass/fail", but "how well you did" and probably have scaled results. So if you roll only mediocre, you might still "pass" the check, but don't get any real bonuses. If you roll really well, then you might get bonuses or complete whatever action faster. With a roll giving you a 20 point swing on your final result, even if people are relatively equal in skill bonus, there can be some dramatically different results. So it's not just "I have +10, so I can swim."

For example, with the Climb check you mention - rather than "Can you climb without falling? DC 15", it's more like "DC 15 to not fall, DC 20 to manage the climb at normal speed, DC 25 to manage the climb and give your companions some cover from the attacking bats" or some such. Some 3.x skills have this, but I could see it being built into the system for all skills perhaps. Will they do that? I don't know. But that have mentioned several times that "skill checks impact the action" and especially when one of them discussed social skills being more back and forth with numerous checks rather than just "roll and see if you pass/fail". It's a slightly different mindset that make skill checks *feel* very different.


----------



## FireLance (Oct 2, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> If there is a real penalty for failure, then smart players are going to avoid the obstacle unless the probability of success is nearly 100% and the loss incurred by failure is less than the reward of success.



This I agree with, and this is why I think that if the character with the poor skills has some way to _jump_, _spider climb_, _levitate_, _fly_, _water walk_, or _air walk_ around the obstacle, he'd do that instead of risking a 75% chance of failure, especially if there is some penalty for failing. However, if he's ever placed in a situation where he has no other choice, at least he can hope to roll 15+ on a d20. Why deny him that 25% chance of success?


----------



## Nifft (Oct 2, 2007)

GreatLemur said:
			
		

> Damn good points.  I just hope that 10th-level Wizards aren't going to end up being inexplicably just as good at picking locks as 1st-level Rogues.



 Even in this case, I'm not certain that it's always a problem.

"That little bit of metal? You think that Zog, the Master of Flaming Ruin, could be stopped by some rude contraption that even a street urchin could unlock? Not bloodly likely." _FX: casts cantrip, makes untrained Open Locks check_

But if it is important, then Open Lock should be a Trained Only use of whatever skill it falls under. 

Cheers, -- N


----------



## kenmarable (Oct 2, 2007)

FireLance said:
			
		

> To me, it's a matter of presentation. When the rogue easily jumps across a chasm due to his athletic skill, the wizard mutters an incantation and summons the Winds of Wahoo to bear him aloft. In game terms, that gives him a bonus equal to half his level on his Jump checks.



I've worked that into other areas of the game, but I love the idea of doing it for skills as well. My thoughts are, if 99% of the time there is no mechanical difference, then describe how that mechanic works however you want.

One example I've toyed with, but haven't used yet is creating a Nightcrawler (from X-Men) style character. On the face of it, that sort of teleporting around the battlefield is some high level magic (or psionics since they have _dimension slide_). On the other hand, just boosting movement abilities to avoid AoOs and such gets the same basic thing. If the character can get from point A to point B without AoOs or other affects along the way, then it really doesn't matter if its tumbling or jumping or teleporting or the Winds of Wahoo.


----------



## Aust Diamondew (Oct 2, 2007)

Falling Icicle said:
			
		

> I don't like the way Saga edition handles skills at all. I want characters that have strengths and weaknesses. I don't think every character should be a jack of all trades. As others have said, why even have a skill system at all if you're going to give every character skill at everything?



Big difference between a +10 base (focused), trained (+5) to nothing (+0) plus +1/2 level in Saga.

Even though the bonus scales the specialized character will still be 10 higher than the untrained guy.  
The untrained guy is not a jack of all trades because he doesn't have acess to the trained only uses and benefits of a skill, not to mention his lower bonus.

A jack of all trades style character in saga is one who is trained in many different skills but does not have skill focus.  
A specialized character instead of spending feats on more trained skills takes skill focus in a few skills.
The guy who doesn't care about skills at all still has a level scaling bonus but he is significantly behind the characters who spent time practing their skill.  

In saga at level 20 what an untrained character only suceeds at 50% of the time a trained character would suceed at 75% of the time (before ability/equipment boost) and a skill focused character would suceed at 100% of the time.
In 3.X at level 20 using the same example as above the untrained character (no ranks) will succeed 0% and the full ranks character 100% of the time.
Thats too great a divide.


----------



## jasin (Oct 2, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Remathilis: You could make a better example that doesn't debunk itself as quickly, but the basic problem would still be there.  If you present a challenge that is beyond that of what ordinary people can do, its always going to be an individual challenge, not a group challenge unless every member of the group plays a similar character.



That's not really true. My high-level wizard could dive into acid to save a dying friend. He could willingly drink poison to prove his courage. He could run into a building that's about to explode to help someone out. The barbarian, with his superior hp will be less worried about diving into acid, the fighter with his Fort will be better at second, and the rogue with his Ref and evasion could laugh of the third. But my wizard could reasonably risk any of these three, even though they might mean certain death for a regular person, just because he's an awesome legendary hero.

Yet he will just look at a drowning friend that's been swept overboard in a storm, because jumping in after them to help would be suicide, just like it was when he first made plans to kill kobolds with his pals.



> All you've really done is created power inflation.



Not quite, because in Saga the differences between untrained-trained-expert are fixed. As you go up in levels, you face more difficult tasks, but if the trained guy can do it (whatever "it" is at a given level), the untrained guy can at least try.

In 3E, the gap increases with levels. At first level, if the trained guy can do it, the untrained guy can at least try. At 20th, even if the trained guy cannot fail, the untrained guy could be easily be facing an impossible task.



> ("What do you mean my desert nomad can't swim?  Haven't you heard of oasis?  Maybe he learned to swim cooling off in the cistern!  By the rules I qualify for being just as good of a swimmer as that fighter over there who spent his youth as a polynesian fisherman!").



Why in the world did the desert nomad take swim as a trained skill, and why in the world didn't the Polynesian fisherman take both trained swim and Skill Focus as a feat? In Saga, that would be a 10-point difference between the two, hardly "just as good".


----------



## Simia Saturnalia (Oct 2, 2007)

Celebrim, I hope you'll forgive me for not finding the jumping of 5' pits, the climbing of knotted ropes, and not swimming (DCs start at 10) terribly high-fantasy heroic, and for thus looking forward to SAGA-style skills (should they appear in the + 1/2 level format).


----------



## Celebrim (Oct 2, 2007)

FireLance said:
			
		

> As for going against the grain of tone and atmosphere, the key issue is whether you take the view that characters have to train or otherwise make a specific effort to achieve greater competence in their skills, or whether the general experience of adventuring is enough to acquire greater competence in certain areas, in much the same way that general adventuring allows the character to acquire greater competence in fighting (BAB) and greater resistance to various effects (saving throws). For some people, it seems strange that a character might have made 100 Spot checks by the time he reached 20th level, and still be no better at Spotting danger than the day that he started adventuring.
> 
> If you can accept that general adventuring can make a character better at Spot, then the question becomes one of where you draw the line with respect to improving skills. If Spot, then what about Listen, or Concentration, or Climb, or Jump, or Balance, or Tumble, or Swim, or Survival, or Sense Motive, or Search, or Spellcraft, etc.




In terms of flavor, I think you are correct.  But in terms of crunch, I think there are two things going on:

a) Can a specific skill check in any system (not just D&D) be considered a group challenge, or do they always tend to be individual challenges.  Niches in this sense aren't unique to D&D and its class system.  In skill based systems like GURPs or Chaosium CoC you are going to have skill challenges that are essentially individual challenges as well because skill systems encourage specialization.  You can't be good at everything, so you might as well be good at something.  (GURPS is notoriously even worse in this regard, and the WW WoD rules are as well.)  

Returning to Remathilis's interesting disk jumping example again, this is counterintuitive but it's still an individual problem even if the entire party is rogues with maxed out jump skills.  The reason is that if all 4 rogues try to approach the problem in the same individual way, one of them is bound to end up in the lava.  In sixteen different jump checks, one of them is almost certain to roll a 1 and take a tumble.  So the smart party will treat this as a single individual skill challenge, and then do something to reduce the risk of failure to zero for the rest of the party.  Maybe the first guy ties a rope around his waist, gets the rope to the other side, and then using the rope, some spikes, and a hammer mitigates the risk for everyone else: "If you roll a 1, just grab the rope."

I don't see SAGA's changes addressing this because I see this as more or less fundamental to the math of skill systems. 

b) If you create some amount of universal competancy are you really just creating power inflation, because the DC of the numbers will have to scale up as well to achieve the results you want.  If the DC's don't scale up, are you really any better off than you before?


----------



## olshanski (Oct 2, 2007)

mach1.9pants said:
			
		

> A 20th level (or so) adventurer -often with very high abilities- who has never picked up a sculpters tools in his life will be able to make things like an old master, who, lets face it, is unlikely to advance beyond 5th level cos he won't get any XP doing sculpture!
> Adventurer: 10+4[ish] vs 2+2[ish]+5+5
> Hopefully it is not happening......
> Share your 2p...
> M1.9P




I don't believe that experience points are used for NPCs at all. Experience Points is strictly used by PCs as a form of reward.

NPCs neither earn XP, lose XP, or anything else. They are whatever level the DM needs them to be.  They advance in level when or if the DM feels it necessary, regardless of challenges overcome, age, or anything else.

I would expect that a 20th level "Old Master" artist had a null experience point total, and that he got to 20th level because the DM said so, not because he was killing stuff or overcoming challenges.


----------



## Celebrim (Oct 2, 2007)

Simia Saturnalia said:
			
		

> Celebrim, I hope you'll forgive me for not finding the jumping of 5' pits, the climbing of knotted ropes, and not swimming (DCs start at 10) _terribly high-fantasy heroic_...




And, Simia, I hope you'll forgive me for not wanting a game system to tell me how to play.  What if I don't want D20 to inherently emulate high fantasy heroic (as you see it)?

To a certain extent, I find your comment highly ironic.  If you will forgive me for saying so, I don't think you or the people clamoring for these changes in 4e know what you want.  At the same time you are clamoring for a system which encourages 'high fantasy heroic', you are complaining about the high power level of the game at any point after 6th level and after 12th level especially.  At the same time you are complaining about the current system being too gritty, you are complaining about how much can be achieved with the awesome magical power that characters wield.  I think too many people are trying to emulate literature and movies in thier games where in the source material, things moved and acted with the power of plot and not with any coherent framework.

So forgive me for thinking that 'adventurers in capes' are already plenty powerful and that reminders of thier mere mortality like the fact that climbing a knotted rope or jumping a 5' gap while carrying 60 lbs are actually hard won't do them - or thier players - any harm.


----------



## med stud (Oct 2, 2007)

Why do people say that everyone is equally skilled in this iteration? A lvl 20 character with +0 in his ability and no degree of training has +10 on a skill check. A lvl 20 character with 22 in her ability, trained and with skill focus has +26 on the same check.

I also don't see why it is so terrible that a lvl 20 character with no training is as skilled as a lvl 1 Expert with training and skill focus; a lvl 20 wizard could topple nations by himself, what's the big deal if he can make a piece of pottery?

I have played D&D and I have played Exalted and I think D&D around lvl 20 have higher power levels than Exalted. It feels silly that that kind of characters shouldn't be able to climb a tree.


----------



## Mallus (Oct 2, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> I think too many people are trying to emulate literature and movies in thier games where in the source material, things moved and acted with the power of plot and not with any coherent framework.



You say that like it's a bad thing and not a worthy design goal.



> So forgive me for thinking that 'adventurers in capes' are already plenty powerful and that reminders of thier mere mortality like the fact that climbing a knotted rope or jumping a 5' gap while carrying 60 lbs are actually hard won't do them - or thier players - any harm.



You're forgiven, my child.

The SAGA skill system doesn't make characters more powerful. What comparable D&D characters can do with a Batman-style utility belt of minor magical items and buffs from allied casters, SAGA characters do with the flat-bonus to all their untrained skills. The difference is largely aesthetic. One system says 'heroes get better at everything' while the other assumes 'heroes can buy things that make them better at anything'.


----------



## Celebrim (Oct 2, 2007)

Mallus said:
			
		

> You say that like it's a bad thing and not a worthy design goal.




I am saying that that is a bad thing and not a worthy design goal.  The reason it is a bad design goal is that it is unattainable.  The only way to obtain it is do away with a rules system completely, but even extemporaneous story telling in rounds is going to produce something noticibly different than what is produced by a single all powerful novelist and it will be experienced in a different way by its participants.

The art being created in an RPG is more different from movies and novels, than movies and novels are for each other.  In movies and novels, the protagonist essentially has zero possibility of failure.  No matter how bad the odds are, the protagonist is always going to win through because the protagonist can always be made to roll 20 20's in a row or whatever he needs to do the crazily impossible thing that turns around the impossible situation.  What people who are desparately trying to emulate novels want is really to have zero possibility of failure without knowing that they have zero possibility of failure, and in the real game world there are hard limits to how much of that sort of illusionism you can actually have.  What is really trying to be achieved her is full control over the story while maintaining the illusion that you don't have full control over the story.  

The Saga system explicitly is trying to do this:

"At this point, you might be wondering why these changes were made. The simple answer is this: Anyone can do anything in Star Wars if the scene calls for it." - WotC Previews

But of course, if this is a game then most certainly the characters can't do anything because the scene doesn't actually call for anything.  Outcomes are never predetermined, and that engineering principle I mentioned earlier is going to force any system with continued skill checks toward a binary, 'Yes.' or 'No.' situation.



> The difference is largely aesthetic.




That part of the paragraph at least I agree with.  The only thing that is really changing is the distance across the gap.

PS: One last thing.  Earlier there was a big stink about how much it sucked in 3e that a Wizard had to pick up a crossbow (at least in the early levels) and use one.  The general feeling of the pro-4e crowd was that characters should never have to depart from thier 'thing', whatever that thing was, because for whatever reason that was bad.  If you were a Wizard they argued, then you should always be using your magic.  In yet another case of not clearly knowing what you want, now we are to believe that every class ought to be able to overcome problems by not doing thier thing.  Ok, so you are less effective, but so was the crossbow.  Maybe you can conjure up some flavor and pretend this is an at will spell ability enhancing your Wizard's skills, but don't pretend that you are doing niche protection if you do so.  If WotC had flavored this as 'Wizards can now do at will skill enhancing spells', there would be howls of protest.


----------



## Merlin the Tuna (Oct 2, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> I don't think you or the people clamoring for these changes in 4e know what you want.  At the same time you are clamoring for a system which encourages 'high fantasy heroic', you are complaining about the high power level of the game at any point after 6th level and after 12th level especially.  At the same time you are complaining about the current system being too gritty, you are complaining about how much can be achieved with the awesome magical power that characters wield.  I think too many people are trying to emulate literature and movies in thier games where in the source material, things moved and acted with the power of plot and not with any coherent framework.



My my, that's a lot of words to put into a man's mouth.  Do you think they can all fit if you push hard enough?


----------



## The Little Raven (Oct 2, 2007)

maggot said:
			
		

> I disagree that being a blacksmith has zero effect on the game.  I can see it come up every so often.  Pick a more useful profession for an adventurer like sailor and it can come up a lot.  Having "just put it in your background" can lead to min-maxers writing long backgrounds that touch on every profession needed (I was a blacksmith, then a tailor, then a sailor).  Why not have the rules help out here a bit?




You just brought up the perfect example of why professions are a failure.

Profession: Sailor.

WTF does this do? It doesn't teach me how to tie knots properly (Rope Use). It doesn't teach me how to keep my legs when at sea (Balance). It doesn't teach me how to hop from the rail onto the rigging (Jump). It doesn't teach me to survive when I fall overboard (Swim). It doesn't teach me how to repair a rudder (Craft). It doesn't teach me how to navigate in a direction (Intuit Direction/Survival). It doesn't teach me how to command a crew (Diplomacy, Intimidation, Bluff).

Taking Profession: Sailor will do nothing to actually make me a proficient *in-game* sailor. All it does is allow me a roll to make money each week.


----------



## Celebrim (Oct 2, 2007)

Merlin the Tuna said:
			
		

> My my, that's a lot of words to put into a man's mouth.  Do you think they can all fit if you push hard enough?




LOL.

So, I have one response of, "Of course that is true, but it's a good thing not a bad thing.", and the other response is, "That's not what is being said.  Don't make strawmen!"

Tell you what, if they can fit in my ear, I bet they can fit in someone's mouth without alot of pushing on my part.  At least Mallus is making a valid point when he says that ideally you could use something like this to make it more 'the hand is mightier than the sword'.  But rather than coming back with the snark, why don't you try explaining to me what someone means by 'high heroic fantasy' if not 'the tropes found in high heroic fantasy stories'.  Maybe you'd have a valid point if I knew what it was.


----------



## Celebrim (Oct 2, 2007)

Mourn said:
			
		

> You just brought up the perfect example of why professions are a failure.
> 
> Profession: Sailor.
> 
> ...




Now this on the other hand is an objection that I can get 100% behind.  

The problem is every bit as bad as that and worse.  Because, while almost everything that a profession skill would seem to be good for seems to default to some other broad skill, there are cases where the profession skill is narrow enough that nothing else seems quite right.  For example, 'Profession: Boating' is quite obviously the skill of paddling or rowing a small craft - something IRL I've a bit of experience with.  Nothing else quite seems to do that, and 'Survival' is not only stretching the concept but perhaps throwing to much into that tent at random.  Do we need a 'Boating' skill to go along with Ride and Handle Animal?   You skip over it, but 'Profession: Navigator' isn't quite the same as 'Intuit Direction' either - does this skills concept need broadening to 'Navigation'?   What does Profession: Cook default to?  Is it the same as 'Craft (food)'?  And so forth.  Alot of cleaning up needed to be done here, but I get the feeling that the 4e team will handle the problem by dropping the skill and ignoring the holes this creates.


----------



## The Little Raven (Oct 2, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> If you will forgive me for saying so, I don't think you or the people clamoring for these changes in 4e know what you want.




I know exactly what I want from skills in 4E. Situations in which the trained shine brightest, and the untrained aren't unduly penalized for basic tasks (swimming, climbing, etc).



> At the same time you are clamoring for a system which encourages 'high fantasy heroic', you are complaining about the high power level of the game at any point after 6th level and after 12th level especially.




No, I'm not, and I never have complained about a high power level at any point in the game. I like high powered games that make my players feel like they're heroes, and not just some Average Joe with a longsword. The only complaint you might hear from me in this regard is the lack of power at lower levels.



> At the same time you are complaining about the current system being too gritty, you are complaining about how much can be achieved with the awesome magical power that characters wield.




My complaint in this regard has nothing to do with the level of power than it has to do with the acquisition of power: primarily through magic items. I want my character to be badass, regardless of whether he has the _+5 vorpal longsword of plot device slaying_. Hell, I'd rather HE have the plot device slaying ability, rather than depending on finding it in some beholder's treasure stash.



> I think too many people are trying to emulate literature and movies in thier games where in the source material, things moved and acted with the power of plot and not with any coherent framework.




Well, as literature and movies are the biggest inspiration for the game itself (remember, the traditional magic system is an attempt to model a magic system from literature), I find it silly not to expect this.


----------



## WyzardWhately (Oct 2, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Now this on the other hand is an objection that I can get 100% behind.
> 
> The problem is every bit as bad as that and worse.  Because, while almost everything that a profession skill would seem to be good for seems to default to some other broad skill, there are cases where the profession skill is narrow enough that nothing else seems quite right.  For example, 'Profession: Boating' is quite obviously the skill of paddling or rowing a small craft - something IRL I've a bit of experience with.  Nothing else quite seems to do that, and 'Survival' is not only stretching the concept but perhaps throwing to much into that tent at random.  Do we need a 'Boating' skill to go along with Ride and Handle Animal?   You skip over it, but 'Profession: Navigator' isn't quite the same as 'Intuit Direction' either - does this skills concept need broadening to 'Navigation'?   What does Profession: Cook default to?  Is it the same as 'Craft (food)'?  And so forth.  Alot of cleaning up needed to be done here, but I get the feeling that the 4e team will handle the problem by dropping the skill and ignoring the holes this creates.




The best solution I've ever seen was in M&M.  You say what your profession is.  You pick some skill that you and the GM agree would cover it, and that's the skill you use for any 'profession' roles.  Yeah, it may add a touch of utility to the skill.  Whatever.  I'd say intuit direction would be a great skill for a navigator - all of a sudden you can use a sextant, too, whoop-de-do.  I used Knowledge: Civics for my character who was an attorney.  Not terribly game breaking if you let everyone do it.


----------



## Remathilis (Oct 2, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> In the example you site, I'm not sure that even my rogue is going to try the three disks unless I have a feat that lets me take 10 on my jump and balance checks regardless of the situation.  I probably wouldn't attempt it with one disk, much less three.  The odds of failure for are hypothetical rogue are 19% (roll 4 d20's no 1s) with the results of failure being falling into the lava and dying.  I don't think so.  I'm going to be looking for alternative solutions, because there are only so many chances of death you can risk before you die.




You know, I could create a scenario with four 5th level Iconic PCs facing a basilisk and you could tell me how the PCs wouldn't fight them since there isn't a 100% chance of them making their DC 13 fort saves (the rogue and wizard esp). I assumed risk:reward ratio would be sufficient, and maybe (since I did change some stuff mid-writing) overestimated the DCs for a 5th level party. 



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> All you've really done is created power inflation.  You can set those DC's to whatever you want.  My generally strategy for a group challenge is to set them to whatever would be slightly challenging for an ordinary person or athlete.  In other words, I'd select DC's more around DC 5 than DC 15.  In some cases, I tend to throw out DC 0 challenges where the idea is, 'This should be fairly easy, but if you have some sort of penalty (dump stat, armor check, flaw) you actually have to pay for it in risk.'  So, with a slight variant on the encounter you suggested - DC 5 for the jump and the balance check and a 30' spiked pit rather than lava - I can challenge the whole party _as the system exists now_.  For the example you suggest, all that you've really done with the SAGA system is increased the size of the numbers.




Increasing the numbers does two things though. It allows challenges to scale with competency levels (since DC 15 is rough for a 5th level cleric, but easy for a 25th) and give the PCs a sense of accomplishment (I just jumped a 15' gap! I never did that before) setting the DCs at 5 or even 0 is not even worthy of a die-roll. Its a formality. 



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> In both cases, pursuit is going to come from those characters where athletics is their thing, and the other characters aren't going to shine (or shine as much) or they are going to use one of their strengths to face the challenge in their fashion (cleric summons a flying create to use as transport, wizard casts fly, fighter resorts to long range missile fire to take down imp, etc.)  Or, rogue gets to jump across the rings two at a time (awesome!) and the rest scramble along behind as best as they can while reminding themself what the 'Use Rope' skill is for.




For the example, I stated the idea of the wizard maybe having fly to circumvent the obstacle, but not every caster has the proper spell to counter the obstacle at hand. Sure, missile weapons, summons, or even rope and pitons are all acceptable (and useful) alternatives, but I was specifically speaking of the option of JUMPING across the pit and how SAGA gave the other PCs a bit more of an edge at making the same DC as the rogue who specialized in it (and still allowed the rogue to shine). Heck, I was trying to find a way to make it LESS encumbrant on magical items, spells and goodies (to remove the "Don't worry, I'll teleport us" bypass that PCs love and DMs bemoan. 



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> Except, as I've shown, that's exactly what you've still got.  You've run into a famous engineering law: "if the probability of something isn't 0, then its damn close to 1."  In this case, if the character's probability of succeeding in each step isn't 95%, then the chance of failure is nearly 100%...




So fighters have a 100% chance to miss AC 15 with a +14 to hit since they always miss on a 1? You seem to be arguing that since a PC isn't guaranteed success, a +14 is the same as a +1. 

Listen, I could re-write a scenario which better describes the idea and better handles the math, but it would be a waste of typing. The moral of my story (which seems to have gotten lost in your picking apart my numbers) is that skills in 3.X are binary, you either have them or you don't. Thus, any encounter that relies on a skill (ride, swim, jump, climb, stealth, etc) ends up one guy having LOTS of fun because he invested in X skill and three guys standing around doing nothing. And in an RPG, I HATE standing around doing nothing. Give me a small chance to get in on the fun. SAGA's system gives me that small chance to succeed but doesn't reduce the challenge to that the PCs who invested in it feels cheapened (if the jump DC is only 5 so that the cleric can make it, why did I put 10 ranks in jump and not something else?). If it means I can use more obstacles in my game rather than flat, 10x10 rooms, its fine with me.


----------



## Merlin the Tuna (Oct 2, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> So, I have one response of, "Of course that is true, but it's a good thing not a bad thing.", and the other response is, "That's not what is being said. Don't make strawmen!"



What you have constructed is not a strawman.  Rather, it is some kind of chimeric straw man-beast with a heart two sizes too small.  Mourn has already delved into this somewhat, but it bears repeating.

Your comments begin with a broad swipe at anyone looking forward to 4E.  Not a great start.  You then go on to say that we are "clamoring for a system which encourages 'high fantasy heroic'," while at the same time "complaining about the high power level of the game at any point after 6th level and after 12th level especially."  "At the same time" kind of suggests that the second half of that sentence were even remotely alluded to during the course of the thread; it hasn't been.  Nor has anyone here complained "about the current system being too gritty," nor "about how much can be achieved with the awesome magical power characters wield."  Huzzah, you've taken totally unrelated points, presented them as incongruous (which I'm not entirely convinced they are), and used them to take a potshot at an entire community.  Nice.

What it actually sounds like is you've listened to every complaint about 3.5 ever and rolled them all up into a self-destructive burrito of 4E doom, patting yourself on the back on how your own beliefs are more consistent than the beliefs of everyone-who-is-not-you are.  This is hardly an accomplishment, and the discussion would work a lot better if snark were kept to comments that have actually been made here rather than being directed at comments that some other guy made somewhere else some time ago.


----------



## Zurai (Oct 2, 2007)

Simia Saturnalia said:
			
		

> Celebrim, I hope you'll forgive me for not finding the jumping of 5' pits, the climbing of knotted ropes, and not swimming (DCs start at 10) terribly high-fantasy heroic, and for thus looking forward to SAGA-style skills (should they appear in the + 1/2 level format).




Those can all be done by simply taking 10 in current, 3E rules, even for a character with no ranks in the skills. There's no need to cripple the skill system to make them gauranteed.


----------



## Mallus (Oct 2, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> The reason it is a bad design goal is that it is unattainable.



That hasn't stopped decades of RPG players from looking ways to emulate/simulate their favorite books, comics, and films. They fact that they haven't given up by now should demonstrate there's been a modicum of success. That goal's been attained --in a workable fashion, at least-- many times. Hell, OD&D succeeded at it as far as some people are concerned. At this point we're talking about refining the methods.



> In movies and novels, the protagonist essentially has zero possibility of failure.



Except in Kafka. Also Beckett. Also, that's irrelevant.



> What people who are desparately trying to emulate novels want is really to have zero possibility of failure without knowing that they have zero possibility of failure...



I think you're wrong about this, and that's is the crux of our disagreement. "Emulators" don't want automatic success, they want a (very) large set of viable options. They want a chance to get in on the action, whatever the action _is_, in whatever clever/impulsive way they decide to at the moment. And they want to interact with the environment in interesting... ahem... 'cinematic' ways, which often fly in the face of reason, physics, and niche protection. You know, like action heroes. 

Success isn't nearly as important as the freedom to improvise, and a system like SAGA allows 'heroes' to try their hands at a wide variety of actions/potential solutions while still offering a substantial amount of differentiation between characters w/different skill sets 



> "At this point, you might be wondering why these changes were made. The simple answer is this: Anyone can do anything in Star Wars if the scene calls for it." - WotC Previews
> 
> But of course, if this is a game then most certainly the characters can't do anything because the scene doesn't actually call for anything.




Replace 'can do' with 'can try to do with a meaningful chance of success' and see how the quote you pulled reads.


----------



## Primitive Screwhead (Oct 3, 2007)

Mourn said:
			
		

> You just brought up the perfect example of why professions are a failure.
> <snip>
> Taking Profession: Sailor will do nothing to actually make me a proficient *in-game* sailor. All it does is allow me a roll to make money each week.




Admittably this is a problem with the core rules, but there are supplement like Broadsides that addresses naval adventuring and places a heavy emphasis on the use of Profession: Sailor to accomplish the required actions involved in being a in-game sailor. Stuff like plugging leaks in the hull of boats, setting the sails right, to rowing a boat.

Well I don't think every profession needs a full blown supplement, I do feel that some professions, such as Sailor, do need solid mechanics.

I also think Profession: Merchant should be used in social bargaining prices instead of diplomancy. Keep them nosy Bards from being better at the life long merchant at selling thing :d

I am interested to see how 4E treats skills and like the idea of following some of the SWSA rules... but it all depends on how it ends up.


----------



## The Little Raven (Oct 3, 2007)

Primitive Screwhead said:
			
		

> Stuff like plugging leaks in the hull of boats,




Craft (shipwright) or something.



> setting the sails right,




Can't think of a skill to cover this, except maybe Rope Use (moving and tying the ropes in order to set the sails).



> to rowing a boat.




I'd consider this to fall more under an endurance-style check (Con), or a Strength-check (for speed).

Having a skill for one possible limited use (setting sails) doesn't strike me as particularly useful in a heroic fantasy game.



> I also think Profession: Merchant should be used in social bargaining prices instead of diplomancy. Keep them nosy Bards from being better at the life long merchant at selling thing :d




I don't really see why you should take a number of different tactics for negotiating succesfully and cram them all into a single skill.

Diplomacy is used when you want to play up how sweet your deal is.
Bluff is used when you're flat-out deceiving them about what they're getting.
Intimidate is used when you're pointing out the negatives of not making a deal.
Knowledge (whatever) is used when making a demonstration of a product and it's features.
Sense Motive/Perception is used when trying to sort your way through the other guy's .

Compressing all those possibilities and permutations into a simple "Make a profession (merchant) check" just strikes me as totally lame.


----------



## FireLance (Oct 3, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> In terms of flavor, I think you are correct.  But in terms of crunch, I think there are two things going on:
> 
> a) Can a specific skill check in any system (not just D&D) be considered a group challenge, or do they always tend to be individual challenges.  Niches in this sense aren't unique to D&D and its class system.  In skill based systems like GURPs or Chaosium CoC you are going to have skill challenges that are essentially individual challenges as well because skill systems encourage specialization.  You can't be good at everything, so you might as well be good at something.  (GURPS is notoriously even worse in this regard, and the WW WoD rules are as well.)
> 
> ...



I think that the current skill system favors individual challenges because beyond a certain point, there is no chance for the least skilled character to succeed at a skill check that the most skilled character finds challenging. Granted, this usually occurs at higher levels - 17+ if we consider just the base difference in skill ranks (0 vs 20+) - but it could be as low as 10+ we add the effect of ability score differences and skill-enhancing feats.

You can still have individual challenges in a SWSE-like skill system. You just have to set the DC to higher than 21 + half character level. Barring exceptional ability scores, the least skilled character will automatically fail this skill check, and the most skilled will have about a 50% chance of success.

What the SWSE-like skill system does is that it makes group challenges more viable across a wider range of levels. If you assume that there is at most a 10-15 point spread between the most skilled and the least skilled characters, you can set the DC at a point where the most skilled character is likely to succeed, but has a small chance to fail, and the least skilled character is likely to fail, but has a small chance to succeed. Under such a system, you would want failure to impose a penalty, but to not be automatically lethal. Consider the effect of a Spot check, for example. Failing a Spot check may mean that the character is flat-footed and unable to act in the surprise round, but it does not in itself automatically kill the character. Similarly, an encounter could be set up so that failing to make Balance, Climb, Jump, Swim, or Tumble checks could hamper a character's movement, but need not be automatically deadly.

Of course, you could take the alternative approach of setting the DCs lower, so that in a group challenge, the most skilled character will automatically succed while the others have to make skill checks to avoid a penalty. However, on reflection, that can also be done under a SWSE-like skill system by setting the DCs to 11 + half character level.

I guess the conclusion is, with the current skill system, you soon reach the point where there are only two kinds of viable challenges: the individual skill challenge, which the least skilled character has no chance of succeeding at, and the group skill challenge, which the most skilled character has no chace to fail at. With a SWSE-like system, you can have both these challenges, as well as the intermediate group challenge, which the most skilled character has a chance of failing, and the least skilled character has a chance of succeeding at, across a wider range of levels.


----------



## Primitive Screwhead (Oct 3, 2007)

Mourn said:
			
		

> <snip>
> Having a skill for one possible limited use (setting sails) doesn't strike me as particularly useful in a heroic fantasy game.



Sorry, I missed the '...and so on'
 Setting the sail may not strike you as particularly useful, but I think that the ability to get a sailing ship....well, sailing might be particulary useful. Just like 'Handle Animal' for carts or 'Ride' for horses, 'Profession: Sailor' {in the supplement} covers the needed skills without having to spread points over half a dozen skills to get the same effect.



			
				Mourn said:
			
		

> I don't really see why you should take a number of different tactics for negotiating succesfully and cram them all into a single skill.
> <snip>
> Compressing all those possibilities and permutations into a simple "Make a profession (merchant) check" just strikes me as totally lame.



So your NPC expert running a storefront needs to spend points on how many skills? Oh.. thats right. NPC merchants being effective at making enough to survive on isn't particularly useful in a heroic fantasy game.... er, nevermind.

Most of the time shopping isn't the focus of the session. I would rather lump those options into the single 'lame' method so that the PC min-maxed diplomancy monster doesn't walk all over merchants with jack-boots. And yet I want my players to be able to affect the encounter instead of just dm-fiat.

anyway,
I want a skill system that balances provides reasonable mechanics for skill intensive professions that do come up in play, like shipboard work, while not requiring a ton of skill points invested into it. At the same time, I don't want an ever exanding list of skills with special rules and DC charts.

*Firelance*, I think you have the right of it.


----------



## The Little Raven (Oct 3, 2007)

Primitive Screwhead said:
			
		

> Setting the sail may not strike you as particularly useful, but I think that the ability to get a sailing ship.




Don't try to put words in my mouth. I said having a skill with a single, limited purpose (just like Intuit Direction on it's own in 3.0), and having others that cover a broader spectrum of capability ( is bad design. Having a single skill that can substitute in for a number of other skills (Sailor encompassing the ability to swim, navigate, repair and mend, tie ropes, balance, climb, etc) is equally as bad.



> ...well, sailing might be particulary useful. Just like 'Handle Animal' for carts or 'Ride' for horses, 'Profession: Sailor' {in the supplement} covers the needed skills without having to spread points over half a dozen skills to get the same effect.




And turning one skill into some kind of mega-skill that can do all kinds of technically unrelated things (how does tying ropes relate to swimming, or balancing?) is bad design. It's the same problem I have with Martial Arts in Exalted, and it's ability to intrude on the domain of every other skill in that game.



> So your NPC expert running a storefront needs to spend points on how many skills? Oh.. thats right. NPC merchants being effective at making enough to survive on isn't particularly useful in a heroic fantasy game.... er, nevermind.




The NPC classes were horrible for modeling crafters, since to make an extraordinary crafter, he is automatically high level. I don't need rules for how many skill ranks an NPC has in Profession (underwater basketweaver). I just need to know what kinds of things he can provide my players with.



> I would rather lump those options into the single 'lame' method so that the PC min-maxed diplomancy monster doesn't walk all over merchants with jack-boots. And yet I want my players to be able to affect the encounter instead of just dm-fiat.




And they've said they're coming up with a more intensive social system that will feature multiples roles to manipulate the encounter without just reducing it to either a single roll to simple walk all over people, or reducing the skills required to a single super-skill.


----------



## Celebrim (Oct 3, 2007)

Mallus said:
			
		

> That hasn't stopped decades of RPG players from looking ways to emulate/simulate their favorite books, comics, and films. They fact that they haven't given up by now should demonstrate there's been a modicum of success.  That goal's been attained --in a workable fashion, at least-- many times. Hell, OD&D succeeded at it as far as some people are concerned. At this point we're talking about refining the methods.




I think it very much depends on what you mean by 'in a workable fashion'.  In the old Chaosium Star Wars system, there were times when it felt so much like the movies that you expected to hear orchestral music break out all around you.  That's as close as I've ever felt any game came to capturing the feel of the material it was based on.  But those were moments, and they were the moments when because of the dice it did not seem as if you possibly could fail no matter how crazy the stuff was that you tried - which in the old dice pool system was sometimes not far from the truth in a way that a linear D20 system never will be.  At other times though, it didn't feel alot like the movies, and that's because it wasn't the movies.  It was a game.   And a game never truly emulates the material.  It creates something which is inspired by the material, but which has the quality of being - for lack of a better word - 'gameable'.  

In the comics, if the author wants to pit Superman against Batman, or some other sort of story, he does so and the story happens even if from a gamist perspective such a story makes no sense.  In fact, from a gamist perspective, much of Superman makes no sense.  If he can move from place to place nearly instanteously with reflexes nearly the speed of light, how is he ever taken by surprise by his much much slower moving enemies?  Power of plot, that's how.

I have Vance's complete works on my bookshelf.  However inspired by the text it may be, the 1st edition AD&D wizard is not a reproduction or emulation of what is in the text.  Whenever the text suggests something that didn't seem gameable, the text lost out.  



> Except in Kafka. Also Beckett. Also, that's irrelevant.




I'm not quite sure what you mean by that, but if the protagonist is a tragic figure then they have a 100% chance of failure.  Things still happen according to the demands of the story, whereas random numbers don't care what the story is and I think we'll generally agree that the DM shouldn't dictate it.



> I think you're wrong about this, and that's is the crux of our disagreement.




Funnily enough, I'm not sure that this is the crux of our disagreement.  Or if it is, it is different ways of looking at the same thing.



> "Emulators" don't want automatic success, they want a (very) large set of viable options. They want a chance to get in on the action, whatever the action _is_, in whatever clever/impulsive way they decide to at the moment. And they want to interact with the environment in interesting... ahem... 'cinematic' ways, which often fly in the face of reason, physics, and niche protection. You know, like action heroes.




It certainly reads like to me that you've just said, "They don't want automatic success, but they want to be able to decide to do anything, no matter how impulsive and outlandish it is, no matter how it flies in the face of reason, physics, and niche protection and succeed just like action heroes."  I'm not sure that that isn't desiring automatic success, but not wanting to know or believe that it is automatic (since if they knew it to be automatic there would be no sense of accomplishment).  You see, they wouldn't improvise unless they thought it had a strong chance of succeeding, and they are I think somewhat uncomfortable with the notion that whatever they want to do they might not be able to do.  I understand those impulses, but ultimately they are impossible goals when it comes to game design.

But I think the crux of our disagreement isn't over the likelihood of success, but rather what the degree of success inspires in thier imagination.  It's not really about whether you have a 60% chance of success or a 35% or a 95%.  It's about the 5' gap versus the 15' gap.  It's about the 'merely' heroic versus the superheroic.



> Replace 'can do' with 'can try to do with a meaningful chance of success' and see how the quote you pulled reads.




Except that isn't what it says, and I think the orginal author rightly understood the medium and the audience.  Massaged, the quoted material reads less honestly to me.  Action heroes really can do anything.  Many RPG players really want to be able to do anything, and don't want simply a meaningful chance of success unless by meaningful you mean 'fairly close to 100% but not so close that they are continually reminded that they aren't supposed to fail.'  For them, jumping a 15' gap between swinging metal disks over lava really is more meaningful, exciting, and fun than jumping a 5' gap in the same situation.  For them, they want to jump across after the bad guy even if they made the decision not to play a character whose thing was jumping.  They want to pull the ace of spaces.  They want to win and Baccarat and golf and video games.   They want to hit the bad guy right between the eyes, even though they are playing the crusty doctor.  They want to jump on a cello and slide all the way austria.  They want to play the square jawed merc that beats the bad guy at chess, steals his women, and then beats him soundly in a fair fight in which the bad guy cheats and draws a weapon.

But I wonder why we are just confining this to things like that.  For the whole, anything with a meaningful chance of success, surely they should need to have super human strength to?  Why don't we want to make sure that they always have a good chance of pulling the door off the hinges just like the burly barbarian?  Shouldn't strength and constitution and the like also scale upward with level too?

It's not that there is necessarily something wrong with wanting that, but I think it comes with a cost that must be paid.


----------



## Celebrim (Oct 3, 2007)

FireLance said:
			
		

> I guess the conclusion is, with the current skill system, you soon reach the point where there are only two kinds of viable challenges: the individual skill challenge, which the least skilled character has no chance of succeeding at, and the group skill challenge, which the most skilled character has no chace to fail at. With a SWSE-like system, you can have both these challenges, as well as the intermediate group challenge, which the most skilled character has a chance of failing, and the least skilled character has a chance of succeeding at, across a wider range of levels.




Ok, I'll conceed that.  I guess what I'm saying is that I'm not sure that I'm truly bothered by "...there are only two kinds of viable challenges: the individual skill challenge, which the least skilled character has no chance of succeeding at, and the group skill challenge, which the most skilled character has no chace to fail at."   That seems a very gameable system to me.  If there is an individual challenge, then I want that individual to have his chance to shine at 'his thing'.  If there is a group challenge, then I want to ensure that at least one character will almost certainly succeed.  I don't really feel the need for something else even if we are going for 'cinematic feel', because in ensemble pieces its always the specialist chosen to do his thing anyway.  If the specialist was only slightly better than the worst member of the group at his thing, he wouldn't seem very special or very defined.  The very presence of the character that is inept at that thing serves to reinforce the specialist's coolness, and in such stories there is always the momment later on where the roles are reversed and the challenge that one finds baffling now the other finds easy.


----------



## FadedC (Oct 3, 2007)

Henry said:
			
		

> For me, the rogue gets his chance to shine by being first across. The wizard uses his fly spell to ferry others across, or he (or the cleric, depending) creates a bridge from the wall of ice or wall of stone spell ( i think wall of stone can still do that, but I know wall of ice can) for the others, or he whips out his jump potion, or the cleric air walks them across. In other words, the Rogue doesn't have his thunder stolen by the others using action points to succeed at the same thing he just did without one.




The ironic thing about this example is that it actually proves the point of how useless many skills tend to be in the current system. The rogue "shines" by being the first one across, only to realize his skills are completely useless because the spell casters could have gotten everyone across with magic without the need for his skill. In fact by running across first all he did was needlessly endanger himself. No action points were required for a fly or wall of stone spell, and the spell needs to be cast with or without the rogue.


----------



## Jhulae (Oct 3, 2007)

Mourn said:
			
		

> Profession: Sailor.
> 
> WTF does this do? It doesn't teach me how to tie knots properly (Rope Use). It doesn't teach me how to keep my legs when at sea (Balance). It doesn't teach me how to hop from the rail onto the rigging (Jump). It doesn't teach me to survive when I fall overboard (Swim). It doesn't teach me how to repair a rudder (Craft). It doesn't teach me how to navigate in a direction (Intuit Direction/Survival). It doesn't teach me how to command a crew (Diplomacy, Intimidation, Bluff).
> 
> Taking Profession: Sailor will do nothing to actually make me a proficient *in-game* sailor. All it does is allow me a roll to make money each week.




Whoa! Hey now!

10 ranks in Profession: Sailor lets you take Dread Pirate!  Don't tell *me* it doesn't allow you to do anything except roll for money...    

But seriously, I completely agree.  I will *not* mourn the loss of profession skills.  As far as I'm concerned, all PCs have ranks in "Profession: Adventurer" equal to their level..


----------



## Zurai (Oct 3, 2007)

FadedC said:
			
		

> The ironic thing about this example is that it actually proves the point of how useless many skills tend to be in the current system. The rogue "shines" by being the first one across, only to realize his skills are completely useless because the spell casters could have gotten everyone across with magic without the need for his skill. In fact by running across first all he did was needlessly endanger himself. No action points were required for a fly or wall of stone spell, and the spell needs to be cast with or without the rogue.




How does that change when everyone can make that check? The skills continue to be useless, except now they're useless to the whole party rather than all but one of the party.


----------



## FadedC (Oct 3, 2007)

Zurai said:
			
		

> How does that change when everyone can make that check? The skills continue to be useless, except now they're useless to the whole party rather than all but one of the party.




They change when everyone has a chance to make the check. Then the DM can design obstacles that the other players will eventually be able to cross, possibly taking damage in the process, but with the skilled player getting over with no problem. When only one player can make the check, the DM has to ensure that the players have a magical means to cross before he puts the obstacle in the way, thus ensuring the players skills are useless.


----------



## Zurai (Oct 3, 2007)

FadedC said:
			
		

> They change when everyone has a chance to make the check. Then the DM can design obstacles that the other players will eventually be able to cross, possibly taking damage in the process, but with the skilled player getting over with no problem. When only one player can make the check, the DM has to ensure that the players have a magical means to cross before he puts the obstacle in the way, thus ensuring the players skills are useless.




No, he doesn't.

In the example of a sheer cliff-face that only one character has the ranks in Climb to actually make it, that character can drive in pitons, lower a rope, buddy-climb, etc etc to help his friends up. Similarly in a difficult river crossing with swimming. Alternately, another character with ranks in K: Geography or Survival can try to find an easier passage.

Having everyone be proficient in everything is a crutch and nothing else.


----------



## FadedC (Oct 3, 2007)

Zurai said:
			
		

> No, he doesn't.
> 
> In the example of a sheer cliff-face that only one character has the ranks in Climb to actually make it, that character can drive in pitons, lower a rope, buddy-climb, etc etc to help his friends up. Similarly in a difficult river crossing with swimming. Alternately, another character with ranks in K: Geography or Survival can try to find an easier passage.
> 
> Having everyone be proficient in everything is a crutch and nothing else.




Actually the new system is more conductive to what you describe then the old. Under the old system the rogue climbs up and lowers the rope and everyone still can't climb up because of their -7 climb checks in armor. Under the new system the rogue is still much better at climbing, but everyone else is is not horribly incompetent at it and can at least get up a rope.

Keep in mind that under this system there is still going to be a large difference between the climb skills of the rogue and that of the cleric. Assuming the rogue does not take skill focus I'd estimate at least a 12 point different in their bonuses. It's just no longer a 25 point difference. This is what allows you to create challenges for the whole party.


----------



## Terraism (Oct 3, 2007)

Obviously I'm sneaking in here late, but I'm more inclined towards Celebrim & Henry's arguments than the contrary - I am, in fact, one of those freaks who _hates_ the Saga skill system.

And I think the disconnect lies in one place.  People who like the Saga system want people to be able to do things, even if it's tetchy.  Then, there are those of us - like myself - who don't mind telling their players "no.  Your character _cannot_ do that.  You fail.  Period.  Your old, crippled wizard who's never worked out or jumped more than a few inches in his life can't cross.  Not gonna happen.  Sucks to be you - but that's a person.  They have limitations."

I know it's not cinematic.  That's fine by me - I'm not playing for high-action cinema.  I actually find my cinema _more_ engaging when the protagonist runs into something he can't do without aid or going about it a different way.  That pulls me in far more than heroes having the cajones to manage it if they just _push_.

Personally, I don't think either side is wrong.  I know what I prefer.  And, yes, I know that D&D has always been a high-action game.  So I don't terribly begrudge the fact that 4E is probably going to be using the Saga system, even though I don't like it, personally.  I'm comfortable house ruling, and I'll do so.  (If there weren't other things I _do_ like about 4E, I'd just stay with 3E.  As is, I'll probably end up with some Lovecraftian, half-fiend lovechild of the two systems.  I'll just grumble a little bit 'cause it's extra work, but...)


----------



## Terraism (Oct 3, 2007)

FadedC said:
			
		

> Actually the new system is more conductive to what you describe then the old. Under the old system the rogue climbs up and lowers the rope and everyone still can't climb up because of their -7 climb checks in armor. Under the new system the rogue is still much better at climbing, but everyone else is is not horribly incompetent at it and can at least get up a rope.




Obviously it's just an example, but I disagree with this assertion.  The rogue climbs up the cliff (DC25) and drops down a knotted rope for the rest.  Climbing up a knotted rope along a bracing surface - such as a cliff - is a DC0 check.  So everyone else _can_ get up the rope, unless for some reason they've both got a -7 armor check penalty, don't have a Strength bonus to offset it (and in that case, why're they wearing such heavy armor?!), and roll a 2.  But the rogue shined like crazy - for all intents and purposes, he just gave everyone else a +25.  I know in that case, I'd feel pretty good about it.


----------



## Klaus (Oct 3, 2007)

Terraism said:
			
		

> Obviously I'm sneaking in here late, but I'm more inclined towards Celebrim & Henry's arguments than the contrary - I am, in fact, one of those freaks who _hates_ the Saga skill system.
> 
> And I think the disconnect lies in one place.  People who like the Saga system want people to be able to do things, even if it's tetchy.  Then, there are those of us - like myself - who don't mind telling their players "no.  Your character _cannot_ do that.  You fail.  Period.  Your old, crippled wizard who's never worked out or jumped more than a few inches in his life can't cross.  Not gonna happen.  Sucks to be you - but that's a person.  They have limitations."
> 
> ...



 I used to say "no, you can't do that" to my players a lot during 1e and 2e. 3e taught me to say "yes". It makes for a more fun game.

Thank you, 3e, for teaching me "yes".


----------



## FadedC (Oct 3, 2007)

Terraism said:
			
		

> Obviously it's just an example, but I disagree with this assertion.  The rogue climbs up the cliff (DC25) and drops down a knotted rope for the rest.  Climbing up a knotted rope along a bracing surface - such as a cliff - is a DC0 check.  So everyone else _can_ get up the rope, unless for some reason they've both got a -7 armor check penalty, don't have a Strength bonus to offset it (and in that case, why're they wearing such heavy armor?!), and roll a 2.  But the rogue shined like crazy - for all intents and purposes, he just gave everyone else a +25.  I know in that case, I'd feel pretty good about it.




Well as you said just an example, but it's worth noting that unless it's a knotted rope up against a perfectly vertical wall, it's not DC 0. A regular rope is DC 5, and a rope hanging from a cliff which is unlikely to be perfectly flush with the jagged cliff face would be DC 15 and impossible for the rest of the party to climb, rope or no rope. But we could replace the cliff with the wall of a tower and your argument would work better (assuming he carries enough rope to knot the whole thing and still make it reach).

As for the wizard not being able to jump a few inches, I think it's important to note that a high level wizard is such a skilled combatant that even if he is unarmored and defenceless he can stand up against a squad of soldiers just by rolling with the hits and minimizing the damage (HP). He also has spent the last few years of his adventuring career dodging fireballs and dragonbreath, and engaging in other feats of super human skill. I don't have a problem believing he can jump a couple of feet across a pit.


----------



## pawsplay (Oct 3, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> I Except that isn't what it says, and I think the orginal author rightly understood the medium and the audience.  Massaged, the quoted material reads less honestly to me.  Action heroes really can do anything.  Many RPG players really want to be able to do anything, and don't want simply a meaningful chance of success unless by meaningful you mean 'fairly close to 100% but not so close that they are continually reminded that they aren't supposed to fail.'  For them, jumping a 15' gap between swinging metal disks over lava really is more meaningful, exciting, and fun than jumping a 5' gap in the same situation.  For them, they want to jump across after the bad guy even if they made the decision not to play a character whose thing was jumping.  They want to pull the ace of spaces.  They want to win and Baccarat and golf and video games.   They want to hit the bad guy right between the eyes, even though they are playing the crusty doctor.  They want to jump on a cello and slide all the way austria.  They want to play the square jawed merc that beats the bad guy at chess, steals his women, and then beats him soundly in a fair fight in which the bad guy cheats and draws a weapon.




But are "they" playing D&D? There are plenty of genres where that's appropriate, but even Conan was not good at absolutely everything. This might, barely, describe LOTR (the movie), probably does not describe LOTR (the book), definitely does not describe Hour of the Dragon, and is about the farthest thing I can imagine from Cugel's Saga.

I thought Eberron with action points pretty much covered this. I don't see this as plus-fun. To me, omnicompetent dungeon delvers is genre breaking.


----------



## drothgery (Oct 3, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> I thought Eberron with action points pretty much covered this. I don't see this as plus-fun. To me, omnicompetent dungeon delvers is genre breaking.




Omnicompetent? Tell that to the players in my SWSE game who, because no one was trained in Treat Injury, had to struggle with chained Aid Anothers to use a medpac. Why's that? Well, they're 4th level (or at least, they were at the end of the six-week of real time arc I called episode I they were; at the start of episode II, they'll be 8th level), and while the two Force-sensitive characters (one Jedi, one Scout) have good wisdom scores, they're not stratospheric.


----------



## Remathilis (Oct 3, 2007)

Terraism said:
			
		

> And I think the disconnect lies in one place.  People who like the Saga system want people to be able to do things, even if it's tetchy.  Then, there are those of us - like myself - who don't mind telling their players "no.  Your character _cannot_ do that.  You fail.  Period.  Your old, crippled wizard who's never worked out or jumped more than a few inches in his life can't cross.  Not gonna happen.  Sucks to be you - but that's a person.  They have limitations."




You see, there comes a point when you have to ask "what is the cut-off line"? The old crippled wizard cannot jump more than a few inches. Why? He's old and crippled. Ok. Then how does he avoid a fireball spell (40' diameter blast of fire)? How does he avoid an orc's 10' long greataxe swing? How does he even try to HIT the fully plate-armored and tower-shield carrying knight? Yet, in ALL editions of D&D (even 1974 OD&D) that crippled wizard is entitled to a saving throw, an AC, and a To-Hit roll (with a 20 being an automatic hit). Are you going to say "Sorry Bob, but Gandalf is 90 and has a bum knee, so he doesn't get a saving throw vs the fireball. You fail. Period. Not gonna happen. Sucks to be you?" If not, what makes skill checks ANY different than a saving throw, AC, to hit roll, or ability check?


----------



## AllisterH (Oct 3, 2007)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> You see, there comes a point when you have to ask "what is the cut-off line"? The old crippled wizard cannot jump more than a few inches. Why? He's old and crippled. Ok. Then how does he avoid a fireball spell (40' diameter blast of fire)? How does he avoid an orc's 10' long greataxe swing? How does he even try to HIT the fully plate-armored and tower-shield carrying knight? Yet, in ALL editions of D&D (even 1974 OD&D) that crippled wizard is entitled to a saving throw, an AC, and a To-Hit roll (with a 20 being an automatic hit). Are you going to say "Sorry Bob, but Gandalf is 90 and has a bum knee, so he doesn't get a saving throw vs the fireball. You fail. Period. Not gonna happen. Sucks to be you?" If not, what makes skill checks ANY different than a saving throw, AC, to hit roll, or ability check?




QFT

What exactly makes Skills so different than other aspects of the system? I mean, even in 1E, a 20th level mage naked could kill a first level fighter without much trouble even if you didn't use ANY magic.


----------



## Celebrim (Oct 3, 2007)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> how does he avoid a fireball spell (40' diameter blast of fire)?




Errr... how does anyone avoid a fireball?  It's not like any class jumps clear of the radius of effect. 



> How does he avoid an orc's 10' long greataxe swing?




Without magical protection, he probably doesn't.  In standard D&D, classes are not entitled to a modifier to AC based on thier experience.



> How does he even try to HIT the fully plate-armored and tower-shield carrying knight?




He's a member of the Silver Horde?  Any system that quasi-separates attributes from its combat resolution system is going to have this worthy of parody issue.  Even GURPS has this problem to a certain extent, and it tries hard to avoid it.  



> If not, what makes skill checks ANY different than a saving throw, AC, to hit roll, or ability check?




Combat resolution is the definitive group challenge.  Everyone expects to contribute to combat situations and has this as a reasonable expectation, in part because combats tend to be so time consuming, in part that is because it is the nature of the game, and in part because the ways that they can contribute to solving the problem are so varied by class.  Individual skill checks, not so much.  Rather, the variaty in available skills mirrors the variaty in the different ways classes can approach a combat problem.  Saying that every class needs a high level of compentancy in ever skill in order to participate is like saying every class needs to be able to sneak attack and cast healing spells in order to participate.


----------



## Zurai (Oct 3, 2007)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> You see, there comes a point when you have to ask "what is the cut-off line"? The old crippled wizard cannot jump more than a few inches. Why? He's old and crippled. Ok. Then how does he avoid a fireball spell (40' diameter blast of fire)?




He ducks behind a piece of scenery or another character, lessing the impact of the blast.



> How does he avoid an orc's 10' long greataxe swing?




He doesn't. The orc misses.



> How does he even try to HIT the fully plate-armored and tower-shield carrying knight?




Old crippled *wizards* try to hit knights?



> If not, what makes skill checks ANY different than a saving throw, AC, to hit roll, or ability check?




The fact that a roll of 20 on a skill check isn't an auto-success. Why is a 20 not an auto-success? Because skills are one of the very, very few things you have direct and immediate control over with your character. You CHOSE to leave your skill so low that you cannot auto-succeed on the roll to climb a knotted rope.

Choices should have consequences.


----------



## Celebrim (Oct 3, 2007)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> even in 1E, a 20th level mage naked could kill a first level fighter without much trouble even if you didn't use ANY magic.




20th level naked M-U without spells versus 1st level fighter with chain, shield, and long sword?  DMG or UA unarmed combat resolution system?

That's a pretty extreme case.  I guess this depends on how you define 'too much trouble'.  I can easily see the 20th level M-U losing half his hit points in this encounter, especially if the M-U has a strength penalty.  By the time you are talking 3rd level fighter, my gut feeling is that the Archmage is going down.

In any event, this is a problem with hitpoints, not anything else.  What do they represent anyway?  Favor of the gods?  Luck?  Experience?  Shear fortitude?  Some combination of the above?  So long as hitpoints are based on level and not strictly on constitution, you are going to have oddities like that.


----------



## DandD (Oct 3, 2007)

Zurai said:
			
		

> Old crippled *wizards* try to hit knights?



If they want to give the low-level knights a chance, why not. Perhaps the old level 20 wizard only wants to ridiculise the knight before the entire court, showing to everybody that the old geezer can easily overpower the entire knight order composed of only low-level characters... unarmed... Which is possible by the rules...


----------



## Zurai (Oct 3, 2007)

DandD said:
			
		

> If they want to give the low-level knights a chance, why not. Perhaps the old level 20 wizard only wants to ridiculise the knight before the entire court, showing to everybody that the old geezer can easily overpower the entire knight order composed of only low-level characters... unarmed... Which is possible by the rules...




It's possible, but the likelyhood is an order of magnitude beyond happening.

A level 1 knight with a 10 con has 12 hp.

The crippled venerable level 20 wizard probably doesn't have much more than 30 hp (thanks to -6 con from age penalties coupled with a d4 HD).

The level 20 wizard has a +10 BAB but the same -6 strength penalty, and I've never seen a point buy non-gish wizard put points in strength, so he really only has +7 to hit.

Said Knight in full plate with tower shield has an AC of 23 (8 armor, 1 dex, 4 shield).

The wizard thus requires a roll of 16 or better to hit. That's a 25% chance to deal 1 point of nonlethal damage. It'll require him to attack, on average, 52 rounds before he knocks the Knight unconcious.

On top of that, he provokes every time he makes that unarmed attack, and his AC is going to be horrible without spells or magic items; probably in the AC 8 range. We'll assume the Knight is attacking nonlethally and has a +3 strength bonus and Weapon Focus, but a -2 penalty from the tower shield. for a grand total of -1 to hit. He hits on a 9 or higher, for a 60% chance to deal 1d8+3 nonlethal damage per hit. That's an average of 9 nonlethal damage per round (the Knight's attack on his turn and his AoO attack on the Wizard's turn). The wizard lasts 4 rounds on average.

EDIT: Forgot the tower shield penalty.


----------



## Celebrim (Oct 3, 2007)

DandD said:
			
		

> If they want to give the low-level knights a chance, why not. Perhaps the old level 20 wizard only wants to ridiculise the knight before the entire court, showing to everybody that the old geezer can easily overpower the entire knight order composed of only low-level characters... unarmed... Which is possible by the rules...




Err... possible, sure.  But you are really stretching it now.  A fight between a 1st level armored fighter and a naked 20th level Wizard without spells is alot closer than you are making it out to be.  Give the wizard an ordinary staff, and ok, maybe, but assuming that we really assume an 'old geezer' here (that is physical attributes of 8 or less) and actually naked, the 20th level Wizard is going to have his hands full with even a single 1st level armored fighter, much less a half-dozen of them, much less a couple that might be 2nd or 3rd level (still 'low-level').  

But more to the point, this example doesn't actually demonstrate anything that you seem to think that it does.  It is, if you take realism to be a very high virtue, an argument for replacing D&D's level/hitpoint/class system with a universal skill system, but the reverse isn't necessarily true.  It doesn't necessarily follow that if you think the skill system should be somewhat realistic, that you think hit points should be too.


----------



## FadedC (Oct 3, 2007)

We seem to be getting a little too hung up on the crippled wizard example. D&D doesn't really have rules for being crippled (in part because it's assumed most injuries are cured by magical healing), and PCs are not generally playing ancient withered old men, crippled or otherwise. Any inclusion of this would require house rules no matter what system they were included in.

If the goal is to discuss rules, using wizard PCs is a better frame of reference......those being what the rules are designed to cover.


----------



## Zurai (Oct 3, 2007)

FadedC said:
			
		

> We seem to be getting a little too hung up on the crippled wizard example. D&D doesn't really have rules for being crippled (in part because it's assumed most injuries are cured by magical healing), and PCs are not generally playing ancient withered old men, crippled or otherwise. Any inclusion of this would require house rules no matter what system they were included in.




Not true. The PHB has rules for playing venerable characters. Venerable gives a -6 penalty to physical stats and a +3 bonus to mental stats.


----------



## DandD (Oct 3, 2007)

I and the others never said that the wizard was naked, although being defeated in hand-to-hand-combat by a naked old man who normaly slings spells that destroy country-sides and bend reality would truely be the ultimate humiliation. 

However, as you said, the entire combat system isn't realistic. So, if the non-realistic combat system that makes high-level characters more capable in combat than low-level character is still going to apply somehow in D&D in the new edition, although tweaked, then so should the skill system. 

It's always poor rules design if combat and non-combat rules function entirely in a different way so that you have to memorize two distinctive rule sets instead of only one. If there were only minor differences, it would be okay.


----------



## BryonD (Oct 3, 2007)

You know, the old crippled wizard is going to have a +6 Base REF save and a +10 BAB.
If he is old and crippled then I'm going to assume a -3 minimum DEX and STR mods.  So I'd say that he pretty much isn't going to hit the fighter or avoid the fireball.  

And that is before you slap on some circumstance bonuses to account for the absurdity of the "old crippled" example.

As to wanting to be able to do everything, I simply reject that notion.  I mean, I'm certain there are some players out there that can get off on being handed everything and then slap themselves on the back for their "accomplishment".  But, lets be honest, you don't need a book for that.  I've played in many many games where the whole point was that the party is facing REAL challenges.  And, quite frequently, they flat out can not overcome the challenge by the direct route.  If I'm not afraid to throw a giant at the party knowing full well that they pretty much can not beat him in a fight, then I'm not going to be afraid to throw a wall the wizard can't climb in their path.  And if you really think that games don't work that way then I'm forced to assume that you haven't the faintest clue what you are really missing out on.   Coming up with solutions that are more thoughtful than "roll to hit" and make three skill checks is the source of the real fun, achievement and sense of connection to a character.  

If you want all powerful characters then you can have that now.  Just take your 3X characters and rule that they have 1/2 level ranks in every skill that they don't already have more than that in.  Or just freaking declare that any roll over a 6 is a success in all cases.  Adjust to your own taste.  

But if 4E came out with an assumption of every wizard everywhere knows how to climb and hide and swim, then everything that follows will have to be built with that assumption ingrained.  It is a hell of a lot easier to turn up your PCs than it is to turn down the rest of the campaign setting.  So gamers who want to experience actual challenges will pretty much have to turn elsewhere.  

So, I'm fairly hopefully optimistic that WotC is well aware of this thinking and won't go alienating a significant portion of their base just to give a separate group something they can have with a simple house rule.


----------



## pawsplay (Oct 3, 2007)

Personally would be terrified of facing an old geezer with a quarterstaff who had been through level x 13 appropriate CR encounters. Honestly, if a first level character can be proficient in all martial weapons, you don't think someone who adventures for years with Regdar is going to pick up a trick or two? Wussy wizards are pretty unrealistic, not to mention rare in fiction.


----------



## Zurai (Oct 3, 2007)

DandD said:
			
		

> I and the others never said that the wizard was naked, although being defeated in hand-to-hand-combat by a naked old man who normaly slings spells that destroy country-sides and bend reality would truely be the ultimate humiliation.




And my example didn't assume he was naked. Wizards generally don't use armor, and using magic items defeats the purpose of the example. You DID say "unarmed" and implied "without magic", though, which is the ruleset I used.



> However, as you said, the entire combat system isn't realistic. So, if the non-realistic combat system that makes high-level characters more capable in combat than low-level character is still going to apply somehow in D&D in the new edition, although tweaked, then so should the skill system.




I don't see how you can possibly reason that the level 20 magicless wizard is more capable in combat than the level 1 fully geared knight, except that the wizard can withstand ever so slightly more punishment.

On top of that, with the same example characters, the Knight won't be any *worse* than the wizard at any skills you should expect him to be reasonable at. 

Climb? He's got a -3 check from armor, but a +3 strength and as many as 4 skill points in it; the wizard has a --4 strength and at most 11 skill points in it - but most probably 0. The knight would reasonably have a +4, but the wizard would likely have a -4  (I've seen even fewer wizards put points in Climb, cross-class, than I've seen devote points to strength).

Ride? Not even a contest. The knight has a +1 dex bonus and almost certainly 4 ranks in the skill, while the wizard has a -2 to -4 dex penalty and, again, few if any cross-class ranks.

Tumble? Neither character's likely to put any points there.

Spellcraft? Of course the level 20 wizard is going to be more proficient at that than the knight! It's his job!



> It's always poor rules design if combat and non-combat rules function entirely in a different way so that you have to memorize two distinctive rule sets instead of only one. If there were only minor differences, it would be okay.




But combat checks and non-combat checks DON'T operate differently at all in 3rd edition. That's the entire POINT of the d20 ruleset. All checks are the same - roll a d20 and check against a set DC. The only difference between attack rolls and skill checks is that a 20 isn't an auto-success on a skill check.


----------



## Celebrim (Oct 3, 2007)

DandD said:
			
		

> I and the others never said that the wizard was naked...




AlisterH @ 3:26, and follows.



> although being defeated in hand-to-hand-combat by a naked old man who normaly flings spells that destroy country-sides and bend reality would truely be the ultimate humiliation.




I hope you mean that in irony.  If I was beaten up by a naked old man who normally destroys country-sides and bends reality, I and probably most observers would assume that the old man in question is not an ordinary old man.



> It's always poor rules design if combat and non-combat rules function entirely in a different way so that you have to memorize two distinctive rule sets instead of only one. If there were only minor differences, it would be okay.




There are only minor differences.  They only difference is how the different systems scale with level between different classes.  Most skills are assumed to not scale at all.  This is more realistic and in my opinion makes for a better game than assuming most if not all skills scale with level.  It would be more realistic to assume that defences and attacks also don't automatically scale with level, but I think in D&D's case this makes for a worse game because combat is so integral to the default D&D game.

Anyway, I don't particularly see the need for a SAGA like rule set, and I think the SAGA rules set handles skills for multiclassed characters in a much uglier way than D20 rules, and I don't like how it makes high level characters better at everything than low level ones; but, if I had to scale skills with levels I'd add an additional category to the SAGA system - 'unadept'.  If a skill wasn't on your classes skill list and wasn't 'trained only', then you were assumed to be 'unadept' in it.  

Thus:

Focused: 1/2 Level + Attribute Bonus + 10
Trained: 1/2 Level + Attribute Bonus + 5
Untrained: 1/2 Level + Attribute Bonus
Unadept: 1/4 Level (rounded down) + Attribute Bonus

Experienced characters would still pick up some tricks - maybe the old wizard knows a simple trick for enhancing his jump magically - but they wouldn't be automatically great at everything.  I'd have to play test it a bit but something like that would ease my concerns about niche intrusion and the anti-simulationist vibe a little.


----------



## Merlin the Tuna (Oct 3, 2007)

Zurai said:
			
		

> Said Knight in full plate with tower shield has an AC of 23 (8 armor, 1 dex, 4 shield).



Full plate is well beyond the wealth of 1st level character; a 1st level Fighter gets, on average, 150 gp -- full plate costs 10 times that.  Scale mail is more like it, putting him at AC 19 (4 Armor, 1 Dex, 4 shield).

Also, it doesn't look like you took into consideration that the Wizard gets two attacks per round, one of which the Fighter/Knight whatever probably isn't getting an AoO for.

The Wizard could alternatively grapple the warrior and most likely win.


----------



## Zurai (Oct 3, 2007)

Merlin the Tuna said:
			
		

> Full plate is well beyond the wealth of 1st level character; a 1st level Fighter gets, on average, 150 gp -- full plate costs 10 times that.  Scale mail is more like it, putting him at AC 19 (4 Armor, 1 Dex, 4 shield).




Didn't read the example, did you? The example was a level 1 knight with full plate and tower shield.



> Also, it doesn't look like you took into consideration that the Wizard gets two attacks per round, one of which the Fighter/Knight whatever probably isn't getting an AoO for.




True. So it only takes 26 rounds, not 52. The Knight still only takes 4 to subdue the crazy old man.



> The Wizard could alternatively grapple the warrior and most likely win.




The Wizard could never establish a grapple in the first place. Grappling provokes AoO's, and a hit on the AoO disrupts the grapple attempt. Not to mention that the wizard only has a +6 grapple vs the knight's +4.


----------



## FadedC (Oct 3, 2007)

Zurai said:
			
		

> Not true. The PHB has rules for playing venerable characters. Venerable gives a -6 penalty to physical stats and a +3 bonus to mental stats.




Note I never said there were no rules for being venerable, just that there were no rules for being crippled. There are also no rules for playing a venerable PC, and I doubt the rules are focused around maintaining any kind of realism or common sense for them.

I may have been the first one to mention the wizard vs. the squad of lvl 1 soldiers, but I should mention that it was not my point to say he would kill them all with his staff, simply that he would survive for a surprisingly long time with them trying to kill him.  Your standard high level PC wizard with say 8 strength, 14 con and 12 dex would probably be up for several rounds  against them. Perhaps it's just me, but I'm imagining some fancy maneuvering to survive that long, which seems consistant with having some basic jumping and balacing ability.


----------



## jasin (Oct 3, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Combat resolution is the definitive group challenge.  Everyone expects to contribute to combat situations and has this as a reasonable expectation, in part because combats tend to be so time consuming, in part that is because it is the nature of the game, and in part because the ways that they can contribute to solving the problem are so varied by class.  Individual skill checks, not so much.



Exactly.

It might be that they are trying to change this.

It might be that they're trying to make it so that when climbing (or talking to the king, or sneaking past guards) comes up, rather than just sending out the rogue with +20 climb (or diplomacy, or hide) and saying "deal with it, wake us up when you're done", everyone can participate, and the DM can craft challenges so that everyone needs to participate.

I don't think that would be a bad thing.


----------



## Zurai (Oct 3, 2007)

FadedC said:
			
		

> Note I never said there were no rules for being venerable, just that there were no rules for being crippled. There are also no rules for playing a venerable PC, and I doubt the rules are focused around maintaining any kind of realism or common sense for them.




Then why are they in the player's handbook? And why does said PHB specifically say:



> You can choose or randomly generate your character’s age. If you choose it, it must be at least the minimum age for the character’s race and class (see Table 6–4: Random Starting Ages). Your character’s minimum starting age is the adulthood age of his or her race plus the number of dice indicated in the entry corresponding to the character’s race and class on Table 6–4: Random Starting Ages. For example, an elf ranger must be at least 116 years old (adulthood age 110 plus 6, because the entry for an elf ranger is +6d6).
> 
> ...
> 
> The maximum ages are for player characters. Most people in the world at large die from pestilence, accidents, infections, or violence before getting to venerable age.


----------



## jasin (Oct 3, 2007)

Zurai said:
			
		

> Not true. The PHB has rules for playing venerable characters. Venerable gives a -6 penalty to physical stats and a +3 bonus to mental stats.



Right.

But how about addressing the point the example was meant to illustrate: a healthy 20th-level wizard in his prime (so Str 10, Con 14?) will probably be able to kill, bare handed, an armoured and armed trained warrior (say Ftr1, Str 15, Con 14?). We learned to accept this as natural, because, hey, he's 20th-level, he's an awesome legendary hero, even without his magic.

Yet if this awesome legendary hero (remember, without his magic) gets tossed overboard in the storm, he's just gone. If he needs to sneak past a couple of trained guards... well, he might have a shot, but it's a long shot.

The quality of implementation remains to be seen (even if Saga does give hints), but it's not a priori unreasonable to apply the same standards to sneaking or swimming that have long now been applied to combat: high level guys pwn n00bs.


----------



## Celebrim (Oct 3, 2007)

jasin said:
			
		

> Exactly.
> 
> It might be that they are trying to change this.




I've had the same thought.  Let me say that I'm reserving judgment on that until I see how they implement it.  It could be a bad thing.  However, just because I can't see a way to do it that wouldn't be a bad thing, doesn't mean that they haven't figured out something clever that I haven't thought of.



> It might be that they're trying to make it so that when climbing (or talking to the king, or sneaking past guards) comes up, rather than just sending out the rogue with +20 climb (or diplomacy, or hide) and saying "deal with it, wake us up when you're done", everyone can participate, and the DM can craft challenges so that everyone needs to participate.




The problem with this is that it is very very hard to enforce this.  Combat naturally creates a 'everyone pitch in' sort of situation.  But skill challenges tend not to be like that, except in very narrow situations where if they came up frequently you'd be rightfully accused of railroading.  Sure, you can have a wall where everyone can participate in the climb, but even in the real world mostly a person free scaling a wall does so alone and you send your best climber up first.  How would you force the rest of the party to not send the rogue to do it?  Crafting non-combat challenges where everyone needs to participate and which are natural seeming is hard.

It's particularly problimatic with social challenges.  I'm uncomfortable with resolving challenges that resolve around roleplay with primarily with dice rolls anyway, but how do you force a party to not present a single charismatic face man as thier leader?  Will every noble always insist on hearing the 'henchman's' position on the matter?  How thematically does the noble know who the PC's are on every occassion?  How would you feel if the NPC hired hand had as much influence over the touchy diplomatic negotiation as the ambassador (the PC)?  I just don't see how you force this collective skill use situation as a DM without it being totally clumsy. 

I don't see how this gets us much farther than the 'aid other' rules.


----------



## FadedC (Oct 3, 2007)

Zurai said:
			
		

> Then why are they in the player's handbook? And why does said PHB specifically say:





I think your missing my point here. As I said there are rules for being venerable, just like there are rules for being a commoner or any number of other things. But the game is balanced around the assumption that most of the action is not being done by peasants or wizened old men.


----------



## jasin (Oct 3, 2007)

BryonD said:
			
		

> As to wanting to be able to do everything, I simply reject that notion.  I mean, I'm certain there are some players out there that can get off on being handed everything and then slap themselves on the back for their "accomplishment".  But, lets be honest, you don't need a book for that.  I've played in many many games where the whole point was that the party is facing REAL challenges.  And, quite frequently, they flat out can not overcome the challenge by the direct route.  If I'm not afraid to throw a giant at the party knowing full well that they pretty much can not beat him in a fight, then I'm not going to be afraid to throw a wall the wizard can't climb in their path.



Isn't this is still possible with Saga-like skills?


----------



## Zurai (Oct 3, 2007)

jasin said:
			
		

> But how about addressing the point the example was meant to illustrate: a healthy 20th-level wizard in his prime (so Str 10, Con 14?) will probably be able to kill, bare handed, an armoured and armed trained warrior (say Ftr1, Str 15, Con 14?). We learned to accept this as natural, because, hey, he's 20th-level, he's an awesome legendary hero, even without his magic.




That wasn't the point being illustrated in the slightest.

Someone came out and said "I think it's fair to tell the ancient crippled wizard that he simply cannot make that jump check". Someone else came back and said "then why can he make that reflex save, dodge the orc's greatax, or hit the fully armed and armored knight in melee combat?". I asked why on earth the wizard would even try to hit the knight, and someone came up with the ridiculous example, which I then proceeded to debunk.

Now, onto YOUR example, using your stats (except I'm going to bump their 15's to 16's and their 12's to 10's, because that's generally what I see people do with 25 point buy).

A level 20 wizard with 14 con is going to have, on average, 91 HP. The level 1 fighter with 14 con is going to have 12 HP. 

The wizard has a +10 to hit, but -4 because he's attempting to deal lethal damage with his bare fists. He does 1d3 damage (avg 2) per hit. He has 10 AC.

The fighter has a +5 to hit (weapon focus is reasonable) and does 1d8+3 damage (avg 7.5) per hit. He has a 19 AC (4 scale mail, 1 dex, 2 heavy shield, 1 shield specialization, 1 dodge).

The wizard gets 2 attacks per round and needs a 13 to hit. He thus averages 1.72 damage a round counting crits; he needs 8 rounds to knock the fighter into the negatives.

The fighter gets 2 attacks per round (AoO) and needs a 5 to hit. He thus averages 13.2 damage a round counting crits; he needs 7 rounds to knock the wizard into negatives.

Amazingly, the fighter wins.


----------



## FadedC (Oct 3, 2007)

Zurai said:
			
		

> That wasn't the point being illustrated in the slightest.
> 
> Someone came out and said "I think it's fair to tell the ancient crippled wizard that he simply cannot make that jump check". Someone else came back and said "then why can he make that reflex save, dodge the orc's greatax, or hit the fully armed and armored knight in melee combat?". I asked why on earth the wizard would even try to hit the knight, and someone came up with the ridiculous example, which I then proceeded to debunk.
> 
> ...




Give the wizard a dagger though and he obliterates the fighter.  So the point still stands....this weak naked guy with a dagger clearly has some pretty good skills if he's able to take down an extremely strong opponent with far superior arms and armor. 

And yeah the wall the wizard can't climb is still quite doable under saga. By saga rules a wizard with 8 strength would need to be level 14 before he could even climb a brick wall on a 20.


----------



## DandD (Oct 3, 2007)

So, then simply disarm him, throw the weapon away, and bitch-slap the fighter silly till he's unconscious. 

Amazingly, the level 20-wizard wins, because now, the fighter is without his weapon where he applied his weapon focus. Unless you're going to tweak the fighter further and further with things like lock gauntlets and other things so that the 1st level fighter stands a chance against the level 20-wizard (actually, it might very well be a commoner, because wizards without spells are nothing more than commoner...)


----------



## Zurai (Oct 3, 2007)

FadedC said:
			
		

> Give the wizard a dagger though and he obliterates the fighter.  So the point still stands....this weak naked guy with a dagger clearly has some pretty good skills if he's able to take down an extremely strong opponent with far superior arms and armor.




It's amazing how the example keeps changing when people find out that level 20 wizards aren't as indestructable against level 1 fighters as they thought.


----------



## jasin (Oct 3, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> The problem with this is that it is very very hard to enforce this.  Combat naturally creates a 'everyone pitch in' sort of situation.  But skill challenges tend not to be like that, except in very narrow situations where if they came up frequently you'd be rightfully accused of railroading.  Sure, you can have a wall where everyone can participate in the climb, but even in the real world mostly a person free scaling a wall does so alone and you send your best climber up first.  How would you force the rest of the party to not send the rogue to do it?  Crafting non-combat challenges where everyone needs to participate and which are natural seeming is hard.



"The castle is collapsing, everybody out! Run, across that narrow walkway!"
"We need to get inside that camp without alerting those guards... keep quiet, everybody."
"Watch out, folks. They say there's bandits in these hills, so let's not get caught of guard."
"The magistrate is bound to question every one of us, so we better stick to the story, right?"



> It's particularly problimatic with social challenges.  I'm uncomfortable with resolving challenges that resolve around roleplay with primarily with dice rolls anyway, but how do you force a party to not present a single charismatic face man as thier leader?  Will every noble always insist on hearing the 'henchman's' position on the matter?  How thematically does the noble know who the PC's are on every occassion?  How would you feel if the NPC hired hand had as much influence over the touchy diplomatic negotiation as the ambassador (the PC)?  I just don't see how you force this collective skill use situation as a DM without it being totally clumsy.



To me it seems quite the opposite, that social challenges are rather awkward under the current rules, and would be less so with Saga-like skills.

We recently finished an published adventure (in Age of Worms) where the central event was a party thrown by the ruler of the city. My character had about +35 to diplomacy. The next highest score was about +5.

This meant that the intelligent course of action was for everyone to pretend they were indeed my henchmen or servants, with absolutely no relevant opinion of their own, and just shut it while I talked. Because if my +35 check could result in anything other than a stellar success (and it could, since the DCs were set with the assumption of a good diplomat), their +5 ran a serious risk of creating an serious enemy.

It seems to me it would have been both more fun and more realistic if the scores were more like +15 and +5 like they might have been in Saga, with appropriately scaled DCs. Even if we might have still decided that the face-man does all the talking, the DM could have NPCs engage the others in conversation on their own so that it is a challenge, rather than an auto-fail situation.


----------



## Zurai (Oct 3, 2007)

DandD said:
			
		

> So, then simply disarm him, throw the weapon away, and bitch-slap the fighter silly till he's unconscious.




How? Disarming provokes an AoO and is disrupted if the AoO hits. It's also an opposed attack roll, with unarmed disarms at a penalty. The wizard would have a +6 or +1 to the fighter's +5 - and he deals no damage on a failed disarm attempt.


----------



## Zurai (Oct 3, 2007)

DandD said:
			
		

> (actually, it might very well be a commoner, because wizards without spells are nothing more than commoner...)




An unarmed level 20 commoner has a nigh-zero chance to win against anything. Commoners have no BAB progression, so he'd have a +0 to hit. He'd need a 20 to hit the fighter in the example, and could never confirm the critical.


----------



## jasin (Oct 3, 2007)

Zurai said:
			
		

> The wizard has a +10 to hit, but -4 because he's attempting to deal lethal damage with his bare fists.



Why in the world would he want to do that?


----------



## Zurai (Oct 3, 2007)

jasin said:
			
		

> Why in the world would he want to do that?




Because the example was him KILLING the fighter?


----------



## Zurai (Oct 3, 2007)

And don't even start on "he could knock him unconcious then coup de gras" or I'll start on "well the fighter could be smart and use a greatsword instead of a longsword and power attack instead of shield spec and dodge".


----------



## DandD (Oct 3, 2007)

Simply make a normal movement attempt that provokes an Attack of Opportunity, so that the fighter wastes his one AoO.


----------



## Gundark (Oct 3, 2007)

maggot said:
			
		

> I disagree that being a blacksmith has zero effect on the game.  I can see it come up every so often.  Pick a more useful profession for an adventurer like sailor and it can come up a lot.  Having "just put it in your background" can lead to min-maxers writing long backgrounds that touch on every profession needed (I was a blacksmith, then a tailor, then a sailor).  Why not have the rules help out here a bit?




First off, I have never run into a guy who would do the whole long background thing (I have never heard of min-maxing with regards to character fluff). Even if I did run into said "Fluff-maxer" as a DM I wouldn't let him get away with it.

Second, even with your sailor example I can't think of a single situation where you would need to make a profession check. If they have it in their background that the character was a sailor then it would be the DM's call to whether the character is able to do the task. 

I used to hear all these complaints about how 3e took the power out of the DM's hands. Well  I would think something like this would put it back.


----------



## DandD (Oct 4, 2007)

Zurai said:
			
		

> And don't even start on "he could knock him unconcious then coup de gras" or I'll start on "well the fighter could be smart and use a greatsword instead of a longsword and power attack instead of shield spec and dodge".



Why not? Once you're unconscious, you can easily be killed. Either by coup de grace, or simply hitting the now-defenseless fighter again and again with lethal damage, till he's really dead.


----------



## Zurai (Oct 4, 2007)

DandD said:
			
		

> Simply make a normal movement attempt that provokes an Attack of Opportunity, so that the fighter wastes his one AoO.




... and the wizard wastes his second disarm roll, and still only makes a +6 vs +5 roll in the first place. The fighter could then spend his move action picking the sword back up (not even provoking an AoO for doing so, because the unarmed wizard does not threaten any squares) and his standard action attacking.

For those watching at home, that's a *negative net gain* for the wizard. He wasted his two attacks for the turn and did absolutely nothing to hinder the fighter.


----------



## Zurai (Oct 4, 2007)

DandD said:
			
		

> Why not? Once you're unconscious, you can easily be killed. Either by coup de grace, or simply hitting the now-defenseless fighter again and again with lethal damage, till he's really dead.




Fine, then the fighter is intelligent enough to use a greatsword and wins signifigantly faster because he's now averaging 22.88 damage a round.


----------



## Nifft (Oct 4, 2007)

Zurai said:
			
		

> ... and the wizard wastes his second disarm roll, and still only makes a +6 vs +5 roll in the first place. The fighter could then spend his move action picking the sword back up (not even provoking an AoO for doing so, because the unarmed wizard does not threaten any squares) and his standard action attacking.
> 
> For those watching at home, that's a *negative net gain* for the wizard. He wasted his two attacks for the turn and did absolutely nothing to hinder the fighter.



 Hi, I'm trying to follow along at home.

Why did the Wizard drop the sword? The nonproficiency penalty is the same as his previous "lethal damage" penalty to attack, and the damage is better.

Thanks, -- N


----------



## jasin (Oct 4, 2007)

This Wiz20 vs. Ftr1 thing is really getting silly.


----------



## Zurai (Oct 4, 2007)

Nifft said:
			
		

> Hi, I'm trying to follow along at home.
> 
> Why did the Wizard drop the sword? The nonproficiency penalty is the same as his previous "lethal damage" penalty to attack, and the damage is better.
> 
> Thanks, -- N




Good point. I missed the last sentence (hey, wasn't there a thread about that around here somewhere?). So, yes, once he finally succeeds at the disarm - assuming the fighter took that AoO for the wizard moving - he has a half-decent shot. Of course, I don't know many fighters that don't have multiple weapons. And if the fighter was actually intelligent and not using a longsword but a greatsword, the wizard would hardly have a shot at disarming him (+6 or +1 for the wizard vs +9 for the fighter).


----------



## DandD (Oct 4, 2007)

Why does he waste his disarm roll when the fighter attacks him for walking around? And yes, it's really good if the wizard has the +6 bonus for his roll, he only needs to succeed once to disarm the fighter. Also, when he throws the weapon away, the weapon is out of reach for the fighter, and he'll have to use one movement action to get there, and a second one to pick it up, provided that the wizard/commoner didn't throw it away at some place that is unreachable for the fighter in the first place (like the castle-moat). 

However, it seems that it's beginning to become way off-topic, having nothing more to do with discussing about trained/untrained skills. I will stop the off-topic discussion right now.


----------



## Zurai (Oct 4, 2007)

jasin said:
			
		

> This Wiz20 vs. Ftr1 thing is really getting silly.




Then why do you keep bringing it up?

Seriously, I'm not married to it! It's a brilliantly stupid example because it only works in extreme cases. But if people keep bringing it up and trying to find an extreme case where it works, I'm gonna keep pointing out that it still doesn't work.

The point that brought this entire stupid debate up in the first place was a DM saying he was comfortable with there being skill checks he could tell a character "No, can't be done" for, and someone asking why that doesn't apply to combat checks.

Amusingly, no one has commented on my answer pertaining to the real reason why, just tried to pick holes in the math of the most ridiculous of the ridiculous examples given by people who think combat works differently.


----------



## Zurai (Oct 4, 2007)

DandD said:
			
		

> Why does he waste his disarm roll when the fighter attacks him for walking around?




Because A) making that move action prevents him from making his second disarm attempt (which requires a full attack action), and B) the fighter is not required to waste his AoO on the wizard's stupid movement.



> And yes, it's really good if the wizard has the +6 bonus for his roll, he only needs to succeed once to disarm the fighter.




No, he needs to succeed as many times as the fighter has weapons. I've never made a fighter that didn't carry at least one weapon per damage type.


----------



## jasin (Oct 4, 2007)

So this unarmed, unarmoured guy whose focus has been in other things than melee combat can take on an armoured, armed warrior and have a shot at winning. Even if he doesn't win, it's a guy in his pajamas against a guy in armour with a sword. Even putting up a good fight is a pretty impressive display of physical badassery, isn't it?

No-one appears to be bothered by the fact that this is possible in D&D.

However, people appear to be bothered by the possibility that this same guy will be able to have some chance of survival if he's caught swimming in a storm.

The two aren't fundamentally different, except in familiarity: high-level characters being better at fighting is how it's always been, while high-level characters being better at swimming is a new development.

That was the point of the example. As I understood it; the original poster can correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## Zurai (Oct 4, 2007)

jasin said:
			
		

> The two aren't fundamentally different, except in familiarity: high-level characters being better at fighting is how it's always been, while high-level characters being better at swimming is a new development.




No, the two aren't fundamentally different because they use the exact same mechanic -- roll a d20, add your modifiers, and compare with a static DC -- with a single rule seperating them: a roll of 20 is not an automatic success.

The thing is, the wizard can't help but become a little better at handling himself in combat as he continually handles himself in combat. He has a choice whether or not "swimming in a storm" is something he cares enough about to improve.

It's that removal of player choice that I, and several other people, object to.


----------



## jasin (Oct 4, 2007)

If this kind of choice is inherently a good thing, would it be even better if the wizard _could_ choose to not become better at combat? To not advance BAB but advance something else instead: swimming, or Reflex, or spellcraft?


----------



## Remathilis (Oct 4, 2007)

Zurai said:
			
		

> The thing is, the wizard can't help but become a little better at handling himself in combat as he continually handles himself in combat. He has a choice whether or not "swimming in a storm" is something he cares enough about to improve.




So why not make combat elements "something he cares to improve" I know I'd trade a BAB for the ability to caster two or more levels higher than my level normally allows. 

The disconnect is that a wizard HAS to improve his combat ability (its hardwired into the class in the form of BAB and saves) but he doesn't have to improve his skills. Why? What if you gave 4 "points" that could be spend on caster level, Bab and defenses. So he could have Bab +1, caster level 1, and +2 will defense, or +0 bab, +0 saves, caster level 4. Now the PC can TRULY decide if he's an awesome arcanist with no combat ability or a more rounded adventurer. Heck, why not move to a total point system at that point?


----------



## Remathilis (Oct 4, 2007)

Oh, as the person who brought up the "wizard attacks platemailed knight" element (before the wizard became 20th level, naked, and weaponless) I wanted to emphasize the "wizard out of spells fires his crossbow" element of low-level D&D. The wizard, even at low levels, has a chance to attack the knight and roll a 20, doing damage. The original point was that since the chance of hitting is sooo low (5%) that its hard to hit the knight, would ANY DM be so crass as to say "Sorry Bob, you cannot hit the knight with that crossbow since you're too feeble to do so." The quote I was referring to discussed how some "non-combat" abilities should be flatly denied by the DM. I was asking the question "So, with that mindset, why not disallow combat elements as well?" Stupid barbarians always fail will saves, feeble wizards cannot ever hit a man in platemail, clumsy clerics in half-plate automatically fail reflex saves, etc.


----------



## pawsplay (Oct 4, 2007)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> Oh, as the person who brought up the "wizard attacks platemailed knight" element (before the wizard became 20th level, naked, and weaponless) I wanted to emphasize the "wizard out of spells fires his crossbow" element of low-level D&D. The wizard, even at low levels, has a chance to attack the knight and roll a 20, doing damage. The original point was that since the chance of hitting is sooo low (5%) that its hard to hit the knight, would ANY DM be so crass as to say "Sorry Bob, you cannot hit the knight with that crossbow since you're too feeble to do so." The quote I was referring to discussed how some "non-combat" abilities should be flatly denied by the DM. I was asking the question "So, with that mindset, why not disallow combat elements as well?" Stupid barbarians always fail will saves, feeble wizards cannot ever hit a man in platemail, clumsy clerics in half-plate automatically fail reflex saves, etc.




Hitting with a lucky crossbow shot is a reflection of the chaos of battle. Making a 15' jump in armor says something about someone's athleticism.


----------



## pawsplay (Oct 4, 2007)

Zurai said:
			
		

> The Wizard could never establish a grapple in the first place. Grappling provokes AoO's, and a hit on the AoO disrupts the grapple attempt. Not to mention that the wizard only has a +6 grapple vs the knight's +4.




Does the 1st level fighter have Combat Reflexes? Cuz otherwise, the wizard pretty much wins this one. Iterative attacks and all that.


----------



## Zurai (Oct 4, 2007)

jasin said:
			
		

> If this kind of choice is inherently a good thing, would it be even better if the wizard _could_ choose to not become better at combat? To not advance BAB but advance something else instead: swimming, or Reflex, or spellcraft?




Absolutely.

I actually support having Initiative as a skill, for example.


----------



## Remathilis (Oct 4, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> Hitting with a lucky crossbow shot is a reflection of the chaos of battle. Making a 15' jump in armor says something about someone's athleticism.




But Bab factors into that "lucky shot" since it might take a natural 20 to hit at first level, but by 15th (+7/+2) hes got a much better than lucky shot odds. Is Bab just a reflection of that chaos working in favor of the wizard more often because he's high level, or does it imply skill and training? I think its the latter. Repetition has given him an edge over lesser wizards. He has better aim, better reflexes, better physical and mental stamina and better arcane mastery over his lower level peers, why not have more applied aptitude in mundane tasks (like climbing ledges or hearing noises) beyond his formal training? 

Just as its a gamiest illogical assumption that a 15th level wizard can pick up a crossbow (or any other weapon with a penalty) and have a much better chance of getting a lucky strike against the knight than a 1st level wizard can (even with the penalty!); is it not be acceptable that a 15th level wizard has a better chance of jumping across a pit than a 1st level wizard?


----------



## FadedC (Oct 4, 2007)

Zurai said:
			
		

> It's amazing how the example keeps changing when people find out that level 20 wizards aren't as indestructable against level 1 fighters as they thought.




Well it's true that  some people overestimated exactly how comical a situation the wizard could be in and still triumph over the lvl 1 warrior. That doesn't change the fact that he still fights so much better then him that even in the absolute worst case scenario with the wizard has no weapons at all and the warrior is fully equiped, the wizard still wins some of the time.  Give the wizard a dagger and he wins hands down. Put them on equal footing where they both have quarterstaves and no armor (ie a robin hood vs. little john type fight) and the warrior would barely put up a fight.

As before you seem to have missed the main point which is that the wizard is clearly pretty heroic even outside of his spell use.


----------



## Celebrim (Oct 4, 2007)

jasin said:
			
		

> "The castle is collapsing, everybody out! Run, across that narrow walkway!"
> "We need to get inside that camp without alerting those guards... keep quiet, everybody."
> "Watch out, folks. They say there's bandits in these hills, so let's not get caught of guard."
> "The magistrate is bound to question every one of us, so we better stick to the story, right?"




I can do that already in every case.

The 'running away from danger case' is particularly the case I had in mind where you could force a group challenge.  But there are only so many collapsing castles or the like you can do in a campaign before it becomes silly.  In any event, as I said, I can already do this, it just involves using a lower DC than you'd use if you were running SAGA.  Under either rule set, if you set the DC such that the guy with the best balance is even challenged, then if you force a group skill check it is almost certain that someone will fail.

The 'stealth' case you site is almost always going to be resolved in an entirely different way SAGA rules or not, depending on the particular mission.  Assuming I had no spell resources to shortcut the problem, at least  one of the following courses of action are likely to be smarter than trying to sneak with a party that isn't focused on sneaking:

a) Send the stealthy guy in solo to retrieve the gizmo/coup de gras the BBEG.
b) Disguise (or hide) the party as something believable and then use the party spokesperson to bluff his way in.  This turns a group challenge into an individual challenge.  Use a wagon if necessary.
c) Bribe the guards, or offer to negotiate, or forge a pass, or otherwise do what it takes to make it one focused character's skill check vs. some low level guys opposed check.
d) Forget about the skills. Plan a careful assault and attempt to overwhelm the camp.

The 'spot' situation is exactly what we have now.  The only difference is that the Bandits have to be significantly stealthier in order to have a meaningful ambush.  And its not in and of itself a group skill challenge (you don't give out XP for avoiding surprise in addition to winning the combat).

The 'everyone has to talk to the noble' situation is another one I'd already thought of.  Again, only so often you can do this before it starts feeling contrived.



> We recently finished an published adventure (in Age of Worms) where the central event was a party thrown by the ruler of the city. My character had about +35 to diplomacy. The next highest score was about +5...This meant that the intelligent course of action was for everyone to pretend they were indeed my henchmen or servants, with absolutely no relevant opinion of their own, and just shut it while I talked...It seems to me it would have been both more fun and more realistic if the scores were more like +15 and +5 like they might have been in Saga, with appropriately scaled DCs. Even if we might have still decided that the face-man does all the talking, the DM could have NPCs engage the others in conversation on their own so that it is a challenge, rather than an auto-fail situation.




And if it isn't autosuccess, the intelligent course of action would still be to make yourself unobtrusive, pretend to be a servant with no opinion of your own, and let the diplomat do all the talking of import.  Very few characters are going to deliberately play the action movie bumbling side kick that gets everyone in trouble by sticking thier nose in where it doesn't belong, and few parties are going to forgive the player for 'ruining everything' if it is a habit.  The only reason that you'd want to throw multiple persuaders at the problem is if you had to talk to multiple people and you were under such a hard time limit that one person couldn't talk to both.  This is the 'meet me in the west wing at 5 o'clock' and 'meet me in the east wing at 5:00 o'clock' situation.  But again, do that sort of thing too often and it's contrived. The main thing to note is that the DC of all the secondary challenges is still arbitrary.  If it's set to a reasonable DC for a 1st level character and it doesn't have lethal consequences for failure, then its still an interesting challenges to everyone but the main diplomat talking to the grand high poobob.


----------



## FireLance (Oct 4, 2007)

Zurai said:
			
		

> The thing is, the wizard can't help but become a little better at handling himself in combat as he continually handles himself in combat. He has a choice whether or not "swimming in a storm" is something he cares enough about to improve.



I actually addressed this point back in post #80. Relevant part quoted:


> ... the key issue is whether you take the view that characters have to train or otherwise make a specific effort to achieve greater competence in their skills, or whether the general experience of adventuring is enough to acquire greater competence in certain areas, in much the same way that general adventuring allows the character to acquire greater competence in fighting (BAB) and greater resistance to various effects (saving throws). For some people, it seems strange that a character might have made 100 Spot checks by the time he reached 20th level, and still be no better at Spotting danger than the day that he started adventuring.
> 
> If you can accept that general adventuring can make a character better at Spot, then the question becomes one of where you draw the line with respect to improving skills. If Spot, then what about Listen, or Concentration, or Climb, or Jump, or Balance, or Tumble, or Swim, or Survival, or Sense Motive, or Search, or Spellcraft, etc.


----------



## Mallus (Oct 4, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> I think it very much depends on what you mean by 'in a workable fashion'.



It sure does.



> It certainly reads like to me that you've just said, "They don't want automatic success, but they want to be able to decide to do anything, no matter how impulsive and outlandish it is, no matter how it flies in the face of reason, physics, and niche protection and succeed just like action heroes."



Ok, but's neither what I wrote nor what I meant. By 'a chance', a meant exactly that, 'a chance'. As opposed, say, to a mathematical impossibility.



> You see, they wouldn't improvise unless they thought it had a strong chance of succeeding, and they are I think somewhat uncomfortable with the notion that whatever they want to do they might not be able to do.



Cel, that's just an assumption. Some players attempt things merely because they're... stylish, not because they offer a better chance of favorable outcome. I game with groups full of these kinds of people, players who opt from 'creative' solutions for their own sake, because it pleases them to imagine their alter-egos doing that daft kind of thing. 

This is part of the reason I favor mechanics that offer broad competencies to PC's that also  make even challenging tests in the realm of the possibly for non-experts (unlike, say, D&D 3.5). It's also why I like Action/Hero Points. and/or mechanisms that confer limited narative authority to the players, but that's another topic.



> But I think the crux of our disagreement isn't over the likelihood of success, but rather what the degree of success inspires in thier imagination.



Now that's an interesting statement. I don't really have a response, except to say that while success is inevitably involved, it's not the crux of the issue. My experiences have been that gamers like an interesting failure more that a dull success. I think your really overstating the typical players desire to 'win' all the time. Or am I misreading that?


----------



## Zurai (Oct 4, 2007)

FireLance said:
			
		

> I actually addressed this point back in post #80. Relevant part quoted:




You did, but you misunderstood what I meant.

I wasn't saying that the CHARACTER can't help but get better at BAB, saves, and so on (although that's certainly true). I was saying that the PLAYER can't help but have their character get better in such a manner.


----------



## FourthBear (Oct 4, 2007)

Zurai said:
			
		

> You did, but you misunderstood what I meant.
> 
> I wasn't saying that the CHARACTER can't help but get better at BAB, saves, and so on (although that's certainly true). I was saying that the PLAYER can't help but have their character get better in such a manner.




Actually, I would guess that it would be pretty easy for a player to help having his character to get better in such a manner.  Just tell the DM "I'd like to forfeit my BAB, hps and Fort and Reflex save bonuses.  My character concept is such that they don't become any tougher physically".  Or he could tell the DM that he automatically fails all checks he deems inappropriate.  I would think that most DMs have a problem with adding on extra abilities, not sacrificing them for a character concept.  I would imagine such character concepts will be rare enough that the core system doesn't need to represent such characters as the default case.  They can be handled by the individual DM and player.

Now, if the character wants to get something in exchange, then things may need to be negotiated.  I'll also note that the probability may be high that you end up with an "eggshell with a hammer" character.  But this issue of combat ability increases for mages has existed with every edition of D&D.  It's there for the same reason as the Saga skill half-level bonuses, to control the range of numbers between character concepts.


----------



## Falling Icicle (Oct 4, 2007)

FireLance said:
			
		

> Because not all characters will be equally skilled. Might as well ask why have a saving throw system since all characters have a chance to save, or why make a differentiation between Fortitude, Reflex and Will since everybody's saving throws will increase in the long run.
> 
> In the same way that a rogue could expect to succeed on a Reflex save 75% of the time when everyone else in the party expects to fail 75% of the time, we can have a skill check that a rogue expects to succeed at 75% of the time while everyone else expects to fail 75% of the time. But - and this is what makes the die roll interesting for all the players - the rogue could still fail, and everyone else could still succeed.




Apples and oranges, imo. Every character has a will, an immune system and reflexes, to some degree. However, not every person is proficient at every trade, sport, craft or knowledge. Saving Throws represent your character's innate ability to shrug off or avoid certain hardships, whereas skills represent areas of training and expertise. And yes, your saves improve as your character increases in level, but that makes perfect sense to me, because every adventurer is exposed to danger and hardship. But not every adventurer is going to learn how to swim, tumble, forge a sword or be able to recite the geneology of a royal family. And in a system like SWSE, not only do *all* adventurers learn these things, they do so simply because he's run around killing alot of monsters.  :\


----------



## jasin (Oct 4, 2007)

jasin said:
			
		

> If this kind of choice is inherently a good thing, would it be even better if the wizard could choose to not become better at combat? To not advance BAB but advance something else instead: swimming, or Reflex, or spellcraft?





			
				Zurai said:
			
		

> Absolutely.



Ah, then it makes sense you'd be opposed to Saga-like skill.

But then we disagree on a pretty fundamental design issue, since it seems to me that this lack of choice, and resulting lack of option to make unbalanced, overspecialized characters can be very much a good thing, in moderation.


----------



## FireLance (Oct 4, 2007)

Zurai said:
			
		

> You did, but you misunderstood what I meant.
> 
> I wasn't saying that the CHARACTER can't help but get better at BAB, saves, and so on (although that's certainly true). I was saying that the PLAYER can't help but have their character get better in such a manner.



Distinction noted, although in my experience, players seldom complain that their characters improve, although they may quibble over the manner of the improvement. In D&D's class-based system, player influence over most character variables (such as BAB, hit points, and base saving throw bonuses) is expressed through the choice of which class to pursue. The player does not get the option to trade off an increase in Fortitude saves for an increase in Will, for example, except by choosing to take a level in a class with a good Will save progression. Hence, the flexibility of the 3e skill system, while not a bad thing in itself, was already effectively a separate sub-system compared to the other character variables.

I've always thought that a skill system more in keeping with D&D's class-based progression would be one that provided separate rate of advancement for each skill depending on whether it was a "good"/class skill, or a "poor"/cross-class skill. However, this would require quite a bit of tracking and adding, especially for multi-classed characters.

The SWSE system, which provides a base rate of progression for all skills, plus an option for a character to specialize in a small number of skills which are favored by his class (or classes) is a pretty good compromise, in my view.


----------



## jasin (Oct 4, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> The 'running away from danger case' is particularly the case I had in mind where you could force a group challenge.  But there are only so many collapsing castles or the like you can do in a campaign before it becomes silly.  In any event, as I said, I can already do this, it just involves using a lower DC than you'd use if you were running SAGA.



A DC lower to the point where it's conceptually silly. To give a 10th-level fighter a chance to traverse a narrow walkway, it cannot be narrow at all, since even a DC 10 check will present problems to him, while a 10th-level rogue might easily have +20 to balance.



> Under either rule set, if you set the DC such that the guy with the best balance is even challenged, then if you force a group skill check it is almost certain that someone will fail.



Less certain in Saga, where the difference between the best and the worst will be somewhere around 15 (at all levels!), than in high level D&D where the difference between the best and the worst can be 30+.



> b) Disguise (or hide) the party as something believable and then use the party spokesperson to bluff his way in.  *This turns a group challenge into an individual challenge.*



Why is this desirable, other than to make it work better under the existing rules?

As a general rule, aren't group challenges better? Because they challenge the whole group, rather than having three out of four people just sitting there hoping that the one guy does his job?



> The 'spot' situation is exactly what we have now.  The only difference is that the Bandits have to be significantly stealthier in order to have a meaningful ambush.  And its not in and of itself a group skill challenge (you don't give out XP for avoiding surprise in addition to winning the combat).



The thing is, under current rules, spot checks are utterly unexciting for my 15th-level wizard. If there's a doubt the group (including the 14th-level scout) will see it, he cannot succeed, ever. If he has even a chance to see it, the scout will certainly see it anyway.

If the difference between our modifiers was 10 or 15 instead of 25, the scout would still be a great spotter and my wizard a crappy spotter, but I'd be interested when a spot check was called for.

I feel that might be an improvement.

Of course, you could reduce the gap without auto-advancing skills. But auto-advancing skills also follow the conceit that high-level characters are better than low-level ones, which is followed by a good part of D&D anyway. As I've said, it remains to be seen how it will be implemented, but I don't see it as unreasonable to look at skills and say "hey, this should work just like everything else".

And it might be argued that it produces unreasonable results to do otherwise. Isn't it strange that a 20th-level guy will almost always beat a 1st-level guy at a dagger-throwing contest or a drinking contest, but the 1st-level guy might easily wipe him out in a balancing on logs contest?



> The 'everyone has to talk to the noble' situation is another one I'd already thought of.  Again, only so often you can do this before it starts feeling contrived.



It seems to me that three people always having the same one speak for all of them on all subjects is much more contrived.



> Very few characters are going to deliberately play the action movie bumbling side kick that gets everyone in trouble by sticking thier nose in where it doesn't belong, and few parties are going to forgive the player for 'ruining everything' if it is a habit.



With less of a gap, and your skills advanced to a certain level just by the virtue of being a hero, you aren't certain to ruin everything the when you go outside of your specialty.

That is rather the point.


----------



## jasin (Oct 4, 2007)

Falling Icicle said:
			
		

> Apples and oranges, imo. Every character has a will, an immune system and reflexes, to some degree. However, not every person is proficient at every trade, sport, craft or knowledge.



Just like every character has a will and reflexes and the ability to shoot bows, every character has the ability to sneak or lie or swim. This is true even under the current system.

What's being considered here is which of those abilities should automatically advance so that greater heroes are automatically better at them than lesser heroes. 3E says just reflexes, will, and bow-shooting, but not lying or sneaking. Saga says everything.

It's not immediately clear to me that 3E is the more natural and intuitive way.



> And yes, your saves improve as your character increases in level, but that makes perfect sense to me, because every adventurer is exposed to danger and hardship. But not every adventurer is



... exposed to spotting ambushes?

Long before Saga, I've seen people suggest changing spot and listen into a Perception save, so it would advance automatically.

Now, Saga does it for all skills, and one might well wonder if getting better at engineering by adventuring makes as much sense as getting better at spotting ambushed by adventuring. But this is where the details of the implementation come in: how much can you do with your _untrained_ +10 to knowledge (engineering and architecture) at 20th level, compared to a trained +10? Or a trained +5? Or perhaps knowledges don't auto-advance?

But it's not immediately clear that skills shouldn't auto-advance while saves and attack values should, because when you look at it outside of the rules framework, it's not immediately obvious what should be a skill and what should be a save and what should be an attack value.


----------



## FireLance (Oct 4, 2007)

Falling Icicle said:
			
		

> Apples and oranges, imo. Every character has a will, an immune system and reflexes, to some degree. However, not every person is proficient at every trade, sport, craft or knowledge. Saving Throws represent your character's innate ability to shrug off or avoid certain hardships, whereas skills represent areas of training and expertise. And yes, your saves improve as your character increases in level, but that makes perfect sense to me, because every adventurer is exposed to danger and hardship. But not every adventurer is going to learn how to swim, tumble, forge a sword or be able to recite the geneology of a royal family. And in a system like SWSE, not only do *all* adventurers learn these things, they do so simply because he's run around killing alot of monsters.  :\



I'm of the view that skills do not necessarily represent areas that require training and expertise, but they have come to do so because that is how they have been treated by the rules in 3e. Because players could choose not to improve specific skills, skills have come to represent aspects of a character that need specific effort to improve. That seems like circular reasoning to me.

For some skills, the need to make a specific effort to improve them seems odd to some people. Why should a character, who might have made 100 Spot checks by the time he reaches 20th level, be no better at Spotting danger than the day that he started adventuring? On the other hand, even if he never makes a single attack roll between 1st and 20th level (say, he's a sorcerer without any spells that require attack rolls), his BAB would have improved. 

I suppose it is possible to make a list of skills that general adventuring can improve, and a list of skills that general adventuring would not, but that seems unnecessarily complicated to me. I'm quite happy to assume that a character will be exercising, picking up general knowledge and the occasional bit of esoteric lore, and acquiring practical skills that might be useful to him someday during his downtime. In game terms, this means he gets a bonus on skill checks equal to half his level.


----------



## pawsplay (Oct 4, 2007)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> Just as its a gamiest illogical assumption that a 15th level wizard can pick up a crossbow (or any other weapon with a penalty) and have a much better chance of getting a lucky strike against the knight than a 1st level wizard can (even with the penalty!); is it not be acceptable that a 15th level wizard has a better chance of jumping across a pit than a 1st level wizard?




Sorry, still don't see it. Using a crossbow (at least until 4e) is a part of a wizard's repertoire. But really amazing jumping is part of a lifestyle. You can't just fault twice your height or more by "trying real hard." The success of a crossbow's bolt depends on aim, not physical ability, and aim can come from luck as easily as skill, or practice as easily as training. Hitting with a particular shot says nothing about one's overall attributes as a crossbow user.

Jumping 15' is comparable to a fighter tossing a fireball by trying real hard. "Oh, yeah, I've seen this done many times."


----------



## DandD (Oct 4, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> a fighter tossing a fireball by trying real hard. "Oh, yeah, I've seen this done many times."



That's how wizards are currently doing it now in the current rules-system.


----------



## Bagpuss (Oct 4, 2007)

Zurai said:
			
		

> It's that removal of player choice that I, and several other people, object to.




With many characters getting only 2+Int skills ranks per level, and most having at least that many must have skills, the player doesn't get much/any choice with the current system.


----------



## pawsplay (Oct 4, 2007)

DandD said:
			
		

> That's how wizards are currently doing it now in the current rules-system.




I can't for the life of me figure out what this response is supposed to mean. Clarify, elaborate?


----------



## Celebrim (Oct 4, 2007)

jasin said:
			
		

> A DC lower to the point where it's conceptually silly. To give a 10th-level fighter a chance to traverse a narrow walkway, it cannot be narrow at all, since even a DC 10 check will present problems to him, while a 10th-level rogue might easily have +20 to balance.




What I'm saying is that if the rogue has a +20 to balance, you aren't going to set the DC even as high as DC 20 even in a SAGA-like system because you are going to have party members with around +10 to Balance, and with 4 other party members each with a 25%-50% chance of falling you are just about garuanteeing that one falls.  Instead, even in a saga like system, you are going to set the DC based on the average balance check of the group, not based on the balance check of the best member.  Otherwise, your skill test is IMO unfairly hard.  You certainly aren't going to set the DC at 25 to challenge the rogue, because then the rest of the party is still doomed.  So, since the DC of a group challenge depends on what is an average skill and not the best skill, does it really matter except in terms of flavor whether the balance check is DC 10 or DC 15 or DC 5?   Either way, the rogue easily passes what is a difficult test for everyone else.



> Less certain in Saga, where the difference between the best and the worst will be somewhere around 15 (at all levels!), than in high level D&D where the difference between the best and the worst can be 30+.




I don't think that is relevant.  The only way to make a group challenge challenge the strongest individual is if the average skill of the group is very close to the strongest member.  A difference of 15 (+75% chance of failure) isn't close enough to solve the problem.  Besides, focused 20th level rogue with 22 dex vs. armored 20th level Paladin with 10 Dex is a difference of more like 20, which might as well be a difference of 30 or 35.  I just don't see this as being necessarily a big net gain in gamability.



> Why is this desirable, other than to make it work better under the existing rules?
> 
> As a general rule, aren't group challenges better? Because they challenge the whole group, rather than having three out of four people just sitting there hoping that the one guy does his job?




I don't think you understand my point.  From the DM's perspective, you are trying in a group challenge to get everyone involved and from that perspective a group challenge is 'better'.  But from the PC's perspective, if there is a significant risk, then it is always 'better' to turn a group challenge into an individual challenge if they can because this mitigates the risk.  Before you gain a large amount of PC involvement, you have to have some system that rewards group contribution.  At present, I'm not sure what such a system would be like, nor am I sure that you can have such a system and not railroad the players.



> The thing is, under current rules, spot checks are utterly unexciting for my 15th-level wizard. If there's a doubt the group (including the 14th-level scout) will see it, he cannot succeed, ever. If he has even a chance to see it, the scout will certainly see it anyway.




True, but the scout's spot check keeps your scout from being surprised in an ambush, but it doesn't (necessarily) keep your wizard from being surprised.  So, even if the scout has no chance of being surprised, the wizard still has a stake in the challenge.  If the parties average spot DC increases systematically, the DM will simply be encouraged to increase the DC of the challenge accordingly, but you really aren't going to ever challenge the specialist with this sort of thing if the gap is even as big as 15.  Because if there is significant risk of the specialist failing, then almost certainly everyone else will as well.



> If the difference between our modifiers was 10 or 15 instead of 25, the scout would still be a great spotter and my wizard a crappy spotter, but I'd be interested when a spot check was called for.




Suppose that the difference is 35, and your bonus is +2.  You are still interested in the DC 13 spot check to avoid surprise, even if the rogue has absolutely no chance of failing it.  And the rogue still has no chance of failing it it the difference is 15.   Ahh, but you say what if the DC is 23, wouldn't it then be more interesting if my bonus was +12.  To which I respond, you as a DM choose the DC.  The DC in the example is 23 because the bonus is +12; the bonus isn't +12 because the DC is 23.  So, I don't see the improvement unless you prefer the fluff - what action that higher DC is supposed to represent.



> And it might be argued that it produces unreasonable results to do otherwise. Isn't it strange that a 20th-level guy will almost always beat a 1st-level guy at a dagger-throwing contest or a drinking contest, but the 1st-level guy might easily wipe him out in a balancing on logs contest?




Not so much.  I figure adventurers do alot more killing and drinking than log rolling.


----------



## Celebrim (Oct 4, 2007)

Bagpuss said:
			
		

> With many characters getting only 2+Int skills ranks per level, and most having at least that many must have skills, the player doesn't get much/any choice with the current system.




And you want Int to be more of a dump stat than it already is?  Granted, the new system may give more uses to Int to replace the missing advantages of high Int, but still there is a cost to giving 'skill points' for free.


----------



## Aust Diamondew (Oct 4, 2007)

jasin said:
			
		

> Now, Saga does it for all skills, and one might well wonder if getting better at engineering by adventuring makes as much sense as getting better at spotting ambushed by adventuring. But this is where the details of the implementation come in: how much can you do with your _untrained_ +10 to knowledge (engineering and architecture) at 20th level, compared to a trained +10? Or a trained +5? Or perhaps knowledges don't auto-advance?



Just use the 3e rule that if you aren't trained in a knowledge skill you can only make common knowledge checks (DC 10).  
So a 20th level Saga skill user with +10 to Knowledge (X) will know any common knowledge about the topic.  But only a trained character will know greater details and only a character with skill focus (giving a base of +20) can reguarly hit the DC 30 checks for knowing the answers to the most difficult questions related to the topic.
Same can be done with the craft skill.  With out training a character can only hit DC 10 checks with craft.

The only problem I see with saga style skill system is it has trouble representing characters who only dabble in some areas, being some where between trained and not trained.


----------



## Celebrim (Oct 4, 2007)

Mallus said:
			
		

> Now that's an interesting statement. I don't really have a response, except to say that while success is inevitably involved, it's not the crux of the issue. My experiences have been that gamers like an interesting failure more that a dull success. I think your really overstating the typical players desire to 'win' all the time. Or am I misreading that?




No, you aren't misreading that.  Maybe I'm just used to playing with hypercompetitive PC's, but my experience is that players gravitate to the 'winning' strategies of a system.  They'll do things just to have fun, but only if they don't think they are putting thier character, the mission, or the party at significant risk.  That doesn't stop them from enjoying a nice long melodramatic RP, but when it comes to life and limb they get really serious about the winning part.  Cynically, you could claim that there desire to RP well comes in no small part from a desire to 'win' the social challenges.

Someone has a quote by Gygax concerning how players approach the game that seems to back up the idea that my experience isn't by any means unique.


----------



## AllisterH (Oct 4, 2007)

Zurai said:
			
		

> .
> 
> It's that removal of player choice that I, and several other people, object to.




Then again, assuming that the 4E skill system is closer to SWSE's skill system (might not be an exact one for one match), player choice is reflected in other avenues other than skill ranks.

I mean if a player wants to say "I'm so good at this skill that I'm DA MAN"  the player will take Skill Training (adds +5 to check) and Skill Focus (another +5). If they still want to be "better", they take Talents that help (such as being able to get a +5 luck bonus once per day, re-roll any skill check and take the better result, take 10 under pressure)


----------



## Celebrim (Oct 4, 2007)

Aust Diamondew said:
			
		

> The only problem I see with saga style skill system is it has trouble representing characters who only dabble in some areas, being some where between trained and not trained.




We haven't talked about it much, but it is for that reason that SAGA handles multiclassed characters in such an ugly way.

Also, there are alot of skills that really really reward dabbling.  We've talked alot about balance, and that is an extreme case in point.  Most ordinary balance challenges you run into aren't along the lines of 'walk across the tight rope', but rather 'run down the steep uneven slope', 'chase the villain across the frozen lake', 'charge through the bracken', or 'fight in the slippery muddy cavern'.  Essentially, any mundane risk of falling where you can't take 10 on the check because you are rushed and/or in danger.  These sorts of mundane balance challenges don't require large investments in balance to have big payoffs in a character's success rate.  My rogue might not necessarily invest many points in balance so that he can run along tight ropes, but he almost certainly will dabble enough to handle ordinary terrain challenges (freeing up points to dabble somewhere else).  And getting 5 ranks in balance to avoid flat footed penalties is just huge for any class.

Anything with basically static DC's and no opposed checks heavily rewards dabbling (craft, handle animal, heal, knowledge, ride, swim, survival, use rope, several other skills depending on how your DM handles them).  Synergies are another thing that heavily rewards dabbling.  Multiclasing tends to encourage this sort of thing, with people taking small dips from skills.

Now, everyone dabbles 'for free'.  To resolve that problem we have to make large distinctions between the trained and untrained uses of the skill, placing a mental burden on play during the session rather than simply during the leveling up process.  I just don't see how the advantages here outweigh the problems.  

Fortunately, it sounds like the design team recognizes that the SAGA system has some problems and are going to tweak it, so maybe they'll come up with something I'll be happier with than a straight port.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Oct 4, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Suppose that the difference is 35, and your bonus is +2.  You are still interested in the DC 13 spot check to avoid surprise, even if the rogue has absolutely no chance of failing it.  And the rogue still has no chance of failing it it the difference is 15.   Ahh, but you say what if the DC is 23, wouldn't it then be more interesting if my bonus was +12.  To which I respond, you as a DM choose the DC.  The DC in the example is 23 because the bonus is +12; the bonus isn't +12 because the DC is 23.  So, I don't see the improvement unless you prefer the fluff - what action that higher DC is supposed to represent..



Keep in mind that some DCs are more or less "mandated" by the rules - if you have a group of ambushers, they will probably have hide and move silently ranks. Sure, they don't have to maximize the skills, but if these enemies are supposed to be sneaky, why haven't they maximized it?
If the level is high enough, the skill difference between untrained and trained reaches a point where any one not maximizing spot cannot succeed. And that's the point where it is no longer interesting for anyone besides the "skill maxer" to make such a roll. 

Yes, as the DM you can change this. But why can't I just take the system out of the box, use its general implications and reach a satisfiable result for all players?


----------



## Celebrim (Oct 4, 2007)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Keep in mind that some DCs are more or less "mandated" by the rules - if you have a group of ambushers, they will probably have hide and move silently ranks. Sure, they don't have to maximize the skills, but if these enemies are supposed to be sneaky, why haven't they maximized it?




This is an opposed check situation.  Part of the difficulty I have in answering this question is that I feel that some opposed checks are inherently broken as linearly opposed, and the perception/hide relationship would be a case in point.  Part of the problem is that the current spot/listen rules are inherently abusable, so that it is easy within the rules to justify ambushes where even the guy with +20 spot doesn't stand a chance.  The real fix here is in my opinion changing the way hide works and in particular how it works in relation to spot checks - but that is a totally different conversation.  

I do however understand your point and in fact already conceded this earlier in a different context.  There are cases where things improve if the range between skill checks gets narrower, and in particular they improve where there is a mandated high check (opposed check most likely) where the risk of failure is real but not overly large (you don't fall into lava or have a castle fall on you).  In that case, its easier to get some intermediate result over a wider range of levels than in the current system.

So there is definately room for improvement, but that improvement must be balanced against the reduced flexibility (dabbling, rather than binarily trained or untrained), loss of niche (classes which aren't associated with the skill are just as good at classes that are associated with the skill if the character hasn't chosen this as a trained skill), ugliness of multiclassing, increased skill complexity (more separation between trained and untrained uses), and power creep (everyone gets broadly better, numbers getting larger for the sake of getting larger) of the proposed solution.  

The aforementioned problems in the hide/perception mechanics weigh more heavily on me than the potential for wide variation in skill checks.


----------



## Cadfan (Oct 4, 2007)

Celebrim is right that in 3.x the DCs for group challenges should be set to the lowest players.  If a particular fight requires the players to climb a wall to get to the badguys who are shooting at them from above (or whatever reason you've cobbled together, point is a group challenge involving the climb skill) you have basically two choices.  Make the DC challenging to the best climber, or to the worst climber.  In the first option, the DC is "interesting" to the best climber, and impossible for everyone else.  In the second option, the DC is interesting to the majority of the players, and the player who invested heavily in the climb skill gets to rocket straight up the wall without hindrance- which is its own reward and is "interesting" in its own way.

But Mustrum Ridcully is right about opposed checks.  This sort of DM management fails once those become involved.

In any case, from a flavor perspective I don't mind the idea of characters getting generally more athletic as they go up in levels.  Lets say that a level 1 wizard has a climb bonus of +0 in 4e (no strength penalty, no ranks).  He can climb a DC 0 challenge,



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> A slope too steep to walk up, or a knotted rope with a wall to brace against.




with confidence.  Lets advance him 30 levels.  He now has a climb bonus of +15 at level 30 (no strength penalty, half level in ranks).  This lets him climb a DC 15 challenge,



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> Any surface with adequate handholds and footholds (natural or artificial), such as a very rough natural rock surface or a tree, or an unknotted rope, or pulling yourself up when dangling by your hands.




with confidence.  I don't think there's anything wrong with this.  The typical player has been out and about adventuring for 30 levels now, I'm glad he's figured out how to climb a tree.

The only problems I can see with the system are

1)  sometimes its nice to have a character who is just plain supernaturally good at a skill.  It looks like the highest difference between the skill checks is going to be the difference between ability scores, +5 for trained, and +5 for skill focus.  I like the idea that a level 20 fighter might be able to do some basic animal tracking in a pinch, but that the ranger can be better.  But sometimes I want the ranger to be ridiculously, fantastically better- the archetypal ranger with almost preternatural senses who can track a butterfly across the Serengeti.  That doesn't seem well represented by a difference of 10+wis.
2) Multiclassing will be awkward.  I'm interested in how this will be handled.
3) If skills are pared down to only adventure related ones, I'm going to miss the possibility of putting 5 ranks in Profession: Lawyer.  Nobody ever used it, but it was nice knowing it was there.


----------



## Stalker0 (Oct 4, 2007)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> 1)  sometimes its nice to have a character who is just plain supernaturally good at a skill.  It looks like the highest difference between the skill checks is going to be the difference between ability scores, +5 for trained, and +5 for skill focus.  I like the idea that a level 20 fighter might be able to do some basic animal tracking in a pinch, but that the ranger can be better.  But sometimes I want the ranger to be ridiculously, fantastically better- the archetypal ranger with almost preternatural senses who can track a butterfly across the Serengeti.  That doesn't seem well represented by a difference of 10+wis.




This actually can be fixed in 4e if they adjust the DCs. One of the benefits of a skill system like this is its more consistent.

For example, a designer can set a DC 15 challenge and say: "A 10th level character that doesn't have a minus in this stat will be able to take 10 and make this." This provides some consistency when creating challenges.

Further, if skill bonuses are harder to get, then its easier to set a point at which your skill can do amazing things. For example, a spot DC 40 might let you see an invisible creature. That would require a minimum +20 in the skill, which is nigh impossible for anyone but your trained focused ranger types.

Remember that as you take away extra bonuses to skills, a +1 to DC is NOT a linear scale, as there are fewer and fewer ways to obtain a +1 to the skill.

So DC 40 might become the "epic DC" and since skills are more consistent, you can easily just say that at DC 40 the skill can do something truely special. This is something you cannot do in 3.x, where diplomacy and jump checks can easily get in the 80's where other checks can only consistenly get in the 50's.


----------



## Stalker0 (Oct 4, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> This is an opposed check situation.  Part of the difficulty I have in answering this question is that I feel that some opposed checks are inherently broken as linearly opposed, and the perception/hide relationship would be a case in point.  Part of the problem is that the current spot/listen rules are inherently abusable, so that it is easy within the rules to justify ambushes where even the guy with +20 spot doesn't stand a chance.  The real fix here is in my opinion changing the way hide works and in particular how it works in relation to spot checks - but that is a totally different conversation.




It may be that spot vs high/ms is no longer an opposed check, it maybe a spot check vs 10 + hide skill, or 10+spot vs hide (I really hope they don't do the ladder, that will mean the guy in the party with the highest spot will always see stuff, making the other spot skills pointless).


----------



## jasin (Oct 4, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> What I'm saying is that if the rogue has a +20 to balance, you aren't going to set the DC even as high as DC 20 even in a SAGA-like system because you are going to have party members with around +10 to Balance, and with 4 other party members each with a 25%-50% chance of falling you are just about garuanteeing that one falls.  Instead, even in a saga like system, you are going to set the DC based on the average balance check of the group, not based on the balance check of the best member.



More or less, yes.

If the difference between the best and the worst is somewhere around 10-15 rather than 30-35, this makes it much less likely that a challenge with a DC set to average is still impossible to make for the worst and impossible to fail for the best.



> So, since the DC of a group challenge depends on what is an average skill and not the best skill, does it really matter except in terms of flavor whether the balance check is DC 10 or DC 15 or DC 5?



"Except in terms of flavour"? I'm not sure that should be so easily discounted. There's a big difference between a high level party barely/mostly surviving a shipwreck in a storm even though some of them aren't trained in swimming, and a high level party barely/mostly surviving a shipwreck in absolutely calm water.



> I don't think that is relevant.  The only way to make a group challenge challenge the strongest individual is if the average skill of the group is very close to the strongest member.  A difference of 15 (+75% chance of failure) isn't close enough to solve the problem.  Besides, focused 20th level rogue with 22 dex vs. armored 20th level Paladin with 10 Dex is a difference of more like 20, which might as well be a difference of 30 or 35.  I just don't see this as being necessarily a big net gain in gamability.



Yes, someone who is awesome (trained _and_ talented _and_ focused) at balancing with still beat the pants off someone who is crap at balancing (not talented _and_ not trained _and_ hindered by armour). But the difference between a typical rogue (so let's say trained in balance, but not focused) and a lightly armoured fighter will be a lot less.

This makes more of the challenges relevant for more of the characters. Isn't this obviously a good thing?



> From the DM's perspective, you are trying in a group challenge to get everyone involved and from that perspective a group challenge is 'better'.  But from the PC's perspective, if there is a significant risk, then it is always 'better' to turn a group challenge into an individual challenge if they can because this mitigates the risk.



Often, it's not possible to turn a group challenge into an individual challenge willingly. Getting tossed overboard, climbing a wall under fire, spotting an ambush, sneaking past guards, answering a question... these often aren't things you can just delegate to someone else.

The DM might construct situations where it is possible, because for many characters such a situation without possibility of delegation isn't a challenge but a simple notice of failure, and that's not very interesting.

But in my experience, people prefer to actually participate rather than just having the specialist deal with it, unless they know they have no option but to fail.



> True, but the scout's spot check keeps your scout from being surprised in an ambush, but it doesn't (necessarily) keep your wizard from being surprised.  So, even if the scout has no chance of being surprised, the wizard still has a stake in the challenge.



Not really, because the difficulties mostly scale out to keep up with the trained folks. If a spot check is called for, I'd be willing to bet money my wizard will fail.



> If the parties average spot DC increases systematically, the DM will simply be encouraged to increase the DC of the challenge accordingly, but you really aren't going to ever challenge the specialist with this sort of thing if the gap is even as big as 15.  Because if there is significant risk of the specialist failing, then almost certainly everyone else will as well.



A significant risk of the specialist failing and almost certainly everyone else failing is better than absolutely no risk of the specialist failing and absolute certainty of everyone else failing, isn't it?



> Suppose that the difference is 35, and your bonus is +2.  You are still interested in the DC 13 spot check to avoid surprise, even if the rogue has absolutely no chance of failing it.  And the rogue still has no chance of failing it it the difference is 15.   Ahh, but you say what if the DC is 23, wouldn't it then be more interesting if my bonus was +12.  To which I respond, you as a DM choose the DC.  The DC in the example is 23 because the bonus is +12; the bonus isn't +12 because the DC is 23.



If the difference is 15, a DC of 18 will make it at least mildly interesting for both the +2 and the +17 guy.

What's the DC that makes it interesting for both the +2 guy and the +37 guy?

Also bear in mind that a difference of 15 is pretty extreme in Saga. That's very talented and trained and focused compared to someone who is neither talented nor trained.



> Not so much.  I figure adventurers do alot more killing and drinking than log rolling.



And a lot more drinking than looking for ambushes? Even paladins, monks and wizards?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Oct 4, 2007)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> 1)  sometimes its nice to have a character who is just plain supernaturally good at a skill.  It looks like the highest difference between the skill checks is going to be the difference between ability scores, +5 for trained, and +5 for skill focus.  I like the idea that a level 20 fighter might be able to do some basic animal tracking in a pinch, but that the ranger can be better.  But sometimes I want the ranger to be ridiculously, fantastically better- the archetypal ranger with almost preternatural senses who can track a butterfly across the Serengeti.  That doesn't seem well represented by a difference of 10+wis.



What you can't have is a character that can do things extremely out of things normal people do. But with a few talents or feats that grant you skill rerolls, you will get a lot more consistent  in your ability. You will never have a DC that is impossible to make for a highly trained individual, but you can still succeed more often then him if you have taken such options to get "supernaturally" strong at it.


----------



## jasin (Oct 4, 2007)

Aust Diamondew said:
			
		

> Just use the 3e rule that if you aren't trained in a knowledge skill you can only make common knowledge checks (DC 10).



It might very well be how Saga does it (I can't check, and I don't remember).



> The only problem I see with saga style skill system is it has trouble representing characters who only dabble in some areas, being some where between trained and not trained.



That's true, but then, 3E often has trouble with that kind of character too, in the sense that they tend to suck. I very rarely see 3E characters with skill at less than maximum, which couldn't sacrifice that skill completely without compromising the concept much. (There are exceptions of course. One of the most fun things about my wizard is that he knows _everything_: at least a single rank in every single knowledge skill. )

But it could be argued that in Saga, everyone's a dabbler: in skills in which you aren't trained, you'll have modifiers somewhere between trained and not trained by 3E standards: +1/2 level, much like trained cross-class in 3E.

And if you want to model a jack-of-all-trades as distinct from the default omnicompetent hero in Saga, you might do it by way of class abilities. +2 to all untrained skill checks? Reroll all untrained skill checks (always, a certain number of times per day, or a certain number of times per encounter)? Allow a certain number of skills that can be used for trained-only uses even if you're untrained?


----------



## Celebrim (Oct 4, 2007)

jasin said:
			
		

> If the difference is 15, a DC of 18 will make it at least mildly interesting for both the +2 and the +17 guy.
> 
> What's the DC that makes it interesting for both the +2 guy and the +37 guy?




18.


UPDATE: Ok, maybe that's a bit too snarky.  A better stated version of the question is, are there more interesting DC's if you have a +2 and a +12 guy compared to a +2 and +22 guy.   And I agree that the answer to that is, "Yes."   In the first case, anything between about 14 and 20 is 'interesting' to both.  In the second case, you don't really have any overlapping area of challenge.  That's not always a problem (in fact sometimes its what you want), but it does give you some added flexibility in designing challenges.  However, I'm not sure that that is necessarily worth what you are giving up.


----------



## Castlin (Oct 4, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> But there are only so many collapsing castles or the like you can do in a campaign before it becomes silly.



If an adventure doesn't end with a collapsing castle, I write it off as a failure~ It is possible I have played too much Castlevania.

I was surprised nobody mentioned starting occupations. I know they're not in SWSE, but even if they don't make it into 4E (and I have no reason to suspect one way or another that they will), they would be an easy thing to houserule. There you go, you've got your farmers and crafters and lawyers etc. etc. Your minmaxers can take "adventurer" or "military" backgrounds and get a free Brawl feat or somesuch.

Personally, I'd be glad to see something like SWSE skill rules. I like that nigh-everything has a baseline advancement; it makes for more heroic games that I tend to enjoy more. The differences between what you can do trained and untrained are already there in 3.x, so its not like we're adding anything new there. Rerolls instead of static bonuses scale with levels nicer.


----------



## Remathilis (Oct 4, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> a) Send the stealthy guy in solo to retrieve the gizmo/coup de gras the BBEG.
> b) Disguise (or hide) the party as something believable and then use the party spokesperson to bluff his way in.  This turns a group challenge into an individual challenge.  Use a wagon if necessary.
> c) Bribe the guards, or offer to negotiate, or forge a pass, or otherwise do what it takes to make it one focused character's skill check vs. some low level guys opposed check.
> d) Forget about the skills. Plan a careful assault and attempt to overwhelm the camp.




I honest fail to see how ANY of these are good design policy. At best, you're boring the pants off 3 other people who came to role-play (and didn't all spend their skill points EXACTLY the same way) while Stabby McRogue has a solo adventure. I played a HL rogue, I know how it is. Its BORING to everyone else. When my rogue goes into sneak mode, my fellow players grab their Gameboys, cuz its about a half-hour of doing nothing except waiting for me. 

Its also poor since AIB: Alone is Bad. The rogue (not usally your best combatant) goes in alone into a situation he may not be ready for (scout down the halls, roll low on stealth, tip off frost giants, roll up new rogue). I'd rather have some people keeping up with me (or just far enough back) to save my bacon vs. those giants.

Sure, you can use guile or trickery, but that doesn't always work (and not because of the die roll). And all you've done is shift the dice rolls form the rogue to the bard. (or other diplomat). Either way, the other PCs are sitting around while ONE player gets to have all the fun. Yawn. When do I get to roll initiative?

Speaking of which, storm the camp eh? That's not a bad idea if you have some reconnaissance (hello Rogue solo adventure) or you are certain the DM isn't putting a ton of frost giants in there (because you'd NEVER use a monster above their encounter level, right?) and don't mind completely invalidating the rogue's job (next time play a fighter pal, you'll live longer). 

Sorry, you can argue about arbitrary DC levels and desert nomads doing the backstroke and have a valid point, but when you actually argue its better for the game for one character do do ALL the work while the rest sit around like bored cheerleaders, I call shenanigans. Players like to roll dice and feel they are contributing something to the scene (even if its a crap shoot of a d20 roll with a small scaling bonus). Otherwise, its going to be a long night, bring a Gameboy...


----------



## Greg K (Oct 4, 2007)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> I honest fail to see how ANY of these are good design policy. At best, you're boring the pants off 3 other people who came to role-play (and didn't all spend their skill points EXACTLY the same way) while Stabby McRogue has a solo adventure. I played a HL rogue, I know how it is. Its BORING to everyone else. When my rogue goes into sneak mode, my fellow players grab their Gameboys, cuz its about a half-hour of doing nothing except waiting for me.




 Thank god, the people I play with are actually entertaining and the GMs actually understand how to switch between groups at different locations and keep them occupied.  On the occassions where someone in our games ends up sitting out for a time, they are engrossed in what is going- laughing, groaning or praying/rooting that the character(s) involved actually pull off what ever they are attempting.


----------



## Zurai (Oct 4, 2007)

Greg K said:
			
		

> Thank god, the people I play with are actually entertaining and the GMs actually understand how to switch between groups at different locations and keep them occupied.  On the occassions where someone in our games ends up sitting out for a time, they are engrossed in what is going- laughing, groaning or praying/rooting that the character(s) involved actually pull off what ever they are attempting.




That was my first thought as well. Thank God my players/friends aren't "MEMEMEME's" who only care about the game if their own character is directly in the spotlight.


----------



## Cadfan (Oct 4, 2007)

Zurai said:
			
		

> That was my first thought as well. Thank God my players/friends aren't "MEMEMEME's" who only care about the game if their own character is directly in the spotlight.




That is an _excellent_ reason why the game should have features which split up the party, leaving several characters sit on the sidelines, even though it could be designed otherwise.


----------



## Celebrim (Oct 4, 2007)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> I honest fail to see how ANY of these are good design policy.




Your post strikes me as a rant, and I can't get up the emotion to respond in kind.

Design policy?  What kind of design policy precludes player choice?  All I'm saying is that it is very hard in general to design challenges where the player's can't or won't attempt to find a way to by pass them.  Even if you design a camp shaped dungeon with the idea that the players will sneak into it together, you can't as a DM ensure that that is the course of action that they take. 

And if you do always ensure that your players can only overcome or even attempt to overcome your challenges in the expected way, then you've got a bigger problem with your design than the fact that the group might legitimately decide to give one player the glory or even split the party.


----------



## Zurai (Oct 4, 2007)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> That is an _excellent_ reason why the game should have features which split up the party, leaving several characters sit on the sidelines, even though it could be designed otherwise.




I'm hard pressed to think of a single example of a fantasy or sci-fi movie or book that I've enjoyed where the characters were together for the entirety of the plot, and never once had to split up - which has the benefit of exposing both their strengths and their weaknesses.

If the characters can be assured that they will never, ever be split up, their weaknesses become immaterial because the other party members will *always* be able to cover for them. Might as well not even have weaknesses at that point. Similarly, their strengths won't shine as much, especially in cases like stealth (where the lowest roll in the party determines the party's success).

A well-rounded character should have something it is good at and something it really isn't at all good at, *and a well-rounded adventure series should, in time, highlight both of those circumstances*.


----------



## Terraism (Oct 4, 2007)

jasin said:
			
		

> "Except in terms of flavour"? I'm not sure that should be so easily discounted. There's a big difference between a high level party barely/mostly surviving a shipwreck in a storm even though some of them aren't trained in swimming, and a high level party barely/mostly surviving a shipwreck in absolutely calm water.




Chiming in again - and, wow, did I kick off a poor example with my crippled wizard thing - but I wanted to add that, while I do think characters _shouldn't_ be decent at things they haven't worked on, in the past (and I expect to continue so into the future,) I've done that by giving action points out.  If a high-level party is really pushing to survive a shipwreck in a storm, they don't just drown if they haven't trained in it, but instead, they spend a significant resource, instead.  A sort of "everything push".


----------



## drothgery (Oct 4, 2007)

jasin said:
			
		

> It might very well be how Saga does it (I can't check, and I don't remember).




It is; you can't make knowledge checks with a DC of 15 or higher untrained.


----------



## Grog (Oct 4, 2007)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> Its also poor since AIB: Alone is Bad.



In fact, didn't the 3E designers say that they built the system around the combat encounter because that was the one time when they could be sure that everyone in the party would be doing something?

Or am I misremembering?


----------



## Zurai (Oct 4, 2007)

Grog said:
			
		

> In fact, didn't the 3E designers say that they built the system around the combat encounter because that was the one time when they could be sure that everyone in the party would be doing something?
> 
> Or am I misremembering?




Contrarily, the reason "Alone is bad" is because 3E encounters are designed assuming that the entire party is present.


----------



## Remathilis (Oct 4, 2007)

Zurai said:
			
		

> I'm hard pressed to think of a single example of a fantasy or sci-fi movie or book that I've enjoyed where the characters were together for the entirety of the plot, and never once had to split up - which has the benefit of exposing both their strengths and their weaknesses.




Ah, but we're not supposed to be emulating fantasy or sci-fi movies, are we?


----------



## Grog (Oct 4, 2007)

Zurai said:
			
		

> Contrarily, the reason "Alone is bad" is because 3E encounters are designed assuming that the entire party is present.



How else would you design a party-based game?


----------



## jasin (Oct 4, 2007)

Greg K said:
			
		

> Thank god, the people I play with are actually entertaining and the GMs actually understand how to switch between groups at different locations and keep them occupied.



With a group of such superior quality, you should have no trouble adapting even to Saga-like skills then.

Meanwhile, less excellent DMs and players might find their games improved by a system that makes it easier for the DM to engage most of the group.

So everybody's happy, right?


----------



## Zurai (Oct 4, 2007)

Grog said:
			
		

> How else would you design a party-based game?




By including enough solo/fragmented party content that the aforementioned individual strengths and weaknesses have some face time as well?


----------



## Zurai (Oct 4, 2007)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> Ah, but we're not supposed to be emulating fantasy or sci-fi movies, are we?




Says who? I've heard the designers say several times that they want the game to feel more cinematic.


----------



## Grog (Oct 4, 2007)

Zurai said:
			
		

> By including enough solo/fragmented party content that the aforementioned individual strengths and weaknesses have some face time as well?



If you can do this without making everyone else sit around doing nothing while one player has all the fun, then great.

IME it doesn't usually work that way. So I prefer that the whole party be engaged in the game as often as possible.


----------



## Zurai (Oct 4, 2007)

Grog said:
			
		

> If you can do this without making everyone else sit around doing nothing while one player has all the fun, then great.




This is a player problem, not a design problem. If players cannot stay interested in the game when they aren't the ones doing the immediate action, how do you ever get through combat?


----------



## Grog (Oct 4, 2007)

Zurai said:
			
		

> This is a player problem, not a design problem. If players cannot stay interested in the game when they aren't the ones doing the immediate action, how do you ever get through combat?



Please. The break between turns in combat is not nearly as long as the break between "turns" can get in other situations. As Remathilis pointed out, if the party rogue decides to scout out an area by himself (because he's the only one who has a chance of staying hidden), that basically amounts to a solo adventure for the rogue while the other players twiddle their thumbs.

That most certainly is not a player problem.


----------



## Primitive Screwhead (Oct 4, 2007)

drothgery said:
			
		

> It is; you can't make knowledge checks _{in SWSA}_ with a DC of 15 or higher untrained.




I was thinking the same sort of thing while reading just abit upthread, altho in keeping with my favorite Sean Reynolds rant on avoiding absolutes, I think I would prefer a rule similar to:

Untrained attempts for checks of DC 15 or greater incur a -5 penalty to the check.
In this fashion it would be 'possible' for an untrained character to pull something out of hat of knowledge, but very rare.

This would put the spread for higher level uses to 20 points instead of 15. Perhaps a good thing?


----------



## Celebrim (Oct 5, 2007)

Grog said:
			
		

> As Remathilis pointed out, if the party rogue decides to scout out an area by himself (because he's the only one who has a chance of staying hidden), that basically amounts to a solo adventure for the rogue while the other players twiddle their thumbs.
> 
> That most certainly is not a player problem.




Wait a minute here.  It might not be a player 'problem' but it is a player decision.  The DM doesn't decide whether the whole party or just one rogue is going to scout out something.

You can pretend all you like that this has to do with disparities in skill levels, but its nothing of the sort.  It's the inherent nature of scouting that small groups draw less attention to themselves than large groups.  Even if the entire party was sneaky rogues, it would still be a perfectly valid choice (and maybe even the safest choice) to just send one player character in on a scouting mission.

Suppose you have a party of 8 sneaky rogues, and each has a 95% chance of sneaking into and out of the camp without being noticed.

If I send in the whole party, that's a 33% chance that we will rouse the camp.  I'm far better off sending in just one sneaky rogue (preferably the sneakiest), so that I have a 95% chance of mission success.  If I absolutely need more than one rogue for some reason (maybe I have to carry out something heavy) I'm going to choose to send in the minimum number of players to carry out the mission because that's the smart thing to do.  If something goes wrong, then I'll try to sneak in with whoever didn't go the first time to rescue the first player/group.  I'm not going to go, 'Hey.  Let's risk a campaign ending TPK because its not fun for some of us to wait for an hour while one guy does his thing.'  And if one of the other players suggested that he wants to risk the mission and the party and possibly the campaign because its boring to stay behind, I'm going to percieve that player as being a serious liability.  

The fact everyone is reasonably likely to succeed does not inherently turn an individual challenge into a group challenge.  Just because everyone could theoretically climb the wall, doesn't mean that you don't send one guy up first and have him throw down a rope for everyone else.  To force it to be a group challenge there needs to be some additive rather than subtractive value to more people (odds of success have to go up rather than down, as almost never happens on a stealth mission), and usually there has to be a tightly constrained ammount of time to complete the task.  And to force it to be a skill challenge as well, you have to have a situation where less skillful classes don't have a stronger alternative solution which more or less gets around the need for skill ranks completely (for example, turning invisible, flying, etc.)


----------



## Zurai (Oct 5, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Wait a minute here.  It might not be a player 'problem' but it is a player decision.




Thank you for explaining it much better than I have been.

Everyone else, read what he just wrote and ignore what I've written. He said it a lot better.


----------



## MerricB (Oct 5, 2007)

Zurai said:
			
		

> I'm hard pressed to think of a single example of a fantasy or sci-fi movie or book that I've enjoyed where the characters were together for the entirety of the plot, and never once had to split up - which has the benefit of exposing both their strengths and their weaknesses.




Indeed. Good novels and films will normally break up the party.

However, how many good novels do you know where you have to skip 50 pages of the text and wait 1 hour (doing nothing) before you can start again?

This is a game, not a novel. 

Player downtime is a big, big problem in most games. In any three-hour 3-player game, you can normally expect each player to get 1 hour of play and 2 hours of downtime. (That's boardgame, cardgame, RPG, etc.) However, the length of each period of downtime is important.

Thankfully, in D&D, being a RPG, even not acting can be fun as you're watching the other players do stuff. This can really come to the fore in role-playing sections, as the other players enjoy the banter between their spokespeople and the DM's NPCs. 

Bad is when the adventure design *forces* this downtime on players. It's acceptable if the group chooses it. It's not acceptable when the rogue just wants to rob houses "because". (Me!Me!Me!Me!Me!)

Cheers!


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Oct 5, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> You can pretend all you like that this has to do with disparities in skill levels, but its nothing of the sort.




It is *everything* of the sort.

Only in D&D do you get the situation where a party of *4* is too large a group to go scouting.

Consider the break-in to Thulsa Doom's palace in the movie _Conan The Barbarian_.

Would that have been a better sequence if Subotai had snuck in alone, then come out and "picked up" Conan and Valeria, who then ... charged the gates?


----------



## Grog (Oct 5, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> You can pretend all you like that this has to do with disparities in skill levels, but its nothing of the sort.  It's the inherent nature of scouting that small groups draw less attention to themselves than large groups.  Even if the entire party was sneaky rogues, it would still be a perfectly valid choice (and maybe even the safest choice) to just send one player character in on a scouting mission.



Not necessarily. If the party just sends the rogue to scout, he has a greater chance of not being noticed, true. But if he is noticed, there's a good chance that he's not going to make it out of the area alive.

If the whole party is capable of at least attempting to sneak, it gives them a choice, where each option has its pros and cons. Do they send just the rogue, who probably won't get noticed, but if he does get noticed, will probably die, or do the send the whole party, who will have a greater chance of being noticed, but if they are noticed, will be much more capable of dealing with the consequences?

It also leads to other potentially interesting decisions, like should the fighter remove his armor (less chance he'll be noticed, but he'll also be more vulnerable if he is noticed)? These choices don't exist with the 3.X skill system, because the fighter is hopeless at sneaking with or without armor.

A skill system where there aren't such wide disparities between the best and the worst gives both players and DMs more options. This is a good thing IMO.


----------



## Nifft (Oct 5, 2007)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Only in D&D do you get the situation where a party of *4* is too large a group to go scouting.



 Nice.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Remathilis (Oct 5, 2007)

Zurai said:
			
		

> Says who? I've heard the designers say several times that they want the game to feel more cinematic.






			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> I think too many people are trying to emulate literature and movies in their games where in the source material, things moved and acted with the power of plot and not with any coherent framework.




Sorry, I just found the two quotes at odds with one another. I know you don't speak for each other, but its funny one is justifying a certain game element with "D&D is not cinematic" and another person (arguing a similar point) draws on cinematic structure to prove his point. 

Which returns me to my original point: D&D should split the difference between cinematic and not, dependent on what is the most fun for the players. If that means every PC having a small, scaling chance at attempting higher than 10 DCs with level so as not to split the party and exclude the other players from the encounter, so be it.

My (hopefully) final example come from the old Star Wars d20. Back in the day to pilot a ship, you needed ranks in pilot AND a feat (Starship Operation: either fighter or transport). Every class had pilot on their class list, but not every PC had the skill points or wherewithal to put ranks into it (or the feat slot to buy the feat). Thus, if you ever wanted to run ship-to-ship space combat (such as a Death Star Trench Run) any PC who invested in it got to have fun, but those who didn't (by character design or player preference) couldn't. Or they could try, but had horrible penalties (thanks to the lack of the feat) to do so. So as a GM, space combat was a double-edge sword: Those who had invested skill ranks and the feat WANTED space combat so as not to let that go to waste. Those that didn't were bored during those long combats and hated Ship to Ship since they were practically useless (later, we found the rules for PCs as crew, which mitigated the pain somewhat by giving everyone a die roll, even if it was a comp use check to restore shields).

Now in Saga, everyone slowly becomes a proficient pilot. There is no more feat, so any PC can jump into the cockpit and perform basic stunts. A dedicated pilot (someone trained, focused, and talented) can literally fly circles around them, but the PCs can all contribute something as pilots and thus act in a large, cinematic space combat. Fun levels improved and the former players who would sit bored during Space Combat commented how fun it was. 

Hopefully, D&D can emulate that same feeling for other daring combat encounters: balancing on ice bridges, chasing foes on horseback, or escaping sinking ships. It will be fun, and everyone will get to be involved in it.


----------



## Celebrim (Oct 5, 2007)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> It is *everything* of the sort.
> 
> Only in D&D do you get the situation where a party of *4* is too large a group to go scouting.




That situation isn't going to change if you adopt the SWSE skill rules.  Far more extensive changes to the rules would be required, starting with making D&D a dice pool system like WE Star Wars, WoD ect.  And even then, it doesn't stop the fact that one is better at sneaking than many, it just mitigates the risk to the point where you might consider it.

Suppose you have 5 characters, one of which (trained) has a 95% chance of sneaking through the camp, the rest have (untrained) a 70% chance.   The odds that the party of five get through the camp without being noticed is less than 23%.   And realistically, matters are even worse, because in reality a prolonged operation is going to involve multiple skill checks.  The four guys with 70% chance of success are a liability, not an asset.  

If there was a reasonable chance that the party of 5 could handle whatever challenges result from failing the sneak test, then its likely that pure stealth isn't the best option.



> Consider the break-in to Thulsa Doom's palace in the movie _Conan The Barbarian_.




Oh good grief.  How many times do I have to say this?  RPG's are not movies.  They are not novels.  They are not comic books.  They are RPG's.  They inherently work according to different rules, namely _that they work by rules_.



> Would that have been a better sequence if Subotai had snuck in alone, then come out and "picked up" Conan and Valeria, who then ... charged the gates?




No, that wouldn't have been a better sequence.  But so what?  It's a movie.  The protagonists are protected by the power of plot and can essentially do anything.  It doesn't have to make sense.  It doesn't have to follow any sort of rules.  It doesn't have to have an actual map, or continuity, or logic.  It only has to look good.  'It worked differently in the movies' is not a very strong argument.  It's even a less strong argument than 'It works differently in real life', and frankly I don't know how it works in real life exactly but I do know that scouting missions are usually undertaken by very small groups (often as few as two).  Frankly, I think that one of the principle reasons that recon missions aren't undertaken in real life solo has nothing to do with stealth, and everything to do with facing/range of vision.  So, if you want to bring back facing to the D&D rules and get some rules for perception arcs, feel free, but keep in mind that emmulating realism isn't necessarily any more likely to make a fun game than emmulating movies is (when either is even possible).


----------



## Celebrim (Oct 5, 2007)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> Sorry, I just found the two quotes at odds with one another. I know you don't speak for each other, but its funny one is justifying a certain game element with "D&D is not cinematic" and another person (arguing a similar point) draws on cinematic structure to prove his point.




It happens in threads all the time.  I see it as a sign that people don't really know what they want, or if they know what they want they don't know how to get it or say it.



> Which returns me to my original point: D&D should split the difference between cinematic and not, dependent on what is the most fun for the players.




Ok, sure.  But it doesn't follow that a rule change will get there.  There is a big difference between the goal and intention of the rule and its actual effect.  You can't say, 'Because my rule has this as a goal, it will achieve this goal.'  The fact is, it doesn't in general achieve the goal of not 'excluding' other players from challenges.  



> Back in the day to pilot a ship, you needed ranks in pilot AND a feat (Starship Operation: either fighter or transport).




In my opinion, the big problem was the requirement of a feat.  I really hate feats that open up options that ought to be available to everyone.  At various points in 3.X, feats where introduced like 'Pick up and throw your opponent'.  You don't need a feat for that.  Children can pick up and throw thier opponents without being combat masters.   A feat was simply the wrong mechanic.  Instead of a feat, there should have been a manuever available to anyone, and a feat that allowed some improvement in the manuever with a section for what happened normally if you didn't have the feat.



> Thus, if you ever wanted to run ship-to-ship space combat (such as a Death Star Trench Run) any PC who invested in it got to have fun, but those who didn't (by character design or player preference) couldn't.




So now the player preference of not investing in pilot is a bad thing?



> (later, we found the rules for PCs as crew, which mitigated the pain somewhat by giving everyone a die roll, even if it was a comp use check to restore shields).




Hmmm... wonderful how reading the rules helps.



> Now in Saga, everyone slowly becomes a proficient pilot. There is no more feat, so any PC can jump into the cockpit and perform basic stunts. A dedicated pilot (someone trained, focused, and talented) can literally fly circles around them, but the PCs can all contribute something as pilots and thus act in a large, cinematic space combat. Fun levels improved and the former players who would sit bored during Space Combat commented how fun it was.




Great.  However, the problem isn't actually 'fixed'.  You can't really gaurantee that everyone is going to have thier own ship.  Certainly in the source material, there are long stretches were everyone doesn't have thier own ship: alot of the action occurs aboard the Falcon, Chewy pilots the Imperial Shuttle basically by himself.  Most of the time the rest of the 'PC party' basically sits around uselessly, because there is only one pilots chair.  (This is why ships with multiple crew stations are good design.  Man those turrets farmboy.)  

So, while in theory maybe people can contribute, in practice you never know what's going to happen.

I should also note that in combat more people adds to rather than subtracts from the chance of success.  (Strictly speaking, this isn't true, but to the extent that it isn't true it doesn't make for a better game.)  It isn't hard to force a group to contribute in combat.  In fact, you have to go out of your way to keep it from happening, so its not a hard problem to fix. 



> Hopefully, D&D can emulate that same feeling for other daring combat encounters: balancing on ice bridges, chasing foes on horseback, or escaping sinking ships. It will be fun, and everyone will get to be involved in it.




*sigh*  I hope it works out.  I really do.  But hoping something works and it actually working are two different things.


----------



## Remathilis (Oct 5, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Hmmm... wonderful how reading the rules helps.




In the Revised edition. They were noticeably absent in the original (1st) edition.


----------



## Primitive Screwhead (Oct 5, 2007)

Methinks this discussion is wandering off topic from skill mechanics to table courtesies.. but I feel the desire to make a comment regarding the 'boring' wait while the specialist character does thier thing.

 To me, roleplaying is a cooperative game in which each character contributes to the success of the party. Sometimes this means you sit on your bum, hoping that the pilot doesn't crash into an asteroid and wipe your the entire party. Or stand near the door while the Rogue scouts out the entry of the haunted mansion. Or wait in the car while the decker hacks the security cameras. Or watches as the Mage spends days on end crafting the Bane weapon that will save humanity as we know it.

 Guess what. If the DM focuses for an hour on a single player while 3 to 5 other players are sitting around, thats not a mechanical problem with the rules. Thats a problem with the DM's concept of pacing. It is possible to run scouting expiditions for the lone rogue while not leaving the rest of the *players* cooling thier heels. Its also possible to run a split party. {pain in the *&%, but possible...}

If the new skill mechanic makes it easier to challenge the group as a whole, together, while preserving the specialists "y'all just hang here while I take care of this' capability.. I am good with that 

YMMV

{side note, in the WEG Star Wars campaign I played in for years, it was not uncommon to have a split party and my character was often off on other business. Kudo's to my GM for keeping it running smoothly...as well as to the group for being able to sit back and watch when it was someone elses 'turn'.... My character did evenutally learn piloting, but more from a need to go places without the idealistic young jedi than a meta-game desire to *do* something during space combat.}


----------



## Imp (Oct 5, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> That situation isn't going to change if you adopt the SWSE skill rules.  Far more extensive changes to the rules would be required, starting with making D&D a dice pool system like WE Star Wars, WoD ect.  And even then, it doesn't stop the fact that one is better at sneaking than many, it just mitigates the risk to the point where you might consider it.



Isn't the obvious way to solve this to have some sort of "follow my lead" rules wherein the master of stealth or whatever can bring a small number of cohorts along by accepting a modifier to his skill check?  It's what I would do if I were rebuilding the skill system.


----------



## Stalker0 (Oct 5, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Suppose you have 5 characters, one of which (trained) has a 95% chance of sneaking through the camp, the rest have (untrained) a 70% chance.   The odds that the party of five get through the camp without being noticed is less than 23%.   And realistically, matters are even worse, because in reality a prolonged operation is going to involve multiple skill checks.  The four guys with 70% chance of success are a liability, not an asset.




This is 3e thinking, we have to consider that 4e may do spot vs hide differently.

For example, it may be that you take 10 on hide checks and the spotter makes a roll. In such a case, if you have 5 people with a 70% chance to beat that spot check, then the party as a whole has a 70% chance. Now its true that if one guy has a 95% the party is dragging him down, but FAR less than the scenario you describe.

We can't look at the skill system in a vacuum but consider other possibilities to complement what we know.


----------



## Celebrim (Oct 5, 2007)

Imp said:
			
		

> Isn't the obvious way to solve this to have some sort of "follow my lead" rules wherein the master of stealth or whatever can bring a small number of cohorts along by accepting a modifier to his skill check?  It's what would do if I were rebuilding the skill system.




I'm not sure that's an obvious way to solve the problem, and it has a little bit of wierdness to it*, but sure, that is one approach.

However, in this case, it's still a single character challenge.  The other characters aren't really participating in the challenge, just being conveyed to whatever the next one is.

*One of the wierdnesses of your rule is that as stated, it doesn't seem to matter what the skill levels are of whoever is going along with you.  To resolve that, you'd have to have some sort of complex variation of 'aid another', that let you figure out how much harder it was to lead an oafish giant in platemail compared to a halfling rogue just a few levels lower than yourself.  By the time you get a system that handles all the wierdness, it's no longer a straight forward method.


----------



## Celebrim (Oct 5, 2007)

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> This is 3e thinking, we have to consider that 4e may do spot vs hide differently.




I certainly hope so.  Improved hide rules was near the top of my list.



> For example, it may be that you take 10 on hide checks and the spotter makes a roll. In such a case, if you have 5 people with a 70% chance to beat that spot check, then the party as a whole has a 70% chance.




This has wierdness associated with it too.  Now, it doesn't matter how many people there are.  Every square foot of the yard contains a ninja, and its no easier to notice than one ninja in the shadows.  A thousand men ambush just as a effectively as five.  I imagine one of those scenes from children's books where 20 kids are crammed into a closet hiding.  I'm not saying its necessarily a bad approach, but it would need work.



> Now its true that if one guy has a 95% the party is dragging him down, but FAR less than the scenario you describe.




For the purposes of the example, it doesn't really matter.  All the numbers are just there to illustrate the point.  The point is that the other people don't make him more stealthy, and so don't encourage the solving of a stealth challenge by non-stealthy characters even if the gap between stealthy and non-stealthy is smaller.


----------



## Imp (Oct 5, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> However, in this case, it's still a single character challenge.  The other characters aren't really participating in the challenge, just being conveyed to whatever the next one is.



Yeah but it doesn't leave the rest of the party at camp – it's not as bad.



> *One of the wierdnesses of your rule is that as stated, it doesn't seem to matter what the skill levels are of whoever is going along with you.  To resolve that, you'd have to have some sort of complex variation of 'aid another', that let you figure out how much harder it was to lead an oafish giant in platemail compared to a halfling rogue just a few levels lower than yourself.  By the time you get a system that handles all the wierdness, it's no longer a straight forward method.



You don't have to make it that complex... a series of mods should do it.  "Each party member that has at least 1/2 your ranks in the skill: +1; Cohort is improperly equipped: -2; Cohort is uncooperative or distracted: -4; each party member beyond the 2nd: -2", etc., figuring some sort of base penalty to start with and going from there.  In any case it should be the mark of a master rogue or ranger that he can insert a fighter with platemail into an armed camp, or abscond with a fainting prince(ss).


----------



## halfpintgamer1976 (Oct 5, 2007)

mach1.9pants said:
			
		

> Hi All,
> I was reading through the 'star wars' stuff that 'might' be relevent to 4E. And I was appalled to see that skills are either trained or untrained. I hope that this will not apply to 4E, please someone put my worries to rest 'cos I am excited about another edition. If not, your roll would be:
> "1/2 character level + relevant ability modifier + 5 (if trained) + 5 (if Skill Focus)"
> I have two MAJOR problems with this:
> ...



I like it. For someone who hasn't played d andd before meeting my husband, true 20 was a far easier system. I pick the skills i want my character to have and voila, he has those skills.  Adding i nthe numbers and how many points you got seemed to be needless math.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Oct 5, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> That situation isn't going to change if you adopt the SWSE skill rules.




Yes, it would.

In SWSE, the non-sneaker of decent level has a +4 to +8 to Stealth (+2 Dex, 4th to 12th level, *no armor check penalty*).

In D&D, the non-sneaker of decent level has a +2 to -14 to both Hide and Move Silently (+2 Dex, +0 to -16 ACP).

You don't see any difference in probability between those numbers?

The SWSE rules make it so that the party, as a whole, has a fairly decent chance to sneak past the mook guards, but that the talented sneaker is the only one with decent chance to sneak past the dedicated, high-level guard.  Contrast this with the D&D rules, which make it impossible for the party, as a whole, to sneak past just about anyone.




> Oh good grief.  How many times do I have to say this?  RPG's are not movies.  They are not novels.  They are not comic books.  They are RPG's.  They inherently work according to different rules, namely _that they work by rules_.




Oh good grief yourself.

The fact that you keep responding like this says to me that you have absolutely no idea how the minds of roleplayers work.

I find your lack of imagination disturbing.


----------



## Zurai (Oct 5, 2007)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> In D&D, the non-sneaker of decent level has a +2 to -14 to both Hide and Move Silently (+2 Dex, +0 to -16 ACP).




How do you get -16 ACP? The heaviest PHB armor is -7, and shields don't count since you wouldn't be wielding them while sneaking around. EDIT: And Hide/Move Silently aren't double-penalized like Swim is.


----------



## Celebrim (Oct 5, 2007)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> The fact that you keep responding like this says to me that you have absolutely no idea how the minds of roleplayers work.




Perhaps.  But I have a fairly good idea how novels, movies, and games work and feel confident in saying that they work differently and not everything that works in one can be ported to another.  You can craft rules sets to emulate specific elements of a movie but rule sets are null sum games.  There are trade offs.  Doing one thing means you can't do something else (as well).  If you wish to argue otherwise, feel free to do so.  If you want to explain to me how you think the minds of roleplayers work, you can do that to.  

Telling me about myself is probably a non-productive line of argument though.



> I find your lack of imagination disturbing.




I find your personal attacks feeble.


----------



## Aaron2 (Oct 5, 2007)

Much of this discussion is based on the notion that all the players will max out their main skills while never advancing anything else. This hasn't been my experience at all. My players will often add skill ranks in odd skills based on what happened in the previous adventure. So, for example, if they spent an adventure on horseback, they'd add a rank in Ride. By now, their character sheets are tiny histories of their past adventures: those ranks in Animal Handling from when they teamed up with a group of Rangers, the Cleric's Swim from when he almost drown (something just about impossible to do) and that one rank in Pilot (gnomish submarine) from when they escaped from the besieged fortress of Barak Var. 

That's something I would rather not lose.


Aaron


----------



## Stalker0 (Oct 5, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> I certainly hope so.  Improved hide rules was near the top of my list.
> 
> This has wierdness associated with it too.  Now, it doesn't matter how many people there are.  Every square foot of the yard contains a ninja, and its no easier to notice than one ninja in the shadows.  A thousand men ambush just as a effectively as five.  I imagine one of those scenes from children's books where 20 kids are crammed into a closet hiding.  I'm not saying its necessarily a bad approach, but it would need work.




Agreed, needs something more. Alright, let's throw the concealment rules back in. So now you can only hide if you have some cover and concealment. So now your numbers are limited by how much cover and concealment you have. That fixes the problem you mention of the 50 people moving across the yard.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Oct 5, 2007)

Zurai said:
			
		

> How do you get -16 ACP?




Plate and Tower Shield, a fairly common combination.

Notice that it's a *range*.

-6 (+2 Dex, -8 Full Plate) is certainly within the range and, again, largely makes it impossible to sneak past anything.


----------



## Stalker0 (Oct 5, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> For the purposes of the example, it doesn't really matter.  All the numbers are just there to illustrate the point.  The point is that the other people don't make him more stealthy, and so don't encourage the solving of a stealth challenge by non-stealthy characters even if the gap between stealthy and non-stealthy is smaller.




It does....to a point. Whenever a rogue goes off by himself, he's paying a cost. He's paying the risk that if he is discovered, he will be forced to fight alone without the benefit of the party. This cost is balanced by the increased risk of being discovered in the first place.

In current dnd, there is no balance. The fighter is so horrifically unstealthy, that bringing him along assures you will be discovered, its just a question of when.

If the gap is smaller, the rogue may be willing to accept the protection of his party in exchange for a slight increase in failure. But not always, and that's the beauty of it.

For example, the party may sneak into the castle, past the mook guards. However, only the rogue can get past the elite bedroom guards. So the party splits up before, but instead of at the front of the castle, they split at the bedroom. Instead of the rogue having an hour miniadventure through the whole of the castle, he has a 10 minute one. He still gets to shine, but everyone is still included.



All of that said, I don't know if the 4e mechanics will make this happen. The gap may still be too wide. However, the theory is there. If the gap is small enough, you will likely start seeing more of this behavior.


----------



## Zurai (Oct 5, 2007)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Plate and Tower Shield, a fairly common combination.
> 
> Notice that it's a *range*.
> 
> -6 (+2 Dex, -8 Full Plate) is certainly within the range and, again, largely makes it impossible to sneak past anything.




1. Shield ACP doesn't count when you've got the shield stowed (ie, don't have it strapped on ready for combat).

2. Full plate is -6, not -8.

3. Who in their right mind uses a tower shield? +2 AC is NOT worth -2 to hit. And, in actuality, it's only +1 AC since you can take Shield Specialization for heavy shields but not tower shields.

That said, I was just curious where you'd gotten such an absurd ACP as -16 for anything but swimming. Carry on.


----------



## Celebrim (Oct 5, 2007)

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> Agreed, needs something more. Alright, let's throw the concealment rules back in. So now you can only hide if you have some cover and concealment. So now your numbers are limited by how much cover and concealment you have. That fixes the problem you mention of the 50 people moving across the yard.




Ok, this has been boiling in the back of my mind for a while now, and I'm generally secretive about both my house rules and my ideas for future house rules, but since 3.5 looks like its going to die, this is what I've been thinking.

The current hide rules are broken.  I could probably brainstorm up a dozen or more situations where they produce very unintuitive and/or abusable results.

First of all, you don't need a hide skill to hide well.  Kids can hide great, even without lots of ranks in it.  What you need is cover or concealment.  In an absolutely black cave, everyone hides perfectly well for everyone else.

So the first thing you need to do is come up with some rules for what the base difficulty of spotting someone is depending on the available cover or concealment.  If you hide in something that provides 100% cover, your hide skill doesn't have a large effect on the chance of going unseen.  On the opposite end up the spectrum, if you hide in a bare room the sneaky guy is almost as likely to be seen as the non-sneaky guy. 

So what is hide really?  Hide is the ability to go unnoticed, and the ability to go unnoticed is primarily the skill at appearing smaller than you are.  AHA!  Knowing this tells us what a hide check does.  It reduces our effective size.   

The difficulty in spotting someone is therefore not linearly opposed to thier hide skill but rather equal to: 

base difficulty based on terrain + number of range increments + modifiers for effective size of the hidden object + circumstance modifiers (like being prone).

A hide skill might look something like this:

Hide 
DC 10: Your effective size is one size class smaller
DC 15: Your effective size is two size classes smaller
DC 25: Your effective size is three size classes smaller.  Fine creatures become invisible.
DC 40: Your effective size is four size classes smaller.  Diminutive creatures become invisible.
....

Note that being small doesn't make hiding easier directly (no bonuses to hide), but it does make you harder to spot (as described below).

Now, how do we know the number of range increments.  Ideally, we don't use a linear system.  When something is twice as far away, it's 1/4 its effective visual profile.  So ideally, we'd have some non-linear system for figuring out range increments.  But that might be hard to calculate (neat optional rule though) to the point of being impractical.  The important thing to note is that in most cases, a range increment is quite large and depends on the assumptions of available concealment.  On a completely empty wide stone floor, you really aren't any harder to see 100' way than you are 50' away.  On the other hand, if you are in a terrain that provides concealment being farther away is more important.

Now, here's the elegant part.  Being small is essentially the same as being farther away.  So we don't need separate modifiers for range increments and size.  All we need is to cross reference size by terrain to get range are assumed range increments, and use size + terrain to figure out our base available concealment.  That is a fine creature might have 75% concealment in short grass, and corresponding base difficulty to spot, whereas a medium creature effectively has none.  But, if you can hide really well you can get your effective size down to fine and do those supernatural stealthy things that we want our high level sneaks to do.

There are all sorts of great things about this approach.  First, it isn't abusable.  High level hide does not trump low levels of spot except when we would want it to, because its not a linear test.  You automatically can't hide well in the open at close distance, because no matter how small you make yourself you have no cover or concealment to take advantage of.   We don't need special rules or exceptions.  In fact, we now have good rules for what 'Hide in Plain Site' actually means - its the ability to manufacture concealment when by the rules otherwise there would be none.  This is powerful, but is easy to resolve and not nearly as prone to abuse or misunderstanding as it currently is.

And we solve the problem of the 10' range increment to spot checks.

But even better, we know no longer have to have everyone in the party have high levels of stealth in order to engage in a stealthy mission.  All we have to do is give the party good oppurtunities to make use of cover and concealment and they will naturally beat low level spot skills.  I mean, the reason that in real life small groups can go sneak around successfully is that high levels of sneakiness isn't necessary to hide.  All you really need is someplace to hide.

Now, can people stop assuming that I haven't thought about this to some degree and that giving people more free skills is the only way to solve the problems that they are experiencing?  Maybe the suggested system isn't perfect, but its a heck of a lot better than what we have and as best as I can tell what is being suggested in 4e.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Oct 5, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Perhaps.  But I have a fairly good idea how novels, movies, and games work and feel confident in saying that they work differently and not everything that works in one can be ported to another




Again, you're missing the point.

Conan, both the books and the movie [singular], is basically one of the top dozen things people look at when they come up with "Things I Should Be Able to Do in a Game of D&D."

Having a ruleset that makes it possible for players to do these sorts of things is, therefore, a good thing.

Having a ruleset that makes it impossible for players to do these sorts of things (as D&D currently does, and has for much of its lifespan), is that not, therefore, a bad thing?


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Oct 5, 2007)

Zurai said:
			
		

> 2. Full plate is -6, not -8.




Sorry for the small math error.  A -4 modifier, however, doesn't change the situation much. 



> 3. Who in their right mind uses a tower shield?




Full Cover is, occasionally, extremely useful.


----------



## Primitive Screwhead (Oct 5, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> So the first thing you need to do is come up with some rules for what the base difficulty of spotting someone is depending on the available cover or concealment.  If you hide in something that provides 100% cover, your hide skill doesn't have a large effect on the chance of going unseen.  On the opposite end up the spectrum, if you hide in a bare room the sneaky guy is almost as likely to be seen as the non-sneaky guy.




You mean something like Kerrick's alt Spot rules ?  

Stop being so secretive! Gotta share these cool ideas for HRs with the rest of us tweak-a-holics! We didn't add in how the Hide skill works, but I really like your idea


----------



## Celebrim (Oct 5, 2007)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Again, you're missing the point.
> 
> Conan, both the books and the movie [singular], is basically one of the top dozen things people look at when they come up with "Things I Should Be Able to Do in a Game of D&D."




No, I understand you perfectly.



> Having a ruleset that makes it possible for players to do these sorts of things is, therefore, a good thing.
> 
> Having a ruleset that makes it impossible for players to do these sorts of things (as D&D currently does, and has for much of its lifespan), is that not, therefore, a bad thing?




It's this part that you state so axiomaticly that I disagree with it.  Yes, it is usually a good thing to be able to say, "Yes." to a player.  But players (and people in general) often don't know what they want or how to obtain it.  They often want contridictory things, for example, they want to game to be challenging but they don't want to lose (so they don't want it to be too challenging).  When one or more players want contridictory things, you have to juggle thier different desires and come up with some sort of comprimise that is still gameable.

In your particular case of Conan sneaking about the place, you want sneaking to work in a way that sneakiness doesn't work.  And, intuitively you think, "Well, everyone should be sneakier.  That'll solve the problem.  Then we can all be heroes."  But it doesn't, because even if you are all sneakier, sneaking doesn't work like that.  You played with some numbers, robbed the truly sneaky player of his cool, and you are still largely in the same boat.  The better solution is to try to make game rules that make sneaking work more like it does, massage it a little so that situations which feel like you should intuitively be able to sneak you can, and hope you can do so and still make the rules simple and intuitive enough to game.  And that's an even better solution for what the player really wants (to vicarously feel like a hero), because more of his player input goes into achieving the success and validation he craves.

Now alternatively, you could come up with rules for making sneakiness not work like it does (as some other people have suggested), but then you get cheese and that is ultimately disatisfying to the player to because it stops feeling real and beats him over the head that this is just a game.


----------



## Celebrim (Oct 5, 2007)

Primitive Screwhead said:
			
		

> You mean something like Kerrick's alt Spot rules ?
> 
> Stop being so secretive! Gotta share these cool ideas for HRs with the rest of us tweak-a-holics! We didn't add in how the Hide skill works, but I really like your idea




Indeed.  Kerrick's spot rules were the missing peice of the puzzle I'd been looking for.  He had alot of good ideas, but there were still some spots that weren't quite right.  It was too complex.  It left too many abusable actions in it.  I've been meaning to get back to him about how to fix his system ever since I spotted the change to how hide works, which is one of the reasons I didn't want to blurt out my idea.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Oct 5, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> No, I understand you perfectly.




I'm pretty sure you don't.



> It's this part that you state so axiomaticly that I disagree with it.  Yes, it is usually a good thing to be able to say, "Yes." to a player.




No, it's not.  It's the difference between saying "It's possible that you can try this and succeed" (Saga) vs. "You cannot do this at all" (D&D).



> In your particular case of Conan sneaking about the place, you want sneaking to work in a way that sneakiness doesn't work.  And, intuitively you think, "Well, everyone should be sneakier.  That'll solve the problem.  Then we can all be heroes."  But it doesn't, because even if you are all sneakier, sneaking doesn't work like that.  You played with some numbers, robbed the truly sneaky player of his cool, and you are still largely in the same boat.




Actually, you've changed the numbers such that Conan, Valeria, and Subotai will all be [pretty certain about their ability] to sneak past the mook guards, but that only Subotai (for example) would be able to sneak up onto the dais itself and snatch the Princess from under Thulsa Doom's scaly snout.

Or, as was put very eloquently in this thread by Stalker0:



> For example, the party may sneak into the castle, past the mook guards. However, only the rogue can get past the elite bedroom guards. So the party splits up before, but instead of at the front of the castle, they split at the bedroom. Instead of the rogue having an hour miniadventure through the whole of the castle, he has a 10 minute one. He still gets to shine, but everyone is still included.




Currently, the only thing everyone in D&D has mechanical support to do and is guaranteed to get better in as they advance in level is combat.

Therefore, combat is always a "safe" bet.


----------



## Remathilis (Oct 5, 2007)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Currently, the only thing everyone in D&D has mechanical support to do and is guaranteed to get better in as they advance in level is combat.
> 
> Therefore, combat is always a "safe" bet.




And thus, we have a situation where were D&D becomes two games: Combat and "notcombat". Since 3.X, there has been a shift (and it was vocally criticized as well) that "every class should be able to do something in combat". Its the reason many 3.X classes got combat-based abilities added to their classes (rage, smite evil, bardic buff songs) so that a character always had something "cool" to do in combat. Fourth Edition is continuing that legacy and expanding it. 

However, "notcombat" still lags in the days of NWP. While the rogue was given sneak attack to take his otherwise combat-pathetic backstab and make it worthwhile, nothing was given in return to the fighter in "notcombat" abilities other than 2 skill points and the worst selection of class skills. So the rogue is now useful in combat and out of it, but the fighter remains only useful in combat. 

So you end up with situations where the best (and by default) only option becomes combat. No one has ranks in diplomacy? Roll initiative. Fighter's sneak scores too low? Initiative. SAGA, by giving characters a slow, steadily raising skill "rank" (raising like bab, saves, or hp) allows them to try other methods first (try to sneak past the guards, try to bluff the ogre) rather than look at their minuscule non-rank skill modifiers and saying "screw it, roll for initiative"

In short, it brings "notcombat" up to the realm of "combat" and makes it a viable (and even attractive) option.


----------



## Zurai (Oct 5, 2007)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> So you end up with situations where the best (and by default) only option becomes combat. No one has ranks in diplomacy? Roll initiative. Fighter's sneak scores too low? Initiative. SAGA, by giving characters a slow, steadily raising skill "rank" (raising like bab, saves, or hp) allows them to try other methods first (try to sneak past the guards, try to bluff the ogre) rather than look at their minuscule non-rank skill modifiers and saying "screw it, roll for initiative"




There's a simpler solution to this that doesn't require reworking the entire skill system:

Re-balance skillsets and skill points so that no one has no "notcombat" worth.


----------



## Celebrim (Oct 5, 2007)

Remathilis: And yet it is amazing how many successful rules sets there have been where there wasn't an assumption of universal competancy.  How did millions of gamers playing scores of systems manage?


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Oct 5, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Remathilis: And yet it is amazing how many successful rules sets there have been where there wasn't an assumption of universal competancy.  How did millions of gamers playing scores of systems manage?



 Less well than they will in the future, is my understanding from my experience in Saga.

Not that you'll believe me, of course.


----------



## Stalker0 (Oct 6, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Ok, this has been boiling in the back of my mind for a while now, and I'm generally secretive about both my house rules and my ideas for future house rules, but since 3.5 looks like its going to die, this is what I've been thinking.




I'll be honest, there was nothing there that 3e doesn't take into account. Size is already factored in, you receive a +4 to hide checks for being small (that's why kids are good hiders!). Its quick, clean, and easy.

If you have full cover or concealment, no one can spot you, you don't even need to make a hide check.

The one thing that is annoying in 3e is the range increment is WAY too small. Make it 50' or something and be done with it. Or simply say you get a +2 to hide if your more than 30' feet away, and a +5 if your past 100' feet. Something quick and easy.


----------



## Nifft (Oct 6, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Remathilis: And yet it is amazing how many successful rules sets there have been where there wasn't an assumption of universal competancy.  How did millions of gamers playing scores of systems manage?



 D&D previously had no skills at all (unless you were a Rogue). We managed back then... but the game is better now, and easier to manage.

Lots of successful rule sets don't have dragons, or ninjas, or zombies, or monkeys, or dinosaurs, or spellcasters -- so what? D&D is better for having all those things, and D&D is better for having a better skill system.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Primitive Screwhead (Oct 6, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Indeed.  Kerrick's spot rules were the missing peice of the puzzle I'd been looking for.  He had alot of good ideas, but there were still some spots that weren't quite right.  It was too complex.  It left too many abusable actions in it.  I've been meaning to get back to him about how to fix his system ever since I spotted the change to how hide works, which is one of the reasons I didn't want to blurt out my idea.




Well, cast 'Raise Thread' and I will be glad to banter about a better, less complex way of doing it.


----------



## Remathilis (Oct 6, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Remathilis: And yet it is amazing how many successful rules sets there have been where there wasn't an assumption of universal competency.  How did millions of gamers playing scores of systems manage?




I think Nifft and Patryn did a good job answering that. Before 3e, D&D didn't have upward scaling ACs (something every other RPG did have in some form or another, higher was better). Things evolve.


----------



## olshanski (Oct 6, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> So the first thing you need to do is come up with some rules for what the base difficulty of spotting someone is depending on the available cover or concealment.  If you hide in something that provides 100% cover, your hide skill doesn't have a large effect on the chance of going unseen.  On the opposite end up the spectrum, if you hide in a bare room the sneaky guy is almost as likely to be seen as the non-sneaky guy.






			
				Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Full Cover is, occasionally, extremely useful.




Aha!
So, putting together Celebrim's and Patryn's ideas, I've got a new strategy.

1. A person in total cover is hidden and doesn't need to make a hide roll.
2.  A person with a tower shield can use the shield for total cover.
therefore: A person with a tower shield is hidden and doesn't need to make a hide roll.

This is great!  so my party of 2 fighters and 2 clerics, all wearing plate armor and tower shields, can sneak up on a camp of hobgoblin mercenaries.  I can just imagine the guards: 

Guard1: "Keep a close watch: we've kidnapped the heir to the throne and the humans are sure to attack!  Have you seen anything unusual?"
Guard2: "Nope. I've been watching the lands closely, all the way to the horizon. Nobody is approaching."
Guard1: "That's great.... but say, what are those 4 shields doing about 100 yards that way?"
Guard2: "Those shields? they are nothing. They've been creeping closer and closer for the past hour, but there certainly isn't anything to be worried about. I would have seen something by now."
Guard1: "Very well. Carry on."


----------



## Celebrim (Oct 6, 2007)

olshanski said:
			
		

> Aha!
> So, putting together Celebrim's and Patryn's ideas, I've got a new strategy.
> 
> 1. A person in total cover is hidden and doesn't need to make a hide roll.
> ...




Funny, but true.  

Of course, the strategy - while sound on one level - does have a drawback or two.


----------



## Celebrim (Oct 6, 2007)

Nifft said:
			
		

> D&D previously had no skills at all (unless you were a Rogue). We managed back then... but the game is better now, and easier to manage.




Yes, as DM of both systems, I'm aware of that.  But my particular complaint was that universal competancy was a rather rare thing in extant rule sets.  I don't recall encountering it in RIFTS, GURPS, Chaosium CoC, WEG Star Wars, Chill 2nd edition, WoD, BESM, or well - anywhere.  Now, on the other hand skill systems are pretty darn common.  D&D's lack of a skill system was - though preferred by a small audience - frequently cited as a source of frustration for the longest time before 3rd edition came along.  Certainly it was part of what sent me to GURPS.  

I wasn't asking how people managed without a skill system.  I know how people manage without a skill system.  I was asking how players managed without universal competancy.  Granted, that is also a rhetorical question, but it seems like the impression of everyone else here is that things never worked without it.

It's not enough to cite past improvements in the game to justify any particular change.  Those past improvements or changes justify or don't justify only themselves.  You have to justify this change on its own merits.

And I'm telling you right now, it isn't going to 'work'.  By that I mean, it isn't going to accomplish what seems to be the key issue here - allowing a player to do anything he wants with a character with a reasonable chance of success.  A year from now I can tell you what the reoccuring threads will look like.  Just as people whined and whined about how they had to have per encounter abilities so that there Wizard wouldn't have to resort to using a crossbow, just like they complained about how low level characters weren't fun because they didn't have enough options, a year from now you are going to have threads were people complain that the system works 'ok' at high levels, but low levels no one 'has any options'.  Everyone's nontrained skills are still too low to be useful, and so they have to resort to combat.  And, they'll be complaining about how the 25% or 50% or larger gap in the chance of success is still too large.



> Lots of successful rule sets don't have dragons, or ninjas, or zombies, or monkeys, or dinosaurs, or spellcasters -- so what? D&D is better for having all those things, and D&D is better for having a better skill system.




Yeah, by definition its better if its better.  But, I don't see it as better.  Mostly, its just going to be different and create different problems and be the source of alot of complaining.   It's yet another power creep thats going to end up scaling up numbers, which scale up challenges, which scale up numbers, like we've seen ever since early in 3.X.  This time next year they'll be whining about how multiclassing skills doesn't work, how they can't dabble, how there isn't enough diversity or flexibility, and this and that, and they'll still be reoccuring threads on how hide/spot doesn't work and so forth.


----------



## Nifft (Oct 6, 2007)

Storyteller systems have implicit universal competency, because it becomes so cheap to buy one or two dots to cover your weaknesses relative to how expensive that next dot would be to emphasize your strength(s). Sure, you can work to avoid it, but the folks in my groups did not do so.

SW Saga just made it explicit.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Celebrim (Oct 6, 2007)

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> I'll be honest, there was nothing there that 3e doesn't take into account. Size is already factored in, you receive a +4 to hide checks for being small (that's why kids are good hiders!). Its quick, clean, and easy.




I know how the system works now.  It doesn't except in a very narrow range of assumptions.  Get outside the assumptions, and its all about special cases and ignoring the rules and the DM is left with absolutely no guidance.   You'd almost be better off with no system at all than one that is this misleading and this abusable as written.



> The one thing that is annoying in 3e is the range increment is WAY too small. Make it 50' or something and be done with it. Or simply say you get a +2 to hide if your more than 30' feet away, and a +5 if your past 100' feet. Something quick and easy.




That's a big problem, but not the only problem.  The hide in plain sight rules are extremely frustrating for novice DMs.  By the rules as written, its incredibly easy to become basically invisible if you have any concealment at all.  (Order of the Stick lampoons this with its goblin ninja's, "I feel I just failed a spot check.")  It's just as easy to hide in the middle of an open tennis court shortly after dusk on a night of a full moon, as it is to hide in a nearly (but not quite) pitch dark night in 4' of thick grass.  And so forth.   Simple, easy, and of not alot of  real value outside of 20x30 dungeon rooms.

Hide or not hiding, a reasonably good perception system should work in almost every situation that could come up in a game.  This one doesn't.


----------



## Nifft (Oct 6, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> It's yet another power creep thats going to end up scaling up numbers, which scale up challenges, which scale up numbers, like we've seen ever since early in 3.X.



 Are you kidding?

Cutting the maximum rate of advancement in *half* is not going to scale DCs up. Removing synergy, +2/+2 feats, +2 racial bonuses, +5/+10/+20 items, etc. is *not* going to scale DCs up.

This skill system is a reaction to the scaling up that did indeed occur throughout 3e.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Celebrim (Oct 6, 2007)

Nifft said:
			
		

> Storyteller systems have implicit universal competency, because it becomes so cheap to buy one or two dots to cover your weaknesses relative to how expensive that next dot would be to emphasize your strength(s). Sure, you can work to avoid it, but the folks in my groups did not do so.




Funny, but that's never how Storyteller games played out for me.

Because they worked off dice pools, the average results with large dice pools get both very predictable and absolutely overwhelming.  Adding an extra dice to low dice pool gains you almost no real advantage.  Whereas, adding an extra dice to a high dice pool can literally make you invincible.  I've seen like 13 dice in a Sabbat player's soak dice pool before.  M1 tanks were no match for that.  Werewolf worked much the same way, I understand, but I tended to avoid it because even other WoD players told me how much it encouraged munkinism.

You aren't actually talking about implicit universal competency at all.  By the same standards, GURPS has implicit universal competency as well.  After all, its much easier to advance a low score a little than to advance a high one.  But of course, anyone that has played GURPS more than a little will tell you that the way to break the game is start dumping all of your points into a single spell or martial arts or shield or whatever and forget about whether you have a 7 or 10 or even a 12 in a skill you aren't going to use that often.  Get your one skill up as near to 18 as possible so that you can break the games math, and then lean on that one thing you are good at as much as you can.

What you are talking about isn't implicit universal competancy.  What you are describing is your players deliberately choosing to play broad versital characters.  They dabbled in alot of different skills to gain a broad - but not universal - competancy level, presumably because they weren't power gamers or didn't want to break the system.

And the thing is, we've basically got that now.  If you want your fighter or wizard to dabble in some other skills not on his skill list, take a few levels in some other class - even if it means sacrificing a bit of your attack or magical skill.  What a concept!  I bet you've seen that in other games before. 

Is it an optimal build?  Probably not.  Spreading your points around in Storyteller and GURPS isn't usually optimal either.  Is there room for improvement in D20.  Absolutely.  I'm just not convinced universal competancy is the way to go.


----------



## Celebrim (Oct 6, 2007)

Nifft said:
			
		

> Are you kidding?
> 
> Cutting the maximum rate of advancement in *half* is not going to scale DCs up. Removing synergy, +2/+2 feats, +2 racial bonuses, +5/+10/+20 items, etc. is *not* going to scale DCs up.
> 
> ...




You are muddying the conversation now.  We can have a separate discussion about the merits of skill enhancing feats, synergy, skill enhancing items, etc.  We could remove all of those things independently and tone down the ability to abuse the skill system and not adopt Saga like rules.  Or, not that I recommend it, you could keep them all in or any combination and adopt Saga like rules.

I personally hated skill enhancing magic items even more than I hated skill enhancing/bypassing spells.  A +1 or +3 or +5 to a skill maybe, like the weapons.  But the big numbers cheap.  That was never well thought out.


----------



## Nifft (Oct 6, 2007)

Okay, let's drop the items / feats / etc.

In Saga, the *maximum* advancement rate is *half* the rate of 3.5e.

How does this lead to "scaling up"?

 -- N


----------



## Zurai (Oct 6, 2007)

Nifft said:
			
		

> Okay, let's drop the items / feats / etc.
> 
> In Saga, the *maximum* advancement rate is *half* the rate of 3.5e.
> 
> ...




Because the *minimum* advancement rate is infinitely higher than the rate of 3.5e. I'm not using "infinitely" in a figurative or hyperbolic sense, either - the minium rate of advancement in 3.5 is 0, and the minimum rate of advancement in SWSE is greater than 0.


----------



## Nifft (Oct 6, 2007)

Zurai said:
			
		

> Because



 Wrong.



			
				Zurai said:
			
		

> the *minimum* advancement rate is infinitely higher than the rate of 3.5e. I'm not using "infinitely" in a figurative or hyperbolic sense, either - the minium rate of advancement in 3.5 is 0, and the minimum rate of advancement in SWSE is greater than 0.



 Right! I don't disagree with this longer bit at all. It's a statement of fact.

But I can't quite connect this with "scaling up" DCs due to the new system.

In SWSE, your 20th level PC will have a check of 10 + ability bonus, at minimum. At maximum, you'll have a check of 20 + ability bonus.

In D&D, your 20th level PC may have a check of 0 + ability bonus. At maximum, you'll have a check of 23 +3 (skill focus) +10 (item) +2 (feat) +2 (racial ability) +6 (synergy) +1 (luckstone) +2 (competence, from e.g. bardic music or _heroism_) + possibly an enhancement bonus + your ability bonus.

Even if you ignore all the stuff between the 23 ranks and the ability bonus, you're still left with a *3 point reduction* in the maximum DC that a 20th level dude could hit. (And note that's allowing Skill Focus in SWSE but not 3.5e.)

So it looks like there will be a *reduction* in DCs, and you may see some non-Trained PCs able to make those reduced DCs.

Where's the "scaling up"?

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Zurai (Oct 6, 2007)

Nifft said:
			
		

> Even if you ignore all the stuff between the 23 ranks and the ability bonus




...which is safe to do, since one of the stated intents of 4E is to get rid of all that crap...



> you're still left with a *3 point reduction* in the maximum DC that a 20th level dude could hit. (And note that's allowing Skill Focus in SWSE but not 3.5e.)
> 
> So it looks like there will be a *reduction* in DCs, and you may see some non-Trained PCs able to make those reduced DCs.




So it's your belief that skill DCs are based *solely* on the maximum possible modifier, and completely ignore the "typical" ability score? Or, alternately, that the "typical" ability score IS the maximum possible modifier?

Because otherwise, your assertion makes no mathematical sense.


----------



## Nifft (Oct 6, 2007)

Zurai said:
			
		

> ...which is safe to do, since one of the stated intents of 4E is to get rid of all that crap...



 Not really. You can't have it both ways. You can't say 4e is "scaling up" from 3e and then ignore *over twenty points* of reduction from the core rules of 3e.

But even without those twenty points, there is a reduction in maximum capability.



			
				Zurai said:
			
		

> So it's your belief that skill DCs are based *solely* on the maximum possible modifier, and completely ignore the "typical" ability score?



 It's my belief that the *maximum* will be reduced, and the *minimum* will be increased. The gap between PC capability will be reduced.

Thus, any given DC that's a valid challenge for one member of the party will be *more likely* to also be a valid challenge for everyone else in the party.

How is this "scaling up"?

 -- N


----------



## Zurai (Oct 6, 2007)

Nifft said:
			
		

> You can't say 4e is "scaling up" from 3e and then ignore *over twenty points* of reduction from the core rules of 3e.




Show me how you get 20 extra points on oh, let's say Decipher Script checks, using only the core rules.

No synergy bonuses. No magic items that give bonuses to Decipher Script. At most you're going to have +8 on top of the check - and that's under extremely rare circumstances (bard + luckstone + two feats devoted to one skill).

The vast majority of your "over NINE THOUSAND!!!!!!" bonus points come from magic items, and in core, only a very few skills have magic items devoted to them. On top of that, very, very few people take Skill Focus and even fewer take the +2/+2 feats. Thus, for the *majority* of skills, you're looking at a top end of maybe 26 + stat mod.



> But even without those twenty points, there is a reduction in maximum capability.




That was never in contention. I don't know why you keep saying it. Although, note that 4E core rules go to level 30, which means that in actuality, the base maximum goes to 25 + stat mod, not 20 + stat mod.



> It's my belief that the *maximum* will be reduced, and the *minimum* will be increased.




OK.



> The gap between PC capability will be reduced.




OK. What's that got to do with whether the average skill check DC will go up?



> How is this "scaling up"?




Because a DC of 15 is still a challenge for a lot of characters at level 20 in 3.5, and thus still a valid DC to use at that point in time. A DC of 15 is no challenge at all to any level 20 character in 4E, let alone a level 30 one, and thus really is not a valid DC to use at that point in time.


----------



## FireLance (Oct 6, 2007)

I think I've finally realized what is the fundamental disagreement here (or at least, one of them).

It's whether you believe (or at least, can accept) that a high-level character should be superior in practically every way compared to a low-level character, or whether you think that even high-level characters should have some areas in which they are no better than a normal man.

In game terms, scaling the DCs is trivially easy. Whether in 3e or 4e, it is always possible to set the DCs so that it is easy, difficult, or impossible for any particular PC to accomplish the task.

I think what troubles some posters is the idea that high-level characters can no longer be challenged like ordinary men. In 3e, climbing a DC 20 wall remains a challenge to an untrained climber regardless of level. In 4e (presumably), a normal wall ceases to remain a challenge for any high-level character, and it needs to be weathered smooth, covered in ice, and placed in an area with gale-force winds that threaten to blow the climber off.

I will admit that as a matter of preference, I prefer the latter to the former, as it feels more heroic.


----------



## Remathilis (Oct 6, 2007)

FireLance said:
			
		

> I think I've finally realized what is the fundamental disagreement here (or at least, one of them).
> 
> It's whether you believe (or at least, can accept) that a high-level character should be superior in practically every way compared to a low-level character, or whether you think that even high-level characters should have some areas in which they are no better than a normal man.
> 
> ...




Pretty much. The argument is whether or not a man who has delved into the night below of the underdark, fought fire-breathing dragons, commanded primal forces of magic, and journeyed to mystical planes beyond understanding can still drown in the ocean if knocked overboard.


----------



## Stalker0 (Oct 6, 2007)

To summarize the argument even more succintly: Do you believe Aragorn is 5th level or 15th?

In other words, how high is high level. There are many arguments that Aragorn in dnd is pretty weak, only a 5th-7th level character. And in 4e terms, a +3 to swim isn't going to beat the raging river. People are arguing that high level characters shouldn't do everything, but how high are we talking. Nearly all fantasy heroes are not that high a level, as such the universal bonus for them isn't that large. 20th level characters in dnd aren't heroes, they are truly superheroes.


----------



## Zurai (Oct 6, 2007)

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> 20th level characters in dnd aren't heroes, they are truly superheroes.




And? Your point is? The Thing isn't going to decipher the Rosetta Stone. Wolverine won't win over hearts and minds with diplomacy. Professor X isn't going to swim in the middle of the ocean during a hurricane. Batman isn't going to win any academy awards for his acting ability.

Even superheroes can't do everything well (except Superman, who I hate for exactly that reason).


----------



## AllisterH (Oct 6, 2007)

Zurai said:
			
		

> And? Your point is? The Thing isn't going to decipher the Rosetta Stone. Wolverine won't win over hearts and minds with diplomacy. Professor X isn't going to swim in the middle of the ocean during a hurricane. Batman isn't going to win any academy awards for his acting ability.
> 
> Even superheroes can't do everything well (except Superman, who I hate for exactly that reason).




As a comicbook geek, you do realize those are horrendously bad examples.

Batman, can do anything and everything and pretty much, the fact that nobody envisions Bruce Wayne as Batman kind of proves his acting ability.

Here's the thing though...Compared to WHO?

I do think the Thing would have a better chance of deciphering the Rosetta Stone given his past experiences. Really, how many weird alien creatures/languages/environments has the Thing been in? Sure, he's not going to be better than Reed (Mr. Fantastic) but he sure as hell is going to be better than Joe Average.

Same thing with Wolverine. You don't think a guy who has liver for over a century and a half hasn't picked up a few tips on being a diplomat. Hell, the time he spent in Japan pretty much ensured that he had proper manners.

Prof X is crippled so even at 20th level, he has a horrendous penalty to his swim check.


----------



## Zurai (Oct 6, 2007)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> Batman, can do anything and everything and pretty much, the fact that nobody envisions Bruce Wayne as Batman kind of proves his acting ability.




No, it proves his Disguise ability, not acting. I could just have well picked Singing, or Banjo Playing.



> I do think the Thing would have a better chance of deciphering the Rosetta Stone given his past experiences. Really, how many weird alien creatures/languages/environments has the Thing been in? Sure, he's not going to be better than Reed (Mr. Fantastic) but he sure as hell is going to be better than Joe Average.




How does being in alien environments help you learn to translate ancient egyptian?



> Same thing with Wolverine. You don't think a guy who has liver for over a century and a half hasn't picked up a few tips on being a diplomat. Hell, the time he spent in Japan pretty much ensured that he had proper manners.




Since I'm unaware of what "the time he spent in Japan" refers to, I'll accede this one to you.



> Prof X is crippled so even at 20th level, he has a horrendous penalty to his swim check.




Ah, but has been pointed out in this thread before, there are no mechanical effects to being crippled in D&D.


----------



## Nifft (Oct 7, 2007)

Zurai said:
			
		

> Show me how you get 20 extra points on oh, let's say Decipher Script checks, using only the core rules.



 No, that's just silly. I've only seen Decipher Script used twice since 2001.



			
				Zurai said:
			
		

> No synergy bonuses. No magic items that give bonuses to Decipher Script. At most you're going to have +8 on top of the check - and that's under extremely rare circumstances (bard + luckstone + two feats devoted to one skill).



 Depends on whether you define "core" to include the guidelines for making new items. They're in both the SRD and the DMG.

But those are just permanent items. The SRD also has single-use items to boost any skill.

So, now you know. 



			
				Zurai said:
			
		

> That was never in contention. I don't know why you keep saying it. Although, note that 4E core rules go to level 30, which means that in actuality, the base maximum goes to 25 + stat mod, not 20 + stat mod.



 I'm saying that because it contradicts the most fundamental part of your claim (which is that under a Saga style skill system, DCs must increase).

Pointing out a terribly common case where the DC *must decrease* is a counter-example.



			
				Zurai said:
			
		

> OK. What's that got to do with whether the average skill check DC will go up?



 Sorry, what's the "average skill check"? I thought you were claiming that all skill DCs must go up, now there's a bell curve?

Please provide your sample data.



			
				Zurai said:
			
		

> Because a DC of 15 is still a challenge for a lot of characters at level 20 in 3.5, and thus still a valid DC to use at that point in time. A DC of 15 is no challenge at all to any level 20 character in 4E, let alone a level 30 one, and thus really is not a valid DC to use at that point in time.



 20% chance of failure is no challenge?

And that's before we factor in ability penalties and armor check penalties.

- - -

I guess I just don't see why it's a problem for a 20th level dude to succeed on tasks which are tough (not challenging, that's DC 20) 80% of the time.

Heroic (DC 30) is still damn hard, and Near Impossible (DC 40) is just plain impossible for almost everyone.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## The_Fan (Oct 7, 2007)

Zurai said:
			
		

> And? Your point is? The Thing isn't going to decipher the Rosetta Stone. Wolverine won't win over hearts and minds with diplomacy. Professor X isn't going to swim in the middle of the ocean during a hurricane. Batman isn't going to win any academy awards for his acting ability.
> 
> Even superheroes can't do everything well (except Superman, who I hate for exactly that reason).



 MAJOR GEEKOUT

Dude, the guy manages to every day convince people that he is a foppish, airheaded playboy who couldn't fight his way out of a wet paper bag when he's really the opposite. Batman is one of the best actors in the world, he just puts it to different use than winning an acadamy award.

Superman's better though.


----------



## Zurai (Oct 7, 2007)

Nifft said:
			
		

> No, that's just silly. I've only seen Decipher Script used twice since 2001.




And I've used it three times in the last three sessions of one of my campaigns. DMs around here are pretty good about making use of all of the skills available to us.



> Depends on whether you define "core" to include the guidelines for making new items. They're in both the SRD and the DMG.




Yes - they're in the *DMG*. Those guidelines are for DMs to make new items to allow their players to craft/find, not for players to willfully pump their skill levels to obscene heights.



> But those are just permanent items. The SRD also has single-use items to boost any skill.




I have never once run into a psionic item as a player or given out a psionic item as a DM. Psionics are rarely used around here.



> I'm saying that because it contradicts the most fundamental part of your claim (which is that under a Saga style skill system, DCs must increase).




How does the fact that maximum DCs can be lower contradict the fact that minimum DCs *must* be higher to challenge a higher-level party?



> Pointing out a terribly common case where the DC *must decrease* is a counter-example.




Not really. My position is that, past the early levels, DCs will need to be higher in 4th edition than in 3.5. Parties in 3.5 generally do not spread their skill points out, choosing instead to concentrate on comparatively fewer areas. This means that the average party skill level in most skills (except skills such as Spot and Listen that every character that has a chance to maxes out) will be higher in 4E than 3E. Higher average party skill levels *require* higher average DCs to provide the same average challenge.



> Sorry, what's the "average skill check"? I thought you were claiming that all skill DCs must go up, now there's a bell curve?




Please quote where I said "all skill DCs will go up". I never once made such a claim.



> 20% chance of failure is no challenge?




No, not really. I wouldn't say a skill check is challenging if taking 10 handily passes the check. This is personal preference, but the minimum failure chance for a "challenging" (note: not the DC definition of "challenging" but rather the dictionary one) skill check is 35-40%.



> I guess I just don't see why it's a problem for a 20th level dude to succeed on tasks which are tough (not challenging, that's DC 20) 80% of the time.




For individual tasks? It isn't. For *every single such task in existance*? That's a big problem to me. It strains credibility and, IMO, robs the player of personal choice in how to develop his character. There is literally no way in SAGA to play a level 10+ character who cannot swim, for example - and I have, in the past, played characters who never learned to swim.



> Heroic (DC 30) is still damn hard




Then why can every max level character do it for *all of his skills related to his primary attribute* (and quite possibly his secondary one, too) *simply by taking 10*?


----------



## Stalker0 (Oct 7, 2007)

Zurai said:
			
		

> Then why can every max level character do it for *all of his skills related to his primary attribute* (and quite possibly his secondary one, too) *simply by taking 10*?




Because max level characters are defacto gods. And I'm not kidding, that's really the level of power they possess. They can truly remake the world, undo nigh any obstacle. One of the reasons high level dnd typically takes place in planar adventures is because your standard world just can't handle them. 

As for the "I want to play a character who can't swim argument" I just don't understand it. Am I the only one who has ever taken a penalty on a character for rp purposes? Penalties are easy, and dms don't usually say no to players taking voluntary penalties, aka you don't need the system to handle it. You do however have to adjucate what bonuses the player's get to prevent abuse. So if you want to be a crappy swimmer, you go ahead and be crappy, we will all applaud your willingness to rp your character well.

I think the superhero examples provided undermine your argument. As was mentioned in the rebuttal arguments posted by others, superheroes really can do everything. Batman is probably the best example of a high level dnd character. Amazing at everything, with "magic items" to help him out.

The thing: Low level with big racial adjustments based on his altered race.
Batman: High level human.

Now, take a moment to look at it from our side of the fence. The people who really like the new skill idea often want to play skillfull heroes that can do a wide variety of stuff. Further, this helps them fulfill many novel and movie archetypes, for the majority of heroes in movies and books can do a tremendous number of things well, far more than dnd currently allows. We understand the issue your having, but to us this can be easily solved by dm or player fiat, while to fix our problem requires mechanical tweaks on the system.


----------



## Daztur (Oct 7, 2007)

I like the Saga system a lot. Right now in 3ed a 20th level fighter knows significantly less about how to identify monsters than a 1st level wizard, despite the hundreds of monsters he's seen. This is just silly.

All that's needed to make the system work is a big enough penalty on untrained skills to make characters suck at things that can't realistically be done untrained (banjo playing etc.).


----------



## Nifft (Oct 7, 2007)

Zurai said:
			
		

> And I've used it three times in the last three sessions of one of my campaigns. DMs around here are pretty good about making use of all of the skills available to us.



 Ooo, thanks for the quote.



			
				Zurai said:
			
		

> Yes - they're in the *DMG*. Those guidelines are for DMs to make new items to allow their players to craft/find, not for players to willfully pump their skill levels to obscene heights.



 Are you bolding those three letters because you think other magic items come from somewhere else? I'm genuinely confused by your thinking here.



			
				Zurai said:
			
		

> I have never once run into a psionic item as a player or given out a psionic item as a DM. Psionics are rarely used around here.



 Here, watch: "And I've used them three times in the last three sessions of one of my campaigns. DMs around here are pretty good about making use of all of the SRD." _Note: the subtle implication here is that I'm a better DM than you._

Aren't you glad you gave me that?



			
				Zurai said:
			
		

> How does the fact that maximum DCs can be lower contradict the fact that minimum DCs *must* be higher to challenge a higher-level party?



 The only way you get to keep your lower minimum is to discard spells and magic item rules. With spells and magic items in the picture, you either get direct skill boosters (e.g. ring of jumping) or spells & items which totally obviate skills (e.g. _tongues_ and slippers of spider climbing).



			
				Zurai said:
			
		

> Not really. My position is that, past the early levels, DCs will need to be higher in 4th edition than in 3.5. Parties in 3.5 generally do not spread their skill points out, choosing instead to concentrate on comparatively fewer areas. This means that the average party skill level in most skills (except skills such as Spot and Listen that every character that has a chance to maxes out) will be higher in 4E than 3E. Higher average party skill levels *require* higher average DCs to provide the same average challenge.



 Right, they instead invest in magic items to totally bypass skills. The party needs to fly because the Fighter and Cleric *never bother to learn to Climb, Jump or Swim*.



			
				Zurai said:
			
		

> Please quote where I said "all skill DCs will go up". I never once made such a claim.



 No, instead I'll repeat my request: *show me your sample data*. You can't make claims about *average* skill DCs and keep a secret which components go into that average!



			
				Zurai said:
			
		

> No, not really. I wouldn't say a skill check is challenging if taking 10 handily passes the check. This is personal preference, but the minimum failure chance for a "challenging" (note: not the DC definition of "challenging" but rather the dictionary one) skill check is 35-40%.



 You contradict yourself here. Obviously, any failure chance up to 45% is passable via "take 10".



			
				Zurai said:
			
		

> For individual tasks? It isn't. For *every single such task in existance*? That's a big problem to me. It strains credibility and, IMO, robs the player of personal choice in how to develop his character. There is literally no way in SAGA to play a level 10+ character who cannot swim, for example - and I have, in the past, played characters who never learned to swim.



 You can't do everything unless you're Trained. There are still Trained-only uses of skills. I know someone has pointed this out long, long ago in a post far, far back in this thread...



			
				Zurai said:
			
		

> Then why can every max level character do it for *all of his skills related to his primary attribute* (and quite possibly his secondary one, too) *simply by taking 10*?



 For example, you can't "take 10" unless you are Trained.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## BryonD (Oct 7, 2007)

Daztur said:
			
		

> I like the Saga system a lot. Right now in 3ed a 20th level fighter knows significantly less about how to identify monsters than a 1st level wizard, despite the hundreds of monsters he's seen. This is just silly.



Which of course leads one to conclude that obviously all wizards should be capable of climbing, jumping ands swimming....


----------



## Nifft (Oct 7, 2007)

BryonD said:
			
		

> Which of course leads one to conclude that obviously all wizards should be capable of climbing, jumping ands swimming....



 Yes, they should. All human beings should be capable of climbing, jumping and swimming. (At least by the time they're demi-gods.)

Cheers, -- N


----------



## BryonD (Oct 7, 2007)

Nifft said:
			
		

> Yes, they should. All human beings should be capable of climbing, jumping and swimming. (At least by the time they're demi-gods.)
> 
> Cheers, -- N



No they shouldn't.


----------



## Nifft (Oct 7, 2007)

BryonD said:
			
		

> No they shouldn't.



 Put them in armor?

 -- N


----------



## FireLance (Oct 7, 2007)

Nifft said:
			
		

> You can't do everything unless you're Trained. There are still Trained-only uses of skills. I know someone has pointed this out long, long ago in a post far, far back in this thread...



I think this needs further emphasizing. The SWSE system is not a system that allows high-level characters to do "everything" well. Because there are trained-only uses for skills, the real philosophy behind the SWSE system is:

Anything that an *untrained* person can do, a high-level character can do better.

In other words, if it requires a *trained* person to do it, all the levels in the world aren't going to do the character any good if he isn't also trained.

Of course, the quirk of the d20 system is that some tasks are impossible for an ordinary man not because he needs to be trained to do it, but because the DCs are just too high. The SWSE system allows high-level characters to have a (probably small, unless he's trained) chance of accomplishing them. And as I previously mentioned, whether you like that or not is a matter of how heroic (in a larger-than-life sense) you prefer your high-level characters to be.


----------



## WhatGravitas (Oct 7, 2007)

Zurai said:
			
		

> And? Your point is? The Thing isn't going to decipher the Rosetta Stone.



Sidenote: That's even true under SAGA-style rules. It's most probably a "trained-only" skill. If you don't invest in it - auto-fail.


			
				BryonD said:
			
		

> No they shouldn't.



Why? Let's look at the hp (20d4 ~ 51 hp, including 1st level). A 100 ft. fall deals 10d6 damage (~35 dmg). If they can survive an average 100 ft. fall, why should they not be able to climb a 1/10th of that (i.e. 10 ft.) distance down?

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Mallus (Oct 7, 2007)

BryonD said:
			
		

> No they shouldn't.



Are you talking about the handicapped?


----------



## Primitive Screwhead (Oct 7, 2007)

Quote=Nifft]Yes, they should. All human beings should be capable of climbing, jumping and swimming. [/quote]


			
				BryonD said:
			
		

> No they shouldn't.




Yes they should!

{sorry, failed Will save }


But seriously, I think the "No they shouldn't" side of this argument is missing a couple things:

A> SWSA Skill system is a 'preview', 4E may not work 'exactly' like it. My guess is that WoTC will change the system to more properly reflect a DnD approach to the game.

B> The SWSA Skill system has a mechanic where you cannot accomplish some skill tasks unless 'Trained', one example above was 'Take 10'

C> Adventure design is much easier if the max variance in skills is 20 points. With this spread, as noted upthread much more elequently than I can, the DM can challenge *all* members of the party. The current system does not enable that...
 - which means either the GM balances for the skill-monkey and everyone else relies on magic, or the GM balances for the "What is the Ride skill for?" guy and the player who focused on Ride feels like he/she wasted the points and wont ever do that again.
 {coming from a player who once had a Ride focused character, tons of skill points and feats that ended up having absolutely *zero* effect in play. DM marginalized the Ride skill in order to enable the rest of the group...  I know, bad DM.. but the system could limit this.}



The way I see it panning out:
 Levels 1 - 10, normal natural obstacles like cliffs and such are part of encounter design
 -  You must climb up the cliff to get the McGuffin
 Levels 11 - 20, challenges on the natural obstacles are part of encounter design
 -  You must climb the cliff to get the McGuffin, but watch out for the Harpies
 Levels 21 - 30, Natural obstacles are no longer part of encounter design
 - You must climb the Cliffs of Despair, which are located on the plane of 'X'

If you dislike the 'super hero' aspect of this scaling as I do.. simply stick to the mid and lower levels.

Oh... and just a thought for reference. In LoTR, Frodo and Samwise.. two Hobbits from the pastures of the Shire, ended up climbing a very difficult path in the mountains of Mordor....


----------



## BryonD (Oct 7, 2007)

Primitive Screwhead said:
			
		

> Yes they should!
> 
> {sorry, failed Will save }
> 
> ...



I'm not missing any of those points.
I cling to point A as a hope that 4E won't completely and totally suck.  

I don't see point B as fixing the problem that it would still be a universal truth that wizards can climb fairly well.  That is both dumb conceptually and constraining creatively.

I completely reject any truth in point C.  The hand-holding baby treatment assumption that the party must be able to overcome any challenge with the most direct approach is a hideous idea that will never see my table.  Capping my variance of skills available is capping my degrees of freedom in design.  In 3X right now I can put a wall or river in the path of the party that is a lowish DC and therefore is easy for the rogue or fighter and a minor challenge for the wizard.  So the claim that I am enabled by the handcuffs on skill differences is false.  On the other hand, the SWSE skill system would completely disable me from putting real and serious challenges in front of the party with greater than 20 skill checks built in.


----------



## BryonD (Oct 7, 2007)

Lord Tirian said:
			
		

> Why? Let's look at the hp (20d4 ~ 51 hp, including 1st level). A 100 ft. fall deals 10d6 damage (~35 dmg). If they can survive an average 100 ft. fall, why should they not be able to climb a 1/10th of that (i.e. 10 ft.) distance down?
> 
> Cheers, LT.



OK, so if the logic of what you said holds then a wizard should be able to climb 10 feet down a wall of force based on nothing more thoughtful than the point that they could survive falling off of it.


----------



## BryonD (Oct 7, 2007)

I've been through this in multiple threads already.

And all I have seen in SWSE defense is justification for dumbing down the system to make it more patty-cake for the DM and/or for hand-holding the player's hands for fear that they might actually need to find a creative solution to a problem.

If that is what the masses really want, then by all means that is what WotC should spoon feed them.


----------



## Nifft (Oct 7, 2007)

BryonD said:
			
		

> The hand-holding baby treatment assumption that the party must be able to overcome any challenge with the most direct approach is a hideous idea that will never see my table.  Capping my variance of skills available is capping my degrees of freedom in design.  I 3X right now I can put a wall or river in the path of the party that is a lowish DC and therefore is easy for the rogue or fighter and a minor challenge for the wizard.  So the claim that I am enabled by the handcuffs on skill differences is false.  On the other hand, the SWSE skill system would completely disable me from putting real and serious challenges in front of the party with greater than 20 skill checks built in.



 Huh?

1/ The "most direct approach" to overcome any challenge is to *kick in the door and roll initiative*. In my experience, folks who want to use skills as a party are trying to do something indirect.

2/ If you're playing at low levels, the dynamic is unchanged. If you're playing at high levels, the dynamic is actually inverted: the Wizard spends a per-day resource and everyone walks across, or walks through, no skill checks necessary! He may wish to rest after 15 minutes of this skill-free adventure style...

3/ How is anything tying your hands? Why can't you put a DC 30 skill check in? A 20th level dude has a slim chance of making it, and a talented, trained & focused 20th level dude has a reasonable chance of making it.

I feel I understand less about why you're upset than I did before your post.   

 -- N


----------



## Daztur (Oct 7, 2007)

BryonD said:
			
		

> No they shouldn't.



Think about all of the adventures that a wizard has been through by the time they've hit 20th level. They've leveled armies, they've crossed continents, they've fallen off 100 ft cliffs and walked away, they've looked the Gods in the eye.

But they can't swim.


----------



## Mallus (Oct 7, 2007)

BryonD said:
			
		

> I don't see point B as fixing the problem that it would still be a universal truth that wizards can climb fairly well.  That is both dumb conceptually and constraining creatively.



It's 'dumb conceptually' that a person who isn't infirm and/or kitten-weak can _climb_? 

A wizard, assuming he's got enough levels and HP, can jump off a reasonably high cliff without even the _possibility_ of breaking a limb. Given that context, your point seems a trifle silly.



> The hand-holding baby treatment assumption that the party must be able to overcome any challenge with the most direct approach is a hideous idea that will never see my table.



Which is far worse than the current assumption that every challenge can (and should) be met most effectively by spells or off-the-rack magic items purchased at a store.


----------



## Stalker0 (Oct 7, 2007)

You can also explain a high level wizard climbing with a simple flavor change:

The wizard isn't climbing, he's calling upon the bound spirits of earth and air to aid his ascent, he calls upon a favor from the god of athletics, he invokes the truename of the mountain he's about to climb, and it opens its arms to him and carries him upwards.

All of those make perfect sense for a level 15+ wizard. This guy has done it all, seen it all, etc.


----------



## Zurai (Oct 7, 2007)

Daztur said:
			
		

> Think about all of the adventures that a wizard has been through by the time they've hit 20th level. They've leveled armies, they've crossed continents, they've fallen off 100 ft cliffs and walked away, they've looked the Gods in the eye.
> 
> But they can't swim.




Not neccesarily on ANY of those fronts. I've got a 10th level wizard in a campaign that has only fought maybe five dozen creatures total, hasn't traveled more than 400 miles in the campaign (which isn't nearly cross-continental even if 75% of that travel wasn't retreading the same ground), hasn't even seen a cliff let alone fallen off one, and would be far more interested in asking God for some pointers on magic than getting into a staring contest with Him.

I don't see him suddenly single-handedly leveling armies (considering that the only armies in this world are either made of dragons and half-dragons, or allied with him), crossing the continent (considering that the DM hasn't even mapped out the rest of the continent), taking inspiration from lemmings, or challenging God (considering this is a low-magic, no-planar-travel campaign where there weren't even NPC clerics until two sessions ago) in the remaining 10 levels til he hits 20.

And, after all that - what do leveling armies, walking way too many miles, being suicidal, or being really damn suicidal have to do with knowing how to swim?


----------



## Zurai (Oct 7, 2007)

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> You can also explain a high level wizard climbing with a simple flavor change:
> 
> The wizard isn't climbing, he's calling upon the bound spirits of earth and air to aid his ascent, he calls upon a favor from the god of athletics, he invokes the truename of the mountain he's about to climb, and it opens its arms to him and carries him upwards.
> 
> All of those make perfect sense for a level 15+ wizard. This guy has done it all, seen it all, etc.




Right. So how do you re-flavor the desert nomad fighter who's never seen more than a wellful of water in his life taking to water like a fish the first time he sees the ocean?


----------



## Remathilis (Oct 7, 2007)

Ok, dispense with hypothetical and look at the math. What can a PC actually DO with these numbers.

Lets take Saga's numbers as written. The skill formula is 1/2 char level + attribute. Trained adds +5, Focusing another +5.

So with that...

Level Unt/Trn/Foc (+attribute)
01st: +00/+05/+10
05th: +02/+07/+12
10th: +05/+10/+15
15th: +07/+12/+17
20th: +10/+15/+20
25th: +12/+17/+22
30th: +15/+20/+25

So what does this mean? first off, a 10th level PC has the same chance as a FIRST LEVEL trained PC to complete a task untrained. So Bob the untrained climber is as good a climber as Suzie the Acrobat was 10 levels AGO. At Level 20, he's as good as the focused character was at FIRST LEVEL. At any equal level, there is a five or ten point gap at most (ability scores equal). 

So What can a character (hypothetically) untrained in all skills do at, lets say 10th level. (right around the time he's as competent as a first level trained and 1/2 as competent as a first level focused)? (For sake of argument, he's got all 10s in his ability scores). 

REMEMBER: He cannot take 10 on any of these, since he's untrained in all of them. He can take 20, at the normal time cost (x10 time unit)

*Acrobatics: *He needs to roll a 5 or better to cross a surface 8-15 CM wide. (DC 10). He can also wiggle out of bonds (1d20+5 vs. opponents dex check+10). He CANNOT cross difficult terrain with speed, fall prone, reduce falling damage, stand up from prone (without AoO), or Tumble. (all Trained).

*Climb: *He can climb a knotted rope/wall brace, (DC 0), either/or (DC 5) without fail, but must roll a 5 to climb very rough wall (DC 10), or a 10 to climb a surface with adequate hand/footholds (DC 15). He can make hand/foot holds on a roll of 10. 

*Deception: *The character can make a deception check (1d20+5) vs an opponents perception roll (for lying, disguises, etc) with a modifier based on outlandishness. He can feint (1d20+5) vs an opponents initiative check.

*Endurance:* The character has to roll a 5 (+2 per hour) to make a forced march. He must roll a 5 (+2 per round) to hold his breath past his con score in rounds. He can ignore hunger an thirst with the same roll (5, +2 per day(hunger) or hour (thirst). He can run at x4 speed on a roll of 5. He can sleep in light armor on a 5, medium for 10, heavy for 15). Lastly, he can swim on a roll of 10 or greater (tread water on a 5). 

*Gather Info:* He can learn major news on a roll of 5, but verify info on a roll of 15. He can learn secret info only on a 20, (if even). He can locate someone on a roll of 10 (easy) to 20 (hard). 

*Initiative:* His initiative modifier for action is 1d20+5. He has the same chance to avoid a feint.

*Jump: *His roll +5 equals 1/3 his jump distance (so rolling a 9 total is 3 meters). He can make a high jump at DC = height x 12 in meters. He can jump down from a height of 3 meters with a roll of 10. 

*Knowledge (Any):* he can make common knowledge checks on a roll of 5 or more, but not expert knowledge at all (trained). 

*Mechanics:* Cannot Use. All elements are trained.

*Perception: *He can eavesdrop on a conversation on a roll of 5, but factors such as locale can raise that DC. He can hear ambient noise on a roll of 5. He can notice targets (not hiding) down to medium sized without a roll, but small or smaller is requires a roll of 5 or greater. He has a 1d20+5 chance to beat a stealth check for actively hiding targets. He can search for clues and hidden stuff on a roll of 10 or better (depending on the nature of the search). He can also use his 1d20+5 chance to find hidden objects on a person or sense deceptions. He can try to sense influenced characters (by supernatural powers) with a roll of 15.

*Persuasion: *He has a chance to persuade targets (will save + attitude modifier) to change their attitude. They can haggle with an indifferent merchant over the price of goods with a rll of 20, but 15 for friendly or 10 for helpful. He can intimidate someone vs. their will defense score. (10+level+modifiers)

*Pilot:* An untrained pilot avoids collisions on a roll of 10. He can make opposed rolls in a dogfight, or ram someone. He cannot engage an enemy or increase vehicle speed beyond limits (both trained).

*Ride:* A rider can guide with knees, or stay in the saddle with a roll of 5. He can use the mount as cover, soft fall from it, or leap with it on a roll of 10, and can control a mount in battle, or fast mount/dismount on a roll of 15. 

*Stealth: *The character can hide items or his person, or perform a sleight of ahnd as a opposed perception check. He can try to pick a pocket, but he has 1d20+5 vs. the opponents perception +5 (effectively canceling out his level bonus). He can snipe, but his chance vs. the perception is 1d20-5. 

*Survival: *He can make basic survival checks (for food & shelter for 24 hours) with a roll of 10 or better. He can endure extreme temps with a field kit and a roll of 15. He can sense cardinal direction with a roll of 5. He cannot track (trained). 

*Swim: *Actually moving in water vs staying afloat (endurance). He can swim in calm water (roll of 5), rough water (roll of 10) and stormy water (roll of 15). 

*Treat Injury:* He can administer first aid on an unconscious or wounded creature on a roll of 10 (and heal 1 hp for every point over). He can provide long term for only one creature (vs 6 if trained). He can heal damage on a roll of 15 (and don't fail). He cannot perform surgery, install a prosthetic, revive a fallen foe, treat disease, treat poison, or treat radiation.

*Use Computer:* He can establish a remote connection to a computer with a 5. The info gathered ranges from general (roll of 10) to private (roll 20) but he cannot get secret. He cannot astrogate, disable/erase programs, improve access to a computer, or reprogram a droid. 

*Use the Force: *A force user who is untrained can only search his feelings (roll 10), sense surroundings (roll of 10) or sent a telepathic message (roll of 10 for same planet, 20 for same quadrant, cannot cross quadrants). He cannot use force powers, enter a force trance, move light objects, or sense the force.


----------



## Daztur (Oct 7, 2007)

> Not neccesarily on ANY of those fronts. I've got a 10th level wizard in a campaign



Well:
1. I was being all rhetorical.
2. In D&D 20th level (well 30th level in 4ed) is exponentially more powerful than a 10th level characters. Such characters are more powerful than a lot of gods in myth and fiction. Expecting them to be restrained by simple mundane things doesn't really fit with their massive power (one reason why I like playing low levels better in D&D).



> Right. So how do you re-flavor the desert nomad fighter who's never seen more than a wellful of water in his life taking to water like a fish the first time he sees the ocean?



Well if its a normal D&D campaign its pretty much impossible to reach decently high levels without encountering water (if you desert nomad is fairly low level he'll still suck at swimming in 4e). If your campaign is exceptional (Dark Sun or something) make being able to swim (or climb or whatever) trained only. Problem solved.


----------



## Mallus (Oct 7, 2007)

Zurai said:
			
		

> Right. So how do you re-flavor the desert nomad fighter who's never seen more than a wellful of water in his life taking to water like a fish the first time he sees the ocean?



You've never seem a 'natural' before? Sheesh...


----------



## Zurai (Oct 7, 2007)

Daztur said:
			
		

> Well if its a normal D&D campaign its pretty much impossible to reach decently high levels without encountering water (if you desert nomad is fairly low level he'll still suck at swimming in 4e). If your campaign is exceptional (Dark Sun or something) make being able to swim (or climb or whatever) trained only. Problem solved.




... or I could just not use the silly, restrictive, player-choice-removing SAGA skill system. If I'm gonna house rule it, I'm going to do it the right way and keep the 3E skill system. Which is what I'm already planning to do anyway.


----------



## Remathilis (Oct 7, 2007)

Zurai said:
			
		

> I don't see him suddenly single-handedly leveling armies (considering that the only armies in this world are either made of dragons and half-dragons, or allied with him), crossing the continent (considering that the DM hasn't even mapped out the rest of the continent), taking inspiration from lemmings, or challenging God (considering this is a low-magic, no-planar-travel campaign where there weren't even NPC clerics until two sessions ago) in the remaining 10 levels til he hits 20.




No offense Zurai, but your not really playing D&D by the RAW. The PHB/DMG/MM assumes some things that obviously your game doesn't take into account (such as dragon armies, low magic, no clerics, etc). Obviously, your game works for you, and power on. But your arguing that "4e will not work because the rules will not sync up 100% with my special-case homebrew world". (Here's a hint, neither does 3.5 by the looks of it). 

Truth is, MOST D&D games DO have one or more of Datzur's elements. The game ASSUMES it. (Why else are clerics and planar-travel magic in the PHB?) So the rules should accommodate that style of play. You (and other DMs like you) will just modify 4e the same way you did 3.5. However, don't argue that the rules shouldn't be changed because YOUR GAME doesn't work under those assumptions...


----------



## Zurai (Oct 7, 2007)

Mallus said:
			
		

> You've never seem a 'natural' before? Sheesh...




Not among someone who has *never in his entire life* seen open water, and who quite probably assigns religious and/or cultural reverence to water. It'd be very similar to someone who lived underground their entire life suddenly seeing the open sky.


----------



## Remathilis (Oct 7, 2007)

Zurai said:
			
		

> ... or I could just not use the silly, restrictive, player-choice-removing SAGA skill system. If I'm gonna house rule it, I'm going to do it the right way and keep the 3E skill system. Which is what I'm already planning to do anyway.




Good! Problem solved. You'll modify the rules to fit your worldview, and the rulebooks will now reflect mine. Win-Win, I must say...


----------



## WhatGravitas (Oct 7, 2007)

BryonD said:
			
		

> OK, so if the logic of what you said holds then a wizard should be able to climb 10 feet down a wall of force based on nothing more thoughtful than the point that they could survive falling off of it.



Not really. Sure, my analogy could lead to that, but my main point was: That wizard can survive a *lot* of punishment - I mean 100 ft. falls are not exactly trivial. To survive such falls regularily, he has either to be a pretty tough guy or a super-human being.

Or put it even more simple: A 20th-level wizard can fight better than a 1st- or 2nd-level fighter, can survive similar punishment, has a similar Fortitude save (i.e. resistance against physical attacks), can _react faster than that fighter_ (see Reflex bonus), yet he cannot surpass his climbing skill?

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Remathilis (Oct 7, 2007)

Zurai said:
			
		

> Not among someone who has *never in his entire life* seen open water, and who quite probably assigns religious and/or cultural reverence to water. It'd be very similar to someone who lived underground their entire life suddenly seeing the open sky.




and the last time you played/DMed a character like that (in a normal, non-desert world like Dark Sun setting) was...?


----------



## Zurai (Oct 7, 2007)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> No offense Zurai, but your not really playing D&D by the RAW. The PHB/DMG/MM assumes some things that obviously your game doesn't take into account (such as dragon armies, low magic, no clerics, etc). Obviously, your game works for you, and power on. But your arguing that "4e will not work because the rules will not sync up 100% with my special-case homebrew world". (Here's a hint, neither does 3.5 by the looks of it).




I never once made that claim. My claim, for the people who cannot be bothered to read it and instead insist on assigning me motivations:

SAGA-style skills remove player choice. Players are literally unable to play characters that are lacking proficiency in even a single area. They MUST play characters that are jacks-of-all-skills.



> Truth is, MOST D&D games DO have one or more of Datzur's elements. The game ASSUMES it. (Why else are clerics and planar-travel magic in the PHB?) So the rules should accommodate that style of play. You (and other DMs like you) will just modify 4e the same way you did 3.5. However, don't argue that the rules shouldn't be changed because YOUR GAME doesn't work under those assumptions...




The rules accomodate that style of play just fine in 3.5 - especially since planar travel and clerics don't assume any skill useage whatsoever. Why should it be changed in a way that *removes player choice*? That's idiotic.


----------



## Zurai (Oct 7, 2007)

Lord Tirian said:
			
		

> Or put it even more simple: A 20th-level wizard can fight better than a 1st- or 2nd-level fighter, can survive similar punishment, has a similar Fortitude save (i.e. resistance against physical attacks), can _react faster than that fighter_ (see Reflex bonus), yet he cannot surpass his climbing skill?




Says who? 

The maximum possible Climb ranks for a reasonable 1st level fighter is 4 (ranks) + 4 (strength) + 3 (skill focus) + 2 (athletic) = 13.

The maximum possible Climb ranks for a reasonable 20th level wizard is 11 (ranks) + 3 (skill focus) + 2 (athletic) = 16.

Looks like the wizard surpasses the fighter just fine. It's even more obvious without the feats: 8 vs 11.


----------



## WhatGravitas (Oct 7, 2007)

Zurai said:
			
		

> Not among someone who has *never in his entire life* seen open water, and who quite probably assigns religious and/or cultural reverence to water. It'd be very similar to someone who lived underground their entire life suddenly seeing the open sky.



Yeah, right. But that's a very special world - in this case, just note under campaign-specific rules "Swim - trained only".


			
				Zurai said:
			
		

> Says who?
> 
> The maximum possible Climb ranks for a reasonable 1st level fighter is 4 (ranks) + 4 (strength) + 3 (skill focus) + 2 (athletic) = 13.
> 
> ...



No, my point was: THe wizard is in all physical aspects better, without any special training (since BAB and saves are level dependant), why should he be worse in climbing without any special training? I mean fighting is the fighter's shtick - yet the wizard is better, without every learning how to fight, yet he fights better than the low-level fighter, who trained fighting for years. Apply the same analogy to climbing (trained/untrained).
Cheers, LT.


----------



## Nifft (Oct 7, 2007)

Zurai said:
			
		

> SAGA-style skills remove player choice. Players are literally unable to play characters that are lacking proficiency in even a single area. They MUST play characters that are jacks-of-all-skills.



 Even on its most technical merit, this is only half true at best.

Saga-style skills remove choice at *character creation*. However, it adds a lot of choices *during play*.

I know where I'd prefer to spend most of my time. 



			
				Zurai said:
			
		

> The rules accomodate that style of play just fine in 3.5 - especially since planar travel and clerics don't assume any skill useage whatsoever. Why should it be changed in a way that *removes player choice*? That's idiotic.



 You ban Clerics and planar travel, you make the world low magic, and you call other people idiots for *removing player choices*?   

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Zurai (Oct 7, 2007)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> and the last time you played/DMed a character like that (in a normal, non-desert world like Dark Sun setting) was...?




It doesn't really matter how frequent it is. The core rules need to support *any reasonable campaign setting*. "Environment world" (desert world, water world, forest world, ice world, etc etc ad nauseum) is an incredibly common campaign setting; the rules should support one without needing house rules.


----------



## Nifft (Oct 7, 2007)

Zurai said:
			
		

> It doesn't really matter how frequent it is. The core rules need to support *any reasonable campaign setting*. "Environment world" (desert world, water world, forest world, ice world, etc etc ad nauseum) is an incredibly common campaign setting; the rules should support one without needing house rules.



 I'm not an expert on campaign worlds, but outside of Dark Sun, I can't think of one single 'environment world' campaign setting.

Would you mind naming some?

Thanks, -- N


----------



## Zurai (Oct 7, 2007)

Nifft said:
			
		

> Even on its most technical merit, this is only half true at best.
> 
> Saga-style skills remove choice at *character creation*. However, it adds a lot of choices *during play*.




No, it doesn't. You can actually emulate a saga-style skill system reasonably well with the current 3.5E skill system, if you want. If you want your character to be able to do reasonably well in lots of skills, *you have the option of putting small amounts of skill points in lots of skills*. There's no need for the system to FORCE you to do so.



> You ban Clerics and planar travel, you make the world low magic, and you call other people idiots for *removing player choices*?
> 
> Cheers, -- N




You know what I can't stand? People claiming I insult other people when I have done no such thing. Please cite where I said people were idiots, or shut the  up. I'm done responding to you until you can be civil.


----------



## Mallus (Oct 7, 2007)

Zurai said:
			
		

> Not among someone who has *never in his entire life* seen open water...



So a kid with a natural aptitude for baseball must have grown up in Yankee stadium?


----------



## Nifft (Oct 7, 2007)

Zurai said:
			
		

> No, it doesn't. You can actually emulate a saga-style skill system reasonably well with the current 3.5E skill system, if you want. If you want your character to be able to do reasonably well in lots of skills, *you have the option of putting small amounts of skill points in lots of skills*. There's no need for the system to FORCE you to do so.



 You misunderstand the nature of the d20 system: specialists win.

You're claiming that the skill system doesn't need to be fixed because PCs can already choose to not specialize, but you're ignoring that "not specialize" is identical to "suck".

Would you claim that a Wizard is free to raise his Strength, Wisdom and Charisma ahead of his Intelligence, Constitution and Dexterity? You'd be right, but in a terribly disingenuous way.

Freedom to suck is no freedom at all.



			
				Zurai said:
			
		

> You know what I can't stand? People claiming I insult other people when I have done no such thing. Please cite where I said people were idiots, or shut the  up. I'm done responding to you until you can be civil.



 It's in the text I quoted. When you call an action idiotic, you are implying quite strongly that the actor is an idiot.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Oct 7, 2007)

Zurai said:
			
		

> I never once made that claim. My claim, for the people who cannot be bothered to read it and instead insist on assigning me motivations:
> 
> SAGA-style skills remove player choice. Players are literally unable to play characters that are lacking proficiency in even a single area. They MUST play characters that are jacks-of-all-skills.




No. That's wrong. You don't have to play a jack of all trades. Unless it is a reflexive skill roll, you are never ever forced to roll for a skill check. If a character is playing a desert nomad, he could simply decide to not try swimming the next river. It's not like people in real life wouldn't fear trying things they could actually do.

Second, the D&D 4 system just defines "jack of all trades" different than 3rd edition did. In 3rd edition, a Jack of all Trades could roll for any skill and had probably had 5 to 1/2 level as ranks.

In D&D 4, a Jack of all Trades is a character that is trained in every skill, but focused in none.

You have to adjust your baselines assumption. If Shadowrun would suddenly switch to a d20 system, the game wouldn't just become overpowered because ability scores no longer range from 1-6 but from 3-18, and suddenly people could have 10 ranks in Automatics, while previously the lmit was 6-7.


----------



## Stalker0 (Oct 7, 2007)

Zurai said:
			
		

> Right. So how do you re-flavor the desert nomad fighter who's never seen more than a wellful of water in his life taking to water like a fish the first time he sees the ocean?




Character talking to himself: Alright Regar, keep calm, steady, don't panic. This stuff is weird, but think of it like quickstand, just have to pull yourself through it, one arm at a time. Remember that oasis you were at last year, it like that....just a LOT bigger. That's right, one arm at a time. Kicking seems to help, kick harder. Alright, your doing this, just keep going. Go!!

In all seriousness, swimming isn't that hard, even a baby knows instinctively to hold its breath underwater. The reason people have a hard time of it is that they panic, they are afraid of the water for obvious reasons. High level heroes don't just panic, they are cool under pressure, they work through problems instead of running kicking and screaming.

If I met a desert nomad who could control his fear, I could teach him the basics of swimming in 5 minutes. For most people, its getting over the fear that takes the longest. And if the guy had lived in a harsh desert environment, he's likely in GREAT shape. Endurance helps in swimming a lot, but aerobic and musclar endurance. A high level fighter is going to have those, and for wizards you can flavor it the way I mentioned.


However, how about this scenario:

"Hey what happened to Regar?"

"You mean the oath keeper of Valimar, the slayer of Cortees, the greatest champion of the seven kingdoms? Drowned in a pond."

Isn't it a bit better to try and flavor why a high level adventurer can do stuff then say he can't and let him struggle like an incompetent boob?


----------



## Primitive Screwhead (Oct 7, 2007)

Zurai said:
			
		

> SAGA-style skills remove player choice. Players are literally unable to play characters that are lacking proficiency in even a single area. They MUST play characters that are jacks-of-all-skills.




See my point 'A' above....

I think a major drive behind the change of the skill system is to ease the design of adventures. As Nifft points out, the current system tends to result in higher level characters using magic as a crutch to avoid problems with the short supply of skill points. 

I want to get away from the 'Inn to Dungeon and Back again' hand-waving that, IMHO, minimizes the actual setting. I want to challenge high level groups with combat on the side of cliffs. THe current system discourages this.

Also, it seems that there is continual hue and cry that 'oh no! high level characters will be able to do *everything*'...
*Remathilis* wrote alot of stuff up there, but littered inside of his post you will see things that an untrained high-level character *cannot* do while a lower level trained character can.  High level characters will be generally more competant in the things that the assumed generic adventurer encounter regularly {in the assumed generic world}.
 Your world may vary, but thats no reason to cry foul on the RAW. 

Perhaps the 4E version will include a way to properly represent the desert warrior who gets dropped into a lake. Can't really tell yet... but I might get back to you in, oh.. about April next year?  


{wow, this thread is getting alot of attention... 10 post between my deciding to post and getting the form open.. wonder how many more have flown by and how outdated my comments are  }


----------



## Remathilis (Oct 7, 2007)

Zurai said:
			
		

> Why should it be changed in a way that *removes player choice*? That's idiotic.




I don't think I've ever heard a player say "boy, I'm glad I didn't put any ranks in swim. Sure, my character wouldn't have drown, but at least he died keeping to the spirit of the character!"


----------



## Daebryn (Oct 7, 2007)

Zurai said:
			
		

> Right. So how do you re-flavor the desert nomad fighter who's never seen more than a wellful of water in his life taking to water like a fish the first time he sees the ocean?



True Story Time: My cousin, who was born and raised in Nevada and never set foot in more water then could be found in a kiddy pool and had never learned to swim, moved up here to the Pacific Northwest when she was about 9. 

We have a lake.

Normally, while the rest of the family was swimming, she stayed on the beach. Finally one day, her father got fed up with her constant whining about how everyone was having fun but her, picked her up, carried her out onto the dock and threw her into the lake (granted he threw her towards me so if there was any problems I could help).

After only a minute or two of panicked flailing about, that girl who had never been in water before, swam like a fish.


----------



## Nifft (Oct 7, 2007)

Daebryn said:
			
		

> After only a minute or two of panicked flailing about, that girl who had never been in water before, swam like a fish.



 She sounds like a munchkin. 

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Mad Mac (Oct 7, 2007)

> After only a minute or two of panicked flailing about, that girl who had never been in water before, swam like a fish.




  Like a fish, eh? Suuuuure. Next you're going to tell me humans are naturally bouyant in water and even small children know how to climb.   

  To be honest, I don't think I've ever had a character put ranks in swim. If your average party is in an aquatic adventure situation without having time to prepare magically, they're all boned anyway. 

  Personally, I find it a much smaller hit to my sense of versimiludization for the 1 in 1000 Aquaphobic Desert Hero to make it to shore alive than the fact that your entire typical adventuring party of mighty heroes in 3.5 are easily wiped out by the sort of swimming challenge earth humans consider summer vacation.


----------



## A'koss (Oct 7, 2007)

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> In all seriousness, swimming isn't that hard, even a baby knows instinctively to hold its breath underwater. The reason people have a hard time of it is that they panic, they are afraid of the water for obvious reasons. High level heroes don't just panic, they are cool under pressure, they work through problems instead of running kicking and screaming.



I was just about to chime in with this very line of reasoning.


----------



## med stud (Oct 8, 2007)

Zurai said:
			
		

> I never once made that claim. My claim, for the people who cannot be bothered to read it and instead insist on assigning me motivations:
> 
> SAGA-style skills remove player choice. Players are literally unable to play characters that are lacking proficiency in even a single area. They MUST play characters that are jacks-of-all-skills.



If they play the game like a computer game, you are right. Otherwise they can limit themselves by just declaring that they will never use the skill no matter what, or the player imposes situational penalties on himself, I can think up a whole lot of -2 modifiers you can apply to yourself in very short time for any skill in the book (except Use Magic Device and the like  )


> The rules accomodate that style of play just fine in 3.5 - especially since planar travel and clerics don't assume any skill useage whatsoever. Why should it be changed in a way that *removes player choice*? That's idiotic.



It doesn't remove player choice, it makes player choice into something different. The players can chose their ***es off, just not by the same standards as before.

---

General point on topic: There seem to be a lot of hyperbole going on from some people who don't like these changes. They say that everyone will be great at everything. At lvl 20 is the first time an untrained character will have the same skill check that a trained and focused character has at lvl 1, but at lvl 20 you are almost Hercules, I can't see the problems of having "high" general skill bonuses by then.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 8, 2007)

Mad Mac said:
			
		

> Personally, I find it a much smaller hit to my sense of versimiludization for the 1 in 1000 Aquaphobic Desert Hero to make it to shore alive than the fact that your entire typical adventuring party of mighty heroes in 3.5 are easily wiped out by the sort of swimming challenge earth humans consider summer vacation.



Quoted for laughter (and also truth).


----------



## FireLance (Oct 8, 2007)

BryonD said:
			
		

> And all I have seen in SWSE defense is justification for dumbing down the system to make it more patty-cake for the DM and/or for hand-holding the player's hands for fear that they might actually need to find a creative solution to a problem.



Actually, I see it more as another safety net. The current safety net is combat - if the PCs still have not succeeded after exhausting all their other options, they can usually fight their way through. The PCs could run a high risk of individual death and/or collective failure, but at least they went out pro-actively trying to do something instead of standing around scratching their heads trying to find a solution that the DM will find acceptable (a little scratching of the head is okay, but too much of it doesn't make a good game for most people).

If the character has a 75% chance of failing a skill check and suffering some penalty (maybe even death, if failure means that he falls into lava), it's basically the player's way of saying that even a 25% chance of moving the game forward is better than racking his brains for another minute.


----------



## FireLance (Oct 8, 2007)

Zurai said:
			
		

> SAGA-style skills remove player choice. Players are literally unable to play characters that are lacking proficiency in even a single area. They MUST play characters that are jacks-of-all-skills.



Actually, jacks-of-all-things-that-even-a-normal-person-can-do-*untrained*. If it requires special training to do it, being a high-level character in itself isn't going to help.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Oct 8, 2007)

> The rules accomodate that style of play just fine in 3.5 - especially since planar travel and clerics don't assume any skill useage whatsoever. Why should it be changed in a way that removes player choice? That's idiotic.



You replace the player choice of being mostly incapable in a skill by character design to the player choice of using the Skill in a given encounter.

And why is removing an entire class or group of spells not removing a choice to the players? (Not that I would generally consider that bad, because they might not fit to some settings or play styles)


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Oct 8, 2007)

Zurai said:
			
		

> SAGA-style skills remove player choice.




No, it doesn't.

It just moves it around.

Moreover, D&D has *always* "removed" player choice.

Why can't I play a level 20 pacifist cleric with a BAB of +0 / THAC0 of 20 and a Fort Save Bonus of +0 / Save vs. Poison of 17?


----------



## pawsplay (Oct 10, 2007)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> No, it doesn't.
> 
> It just moves it around.
> 
> ...




Not absolutely. But I think it objectively does. 

- You cannot train cross class skills
- You cannot train a skill mid-point between maxed out and not maxed out
- You cannot add a new skill at every level... if you want skills from two classes it is impossible to have your new class skills before level 3.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Oct 10, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> Not absolutely. But I think it objectively does.
> 
> - You cannot train cross class skills



That's a detail of the Starwars implementation, but this doesn't mean that's how it stays.



> - You cannot train a skill mid-point between maxed out and not maxed out



That's only a matter of definition. Trained in a skill is the new mid-point. Focused is maxed out, having a reroll ability is "the new Skill Focus". And while you have the option do this in 3rd edition, it is usually only done to either get a synergy bonus, or to be able to succeed at basic tasks. You also don't have to train to mid-point any more, if it's just the numerical bonus you were interested in.
The only lost option here is being able to perform skill checks trained "cheaply" and relying on your ability bonus for the rest. (I am not saying that this was a bad thing. I certainly enjoyed it when playing Wizards, and I think my DMs didn't mind, either. As a DM, I certainly didn't complain)



> - You cannot add a new skill at every level... if you want skills from two classes it is impossible to have your new class skills before level 3.



That's also a detail of the current system. A Star Wars house rule I liked was allowing to pick Skill Training instead of a class feat when multiclassing. Might become a core rule in 4th edition (but I am not promising anything  )

I think the options lost are low compared to the things won.


----------



## Mokona (Oct 10, 2007)

_*Star Wars* Saga Edition_ skill rules are superior to *Dungeons & Dragons* skill point buy system.  Low level NPCs can be skilled artisans and trained-only skill checks handle the +1/2 level oddities.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Oct 10, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> Not absolutely. But I think it objectively does.




I'm not sure what this means.


----------



## hong (Oct 11, 2007)

The sooner people stop thinking in terms of the HEROization of D&D, the better, I say.


----------



## Lurks-no-More (Oct 11, 2007)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> I'm not sure what this means.



AFAICT, it removes the choice that players _could_ be making, even if they don't.

In my play experience, people are always maximizing the most relevant skills (for a wizard, for example, Spellcraft, Knowledge: Arcana and Concentration in this order), and not really caring about other skills. Hence you get those high-level wizards who drown if you drop them in water, or paladins who can't spot anything, etc.


----------



## Remathilis (Oct 11, 2007)

Lurks-no-More said:
			
		

> Hence you get those high-level wizards who drown if you drop them in water, or paladins who can't spot anything, etc.




And we ALL know how useful those dedicated ranks in spellcraft are when tossed overboard or those maxed out ranks in ride are vs an assassin's death strike...


----------



## Nifft (Oct 11, 2007)

Lurks-no-More said:
			
		

> Hence you get those high-level wizards who drown if you drop them in water, or paladins who can't spot anything, etc.



 IME, you get Wizards who don't fall because they are always flying, who don't drown because they _plane shift_ to Arboria, who don't fail climb checks (also due to flying).

Armored Paladin? Ring of Water Walking, or Winged Boots.

Basically, high level D&D turns into a super heroes game because *it's easier* to solve problems with magic than it is to use skills.

If we want to reduce the reliance on magic items, we should also make skills easier to use. 

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Remathilis (Oct 11, 2007)

Nifft said:
			
		

> IME, you get Wizards who don't fall because they are always flying, who don't drown because they _plane shift_ to Arboria, who don't fail climb checks (also due to flying).
> 
> Armored Paladin? Ring of Water Walking, or Winged Boots.
> 
> ...




Quoted for absolute truth. 

Why solve a problem with mundane means (like skill checks) when its easier/cheaper to buy/make a magical trinket that removes the issue completely.

The first level rogue is superior at climbing because he has more ranks and/or less armor check penalty than his fellow adventurers. By 10th level, he's still using those risky climb checks while his allies fly, dim door, spider climb, and a variety of other spell or item tricks which are 100% reliable* and easily obtainable.

* unless you have anti-magic fields at the top of each cliff, but that's just mean.


----------



## Celebrim (Oct 11, 2007)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> The first level rogue is superior at climbing because he has more ranks and/or less armor check penalty than his fellow adventurers. By 10th level, he's still using those risky climb checks while his allies fly, dim door, spider climb, and a variety of other spell or item tricks which are 100% reliable* and easily obtainable.




I think that is partly that I think they are going to find it very hard to cut down on this that I don't particularly like universal competance.  You are muscling in on the skillful character's role.

The reason that I think its going to be hard to cut down on the sort of magic usage here described is that

a) Players like getting loot.
b) DMs like giving away loot.
c) The real problem with the magic reliance in 3e wasn't the described problem, but the math.  Namely, stat boosting items and layers of different named bonuses boosted AC's, attack bonuses, spell DC, and saving throws to the point that it became escallating warfare.  If the PC's boosted thier spell DC's, then the monsters had to boost thier saves to keep up.  But this meant that everyone that didn't boost thier DCs was screwed, which eventually meant that the whole 'kit' of magic items became essential.  The ability to fly for X rounds a day is powerful, but it doesn't screw up the math.
d) This sort of loot has a long history in the game and people expect it of D&D.  Someone posted one of EGG's old characters on the boards a few weeks ago, and by comparison to modern kits his armor and weapons were fairly ordinary even weak.  He certainly didn't have the big six.  But his accessories were very much a 'get out of death free' kit.


----------



## DonTadow (Oct 11, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> The sooner people stop thinking in terms of the HEROization of D&D, the better, I say.



No heroes in dungeons and dragons?


----------



## Campbell (Oct 11, 2007)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> No heroes in dungeons and dragons?




Not heroization. HEROization as in the HERO System. We already have Mutants and Masterminds for that.


----------



## WyzardWhately (Oct 11, 2007)

Nifft said:
			
		

> IME, you get Wizards who don't fall because they are always flying, who don't drown because they _plane shift_ to Arboria, who don't fail climb checks (also due to flying).
> 
> Armored Paladin? Ring of Water Walking, or Winged Boots.
> 
> ...




This is a good thought.

Also, as an incidental, I spent a lot of time this past weekend playing SAGA.  We had zero problems with the skill rules as written.  I found I was rather fond of them, just for how quick they were, and found them entirely serviceable.  The proof is in the pudding, for me.  YMMV.

I also find myself coming down on the side of liking the 1/2 level for all untrained uses bit.  I think the problem is scaling.  It seems as though all the examples of why this is a bad thing use 20th level characters for that example.  This is sort of ridiculous, because 20th level characters are supposed to be absurdly badass.  They've spent years doing insane things in every environment imaginable, under circumstances that no normal person could survive.  I suspect, that with 'skill challenges' and 'terrain challenges' and the new theory of traps, all these simple physical abilities like balancing and jumping tables and keeping your feet under you, climbing and swimming, etc., are going to be a much bigger part of every character's life from Level 1 on up.  

I mean, really.  After you've stabbed your way out of a dragon's gullet and survived a few poison gas attacks, swimming across a river and climbing a tree is probably pretty tame.


----------

