# Skills?



## BryonD (Aug 22, 2007)

I've seen a reference or three to "what we know so far" about skills.
So far I don't "know" anything about skills.  And I don't see a thread about them.
Am I missing something?  Or are people making just calling their assumptions knowledge?

What do we know about skills based on what WotC has said? 
Can we list the details we know, or can someone link me to a thread I may have missed?

Thanks


----------



## DogBackward (Aug 22, 2007)

I believe it was mentioned in the GenCon video that skills will be at least inspired by SWSE. That's been a pretty popular change, from what I've seen, and I like it a lot myself. I'm not sure what all we do know, though, as I haven't been online much lately. I'm thinking that using the consolidated skill list while keeping the skill point system is a pretty decent idea.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Aug 22, 2007)

I think Star Wars Saga Edition was cited as being something of a preview of the next edition of D&D, in a number of ways, skills (apparently) likely being one of them.

Hopefully someone's got a link though, as - apart from anything else - I wouldn't mind having it confirmed, denied, or definitely unknown, just to be sure.


----------



## Henry (Aug 22, 2007)

The biggest downfall I've seen so far discussed about Star Wars Saga-like skills is that all of them consistently increase, whether trained in them or not. Conan the level 20 barbarian will know as much about spellcraft as the level 1 wizard who spent all of his formative years in the academy of magic. Also, the negative connotation is that you won't have a character who ISN'T skilled in any skill whatsoever - the tweaking and customization that some players enjoyed would be gone.

The first point I can see, but to me the more realistic is that you're going to know a little something about everything if you're a super-bad level 20 adventurer. James Bond knows a bit about everything, from cooking to computer hacking, and the level 20 adventurer is the fantasy equivalent. Conan doesn't know that the shimmering wall is a wall of force, he instead knows that it's just like the wall that Pelias dispelled when fighting "that stygian wizard that one time", and Pelias called it a "wall of force."

The second point has more bite, because it directly cuts into player fun. If there are enough players out there who want that customization, I think it would behoove WotC to have at least an easy optional rule to allow for it -- and personally, I think there are enough that they really should think about this. Not everyone wants that Conan with the +10 spellcraft, and telling them, "just don't use it," is kind of like telling a cleric not to use his spontaneous cure spells when the party needs it.


----------



## HeapThaumaturgist (Aug 22, 2007)

Well, IIRC, you get +1/2 level to all skills that can be used Untrained, but cannot use Trained Only skills unless you're Trained.  So Spellcraft would probably be a Trained Only skill, while Athletics (Climb, Jump, Swim) would be a skill everybody gets some basic ability with.

--fje


----------



## Tharen the Damned (Aug 22, 2007)

I do not think that it will work exactly like that in 4th.
Again I point to Iron Heros (wdesigned by Mike Mearls) where skills were grouped together.
An Athletics group inclueds Jump, Climb and Swim for example.
You just spend skill points on this group and not on individual skill.
But you still spend skill points.
That IMO would also be a very good and easy way to apply skill points to Monsters.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Aug 22, 2007)

Henry said:
			
		

> The biggest downfall I've seen so far discussed about Star Wars Saga-like skills is that all of them consistently increase, whether trained in them or not. Conan the level 20 barbarian will know as much about spellcraft as the level 1 wizard who spent all of his formative years in the academy of magic. Also, the negative connotation is that you won't have a character who ISN'T skilled in any skill whatsoever - the tweaking and customization that some players enjoyed would be gone.




That's not quite true.

While Conan the Level 20 barbarian *would* have the same +10 bonus to Spellcraft that the Trained and Focused Apprentice does, the apprentice would also have access to the Trained Only uses of Spellcraft.

While identifying a spell as its being cast might be an untrained use (Conan does, after all, begin to recognize a spell after he's seen the serpent priests cast it about 30 times), reading magical runes or invoking a spell from a scroll* is still beyond him.  Our Apprentice Wizard is also much more likely to take a feat or talent like Spellcasting Prodigy, which lets him reroll any Spellcraft attempt and take the better result.

So, while the raw bonus is similar, the Wizard 1 is better at the skill and can use it in more applications.

Similarly, the "tweaking" that many people cite as a benefit of the skill points system is still present.  It's just been moved into the realm of talents and feats, rather than base skill modifiers.

* Note: These are all guesses about what might be trained or untrained uses of a skill which may or may not exist in 4E.


----------



## Jhaelen (Aug 22, 2007)

Aus_Snow said:
			
		

> I think Star Wars Saga Edition was cited as being something of a preview of the next edition of D&D, in a number of ways, skills (apparently) likely being one of them.



Yup. Someone also explicitly mentioned that several skills will be folded into one (e.g. Move Silently & Hide).


----------



## BryonD (Aug 22, 2007)

I had forgotten, but now I do recall that someone specifically said Hide and Move Silently would be merged.

I hope that if they do use a SWSE type system that it is very significantly modified.  When I read through the development notes for SWSE they specifically talked about how in the movies that everyone seemed to have some degree of skill in most anything if the time came that they needed it.  I agree that it is this way in the movies.  So that idea works for me for a Star Wars game.  But it does not fly the same for D&D.  

Perhaps the system will work along the same line, except custom skill lists per character are selected.  One of the examples somewhere did talk about a rogue character that didn't bother with social stuff.  So that may indicate that you don't get automatic advancement in full suites of skills.

We will see.


----------



## Jim DelRosso (Aug 22, 2007)

I, for one, hope they bring the SWSE system over pretty much as-is. I'd love a bit of pulpy omnicompetence in my high level D&D characters, and I think the "Trained-only uses" mechanic is an excellent way to make distinctions between the experienced barbarian who's seen a lot of magic cast and the wizard who's actually got some book-learning under his belt.


----------



## BryonD (Aug 22, 2007)

To have every mage  be competent at climbing, swimming and sneaking would get real old and real boring, real fast.  

Not only is it a terrible jarring clash with the archetypes, but it also would make it standard fare and therefore unheroic and dull.  Things that every PC can do are automatically no big deal.


----------



## Shadeydm (Aug 22, 2007)

Would this spell extinction for the "skill monkey" rogue?


----------



## Jim DelRosso (Aug 22, 2007)

BryonD said:
			
		

> To have every mage  be competent at climbing, swimming and sneaking would get real old and real boring, real fast.
> 
> Not only is it a terrible jarring clash with the archetypes, but it also would make it standard fare and therefore unheroic and dull.  Things that every PC can do are automatically no big deal.




I think you're overestimating the effect of having that +1/2 level to all skills; it doesn't turn every skill check into an autosuccess, it just reduces the number of skill checks that are autofail (or close enough to it as to make no difference). In other words, the mage won't be springing up that cliff like a Cimmerian, but he also won't force the whole party to wait because the only way he's getting up the cliff is by preparing a levitation spell.


----------



## Talath (Aug 22, 2007)

You talk about characters having every skill as if it were a bad thing, Henry. Consider Conan, the 20th level Barbarian. He's seen things that would drive most men mad; he's been around the known world, fighting Lovecraftian horrors, and he's seen wizards and warlocks do some pretty crazy stuff with magic. He has a Spellcraft of +10.

Take your 1st level Wizard. He has a +10 Spellcraft (if he is focused), plus his Intelligence modifier. Now consider a conversation between the two, considering amiable circumstances.

"How do you know of a wall of force, you big dumb barbarian?"
"I've seen my friend Pelius cast such a spell before; it was also used against me by a dark wizard from Stygia. Nothing can penetrate it; it is immune to being breached."
"Yes, well ... I have read alot about it, and that seems to be the trick of it."

You see, level is the difference between knowledge and experience. Conan experienced it, and the wizard knows of it. It's all about interpretation of the character. 

Like someone else in this thread said, Conan can't use the trained only functions of the skill. I assume every group has some downtime between adventures, allowing them to persue other skills of interest. It isn't too unrealistic to think that a 20th level character has picked up a little of everything; especially Conan, who has done a little of everything.

EDIT: Aww nuts, someone already posted an example similar to mine. I've been scooped!


----------



## F4NBOY (Aug 22, 2007)

Torduk, the grumpy 10th level dwarf fighter(that never ever considered learning diplomacy, since it's not even a class skill for him) is as diplomatic as Gilberto, the 1st level noble paladin that trained all his life in diplomacy (he has the skill trainning in it).
Being a sucker is not always bad, it creates interesting roleplaying situation sometimes. If the wizard can't climb, he must find a creative solution for it. It's a challenge, and the game is about overcoming challenges. And solutions that are not in the book are funny too.
And whatever, I just think playing a grumpy dwarf is a lot of fun ,and I wanna be able to keep playing that.


----------



## Glyfair (Aug 22, 2007)

Aus_Snow said:
			
		

> I think Star Wars Saga Edition was cited as being something of a preview of the next edition of D&D, in a number of ways, skills (apparently) likely being one of them.




I'm not 100% sure it was skills being referenced.  I think it might have been a general "Star Wars Saga Edition" was developed after 4E was being worked on, so some things in it came from 4E.


----------



## BryonD (Aug 22, 2007)

Jim DelRosso said:
			
		

> I think you're overestimating the effect of having that +1/2 level to all skills; it doesn't turn every skill check into an autosuccess, it just reduces the number of skill checks that are autofail (or close enough to it as to make no difference). In other words, the mage won't be springing up that cliff like a Cimmerian, but he also won't force the whole party to wait because the only way he's getting up the cliff is by preparing a levitation spell.



No, you are just demanding extreme examples only and thus skewing the assessment.

No one said anything about spring up cliffs.  But the idea that the assumption would be that a cliff won't make the party wait also means that the cliff is no longer a relavent item in the game.


----------



## Jim DelRosso (Aug 22, 2007)

BryonD said:
			
		

> No, you are just demanding extreme examples only and thus skewing the assessment.
> 
> No one said anything about spring up cliffs.  But the idea that the assumption would be that a cliff won't make the party wait also means that the cliff is no longer a relavent item in the game.




So, if the cliff doesn't _definitely_ force the party to wait, it's not relevant to the game?


----------



## BryonD (Aug 22, 2007)

Jim DelRosso said:
			
		

> So, if the cliff doesn't _definitely_ force the party to wait, it's not relevant to the game?



Please, if you are going to throw around terms like omnicompetence and make definative statements like "won't force the party to wait" then you can't turn around and act like that isn't the point you made.

The way you stated it, and the way it would work in a pure SWSE port, would have a negative impact on the ability to create interesting challenges and would negate a lot of classic and fun parts of the game.

Fortunately, I've done a bt more digging now and I'm convinced that SWSE rules are at least in part specifically crafted for Star Wars flavor.  So, it remains to be seen exactly what works out, but I can feel free to ignore your double standard nonsense for now.


----------



## Jim DelRosso (Aug 22, 2007)

BryonD said:
			
		

> I can feel free to ignore your double standard nonsense for now.




Considering the quality of discourse you've offered here, I eagerly await being ignored.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Aug 22, 2007)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> I'm not 100% sure it was skills being referenced.  I think it might have been a general "Star Wars Saga Edition" was developed after 4E was being worked on, so some things in it came from 4E.



Ah, right. I had no real idea, just hearsay to go on. 

I should probably slog through all those podcasts, YouTube presentations, FAQs, blogs and whatever else. But no. Blech. I really, truly can't be bothered.

But either way, my apologies to those I might have misled, minor though it might've been..


----------



## AllisterH (Aug 22, 2007)

F4NBOY said:
			
		

> Torduk, the grumpy 10th level dwarf fighter(that never ever considered learning diplomacy, since it's not even a class skill for him) is as diplomatic as Gilberto, the 1st level noble paladin that trained all his life in diplomacy (he has the skill trainning in it).
> Being a sucker is not always bad, it creates interesting roleplaying situation sometimes. If the wizard can't climb, he must find a creative solution for it. It's a challenge, and the game is about overcoming challenges. And solutions that are not in the book are funny too.
> And whatever, I just think playing a grumpy dwarf is a lot of fun ,and I wanna be able to keep playing that.




Er, I don't have SAGA SWs either, but I think you might be doing a diservice. Perhaps another example would suffice since the use of talents changes it.

Stealth for an ordinary character: 1/2 level + DEX modifier (no training)
Stealth for a trained character: 1/2 level + DEX modifier + 5 (Stealth as a trained skill)

So far, so good, right? Now, from here, there are several ways to improve your Stealth abilities:

Stealth for a focused character: 1/2 level + DEX modifier + 10 (Stealth trained, + Skill Focus: Stealth)

Stealth for a Scout with the right Talents: 1/2 level + DEX modifier + 5. Reroll any Stealth roll and take the better roll. Move at normal speed with no penalty to Stealth.(Stealth trained, Scout talents Improved Stealth and Hidden Movement)

If you really want to go nuts, these things all stack:

Stealth for an uber-Stealth god: 1/2 level + DEX modifier + 10. Reroll any Stealth roll and take the better roll. Move at normal speed with no penalty to Stealth.(Stealth trained, Skill Focus: Stealth, Scout talents Improved Stealth and Hidden Movement


Thus, even if you're a 20th level dwarven fighter who has no interest whatsoever in Stealth, even though you have the same Stealth value as a 1st level "scout/rogue", the scout will be much better than you since he can do "MORE" with the skill.

The Trained modifier is the biggest factor since this allows a character to do more with the skill.

As I mentioned before, I don't have SW saga, but from what I understand, all skills have a "trained" line in their description. 

Thus, a 1st level character TRAINED in say the Climb skill doesn't need equipment to scale a wall whereas even though the 20th level non-trained mage, can climb a wall but needs equipment.

I can see where this is attractive since it does encourage you to attempt actions even if you're not trained, as well, it makes it easier for the DM to create mid to high level characters and just as importantly, you can have skills that are appropriate for 1st level characters but at the same time, the PCs don't automatically blow the scale off.

Remember, at mid to high levels, most skills didn't really matter since unless it was against an opposed DC, you only needed a certain skill point value.


----------



## an_idol_mind (Aug 22, 2007)

Here's my problem with the Saga edition style of skills:

I have a character who in his backstory was involved in a horrible shipwreck at sea. He's spent over 100 years (he's an elf) avoiding ships and water. The very thought of being in the water used to make him break out in a cold sweat, even though he's fought dragons and demons without blinking. Recently, he's finally overcome that fear. At his next level up, I'm planning on putting a few ranks in Swim to demonstrate that he is slowly acclimating himself to the water. Using a Saga-style skill system, though, he's already a competent swimmer, even though he's never received any real training in it and has avoided bodies of water like they're the plague.

Similarly, that same character has dabbled in music, and has 4 ranks or so in Perform (stringed instruments). But he's never done more than that, nor has he shown an interest in being more than a casual player. By the Saga system, though, he'd be able to retire from adventuring and live quite comfortably as a renowned minstrel.

I'd personally like to see something of a hybrid system, where a character has all the primary skills for his class, with a small number of discretionary points to assign to other skills. That way, a rogue doesn't need to worry about forgetting to take Sleight of Hand, and Rodar the fighter can take 2 ranks in Spellcraft to represent the minor training he had before getting tossed out of the wizard academy and picking up a greatsword.


----------



## Technomancer (Aug 22, 2007)

Maybe the Flaw mechanic from Unearthed Arcana can ameliorate to some degree having skills advance on their own and PCs being good at skills their players don't want them to be good at?


----------



## F4NBOY (Aug 22, 2007)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> Er, I don't have SAGA SWs either, but I think you might be doing a diservice. Perhaps another example would suffice since the use of talents changes it.
> 
> Stealth for an ordinary character: 1/2 level + DEX modifier (no training)
> Stealth for a trained character: 1/2 level + DEX modifier + 5 (Stealth as a trained skill)
> ...




My point was that I don't think that a grumpy dwarf, no matter how high his level is, should get free ranks in diplomacy.

Of course Gilberto would be better in Diplomacy check at his 1st lvl, comparing to the 10th level dwarf, but the problem I see is not with Gilberto having just a few, but with the dwarf having to much.


I don't think Dorkis, the 20th level wizard should get 10 free ranks in Intimidate, and be as much or even more intimidating than Destructor, the 10th level Barbarian. And even if Dorkis wanted to be very intimidating he would not be able to, because he can't take Skill Training nor Skill Focus, since Intimidate is not a class skill for him. OTOH, with the present skill system, Dorkis can have 0 ranks in diplomacy if he wishes (plus any ability mod) or have a +14 modifier (max ranks for cross class skill plus Skill Focus). In a Saga "world", all Wizards of the same level are always equally intimidating (not considering any Charisma bonus).

To simplify my point, they made SAGA skill system this way to make all PC characters jacks-of-all-trades, to better simulate what we see in the movies. D&D characters are note meant to be jack-of-all-trades at all, unless they want too.


----------



## Jim DelRosso (Aug 22, 2007)

Well, don't forget ability mods. If the grumpy dwarf has the low Charisma to go with his disposition, that's gonna erode his untrained skill bonus. Also note: SWSE doesn't have Diplomacy of Intimidate skills, rolling both into Persuasion. If D&D4e does something similar, you could simply use that untrained bonus exclusively to scare folks, thus keeping closer to your character concept. And we're not sure yet how "cross class" skills will work in 4e; it's been seriously debated regarding SWSE, so we may see some changes before 4e hits, even if they go with a SWSE-type system.


----------



## drothgery (Aug 22, 2007)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> As I mentioned before, I don't have SW saga, but from what I understand, all skills have a "trained" line in their description.
> 
> Thus, a 1st level character TRAINED in say the Climb skill doesn't need equipment to scale a wall whereas even though the 20th level non-trained mage, can climb a wall but needs equipment.




That's not quite true; some skills have no trained-only uses (Deception is one of those, so my high-charisma Twi'lek Scoundrel 5/Jedi 1 with a species ability to re-roll Deception checks and the Scoundrel's Fool's Luck Talent -- which lets her spend a Force Point to get a bonus to all skills for an encounter -- is actually pretty good at it despite being untrained in Deception), and some skills have no untrained uses (Mechanics is the most notable there; you can't break a security system or repair an X-Wing untrained, so the aforementioned Twi'lek has rather more mechanical aptitude than her fellow Padawans).


----------



## F4NBOY (Aug 22, 2007)

> so we may see some changes before 4e hits, even if they go with a SWSE-type system




That's exactly what I want, if it were the case


----------



## Jim DelRosso (Aug 22, 2007)

F4NBOY said:
			
		

> That's exactly what I want, if it were the case




It's still too early to tell. Even making a distinction between Intimidate and Diplomacy is incorrect when talking about SWSE, since the game combines them into Persuasion. And we've got no idea what is or isn't going into the class skill list for Wizards yet; for all we know, they might even have access to a talent that allows them to use some kind of magic check in place of Persuasion, like Jedi in SWSE.

Time will tell.


----------



## AllisterH (Aug 22, 2007)

F4NBOY said:
			
		

> I don't think Dorkis, the 20th level wizard should get 10 free ranks in Intimidate, and be as much or even more intimidating than Destructor, the 10th level Barbarian.
> 
> To simplify my point, they made SAGA skill system this way to make all PC characters jacks-of-all-trades, to better simulate what we see in the movies. D&D characters are note meant to be jack-of-all-trades at all, unless they want too.





But I can see why this might be true in D&D as well. You're not a "medieval" citizen whose only experience is tied to the small village he grew up in and thus, you only know a few things. You've been crisscrossing the country/continent/world/universe and in that down time, you've picked up a few things.

You're a 20th level character who has been around and can make reality sit up and do the polka  Damn straight you should be intimidating though. Its similar to the BAB we have right now. Even though your mage could have NEVER rolled an attack roll, you're still leagues better than a 1st level fighter.

re: Death of the skill monkey. Not to my understanding. Saga simply defines skilled differently. It isn't a case of what Skill Points you have assigned, but what skills you're trained in.


----------



## Victim (Aug 22, 2007)

I'm not so sure that DnD ideas don't support some degree of omnicompetence though.  What kind of active adventurer wouldn't pick up some Climb/Jump/Swim type skills as they move around through rough environments?  The wizard still might not be good at those skills, but he'd likely improve somewhat - a situation made unlikely with skill points.  When the group has to sneak into or inflitrate the stronghold somehow, even the non sneaky types can generally do okay up to a point.  

I know our group has been frustrated by a lack of skills at times.  What's the point of stealing guard uniforms or whatever when some low no CHA fighter is going to blow the disguise check regardless (often with a result so low you have to wonder if they even put the clothes on)?  It just pushes matters towards the common denominator "kill them all" method (combat ability does improve universally).


----------



## F4NBOY (Aug 22, 2007)

> Even making a distinction between Intimidate and Diplomacy is incorrect when talking about SWSE, since the game combines them into Persuasion.




Making the distiction does not invalidate my point. Let's see:

_Torduk, the grumpy 10th level dwarf fighter(that never ever considered learning Persuasion, since it's not even a class skill for him) is as diplomatic as Gilberto, the 1st level noble paladin that trained all his life in Persuasion (he has the skill trainning in it)._

_I don't think Dorkis, the 20th level wizard should get 10 free ranks in Persuasion, and be as much or even more intimidating than Destructor, the 10th level Barbarian. And even if Dorkis wanted to be very intimidating he would not be able to, because he can't take Skill Training nor Skill Focus, since Persuasion is not a class skill for him. OTOH, with the present skill system, Dorkis can have 0 ranks in Diplomacy if he wishes (plus any ability mod) or have a +14 modifier (max ranks for cross class skill plus Skill Focus). In a Saga "world", all Wizards of the same level are always equally intimidating, (not considering any Charisma bonus)._



> And we've got no idea what is or isn't going into the class skill list for Wizards yet




If Persuasion comes to be a class skill for Wizards, consider my point using another skill that does not come to be a class skill for Wizards.

_I don't think Dorkis, the 20th level wizard should get 10 free ranks in Climb, and be as much or even more "climbful" than Monkee, the 10th level Rogue. And even if Dorkis wanted to be very "climbful" he would not be able to, because he can't take Skill Training nor Skill Focus, since Climb is not a class skill for him. OTOH, with the present skill system, Dorkis can have 0 ranks in Climb if he wishes (plus any ability mod) or have a +14 modifier (max ranks for cross class skill plus Skill Focus). In a Saga "world", all Wizards of the same level are always equally Climbful, (not considering any Strenght bonus)._

So i really want some changes if they use the Saga skill system in 4E.


----------



## Victim (Aug 22, 2007)

An easy change would be to introduce weakpoint areas - a character picks a few trained skills with a bonus, and then a few skills he's especially bad at that either don't increase or suffer a penalty.  So the dwarf who never liked dealing with other people and didn't even pay attention to the methods his allies used around him might have no Persuade at all.  

But a character that's trained all his life probably has skill focus and a good stat, so they'd be better than a 20th level character with a bad stat.


----------



## F4NBOY (Aug 22, 2007)

> Its similar to the BAB we have right now. Even though your mage could have NEVER rolled an attack roll, you're still leagues better than a 1st level fighter.




But BAB is not a skill. Combat plays an important part in D&D games. D&D characters are adventurers, all of them need to be useful in combat, since it's an inevitable consequence of going into a dungeon full of monsters.
Ensuring that every character is somewhat competent in combats makes D&D game better, but making them somewhat competent in every skill, in everything, may or may not make the game less interesting.


----------



## Victim (Aug 22, 2007)

F4NBOY said:
			
		

> But BAB is not a skill. Combat plays an important part in D&D games. D&D characters are adventurers, all of them need to be useful in combat, since it's an inevitable consequence of going into a dungeon full of monsters.
> Ensuring that every character is somewhat competent in combats makes D&D game better, but making them somewhat competent in every skill, in everything, may or may not make the game less interesting.




The lack of general competence in skills pushes the game towards areas in which characters do have general ability (combat) and away from skill based plans that involve the whole group.  Therefore, the lack of ability keeps interesting plans from working (or even from serious consideration), thus making the game less interesting.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Aug 22, 2007)

Hey Bryon--

Since you started this thread, I don't feel bad pimping an old one here. It's proven to be pretty predictive of some 4e changes so far, and perhaps worth a fresh read to you since you were active in it.

RISE FROM YOUR GR4VE!

To refresh your memory somewhat: Untrained skills, mandatory skill point distribution vs. skill point choice, whether or not a "skill check" is "an appropriate dramatic obstacle," etc.

And lots of other good stuff worth mulling over in a fresh light.


(Err, and some unfortunate snark from yours truly.)


----------



## F4NBOY (Aug 22, 2007)

Victim said:
			
		

> The lack of general competence in skills pushes the game towards areas in which characters do have general ability (combat) and away from skill based plans that involve the whole group.  Therefore, the lack of ability keeps interesting plans from working (or even from serious consideration), thus making the game less interesting.




As I said, it may or may not make the game less interesting.
You can't affirm that, since there are an almost infinite number of situations that can occur when characters lack the skill needed in the presented situation. I know tons of examples where lacking the skill does not pushes the game towards combat, but actually creates new kinds of interesting challenges.

It IS a matter of taste, so from personal experience, things that depend on the taste of the players should always be left as flexible and open as possible.


----------



## AllisterH (Aug 22, 2007)

Victim said:
			
		

> I know our group has been frustrated by a lack of skills at times.  What's the point of stealing guard uniforms or whatever when some low no CHA fighter is going to blow the disguise check regardless (often with a result so low you have to wonder if they even put the clothes on)?  It just pushes matters towards the common denominator "kill them all" method (combat ability does improve universally).




This might be the reason *WHY* they might use the SAGA system. While it is occasionally fun to try and figure out a problem when nobody in the party has the relevant skill, the default seems to be "smash and kill" since as the above poster noted, you don't actually have to do anything to have a decent skill.

A lot of people complain that D&D just devolves into combat, but if you're skills pretty much suck unless you're a skill monkey class, what else can you do? We might actually see more encounters resolved via non-combat means since players psychologically will feel more confident using skills.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Aug 22, 2007)

BryonD said:
			
		

> To have every mage  be competent at climbing, swimming and sneaking would get real old and real boring, real fast.
> 
> Not only is it a terrible jarring clash with the archetypes, but it also would make it standard fare and therefore unheroic and dull.  Things that every PC can do are automatically no big deal.



Saga dealt with this very well.  Your opposed checks against an enemy of something approaching your level would be the limiting factor.  And EVERYTHING is an opposed check, as far as I remember.

I don't mind the wizard sneaking past the goblin mooks that patrol outside the keep, but the trained guards inside have a REAL good chance of spotting him, and the BBEG and his lieutenants are going to see him coming a mile away.

Meanwhile, the rogue who is trained and talented for it is going to sneak right up and pants the BBEG as before.

Balance maintained, game more entertainingly "heroic" IMO.



			
				an_idol_mind said:
			
		

> Here's my problem with the Saga edition style of skills:
> 
> I have a character who in his backstory was involved in a horrible shipwreck at sea. He's spent over 100 years (he's an elf) avoiding ships and water. The very thought of being in the water used to make him break out in a cold sweat, even though he's fought dragons and demons without blinking. Recently, he's finally overcome that fear. At his next level up, I'm planning on putting a few ranks in Swim to demonstrate that he is slowly acclimating himself to the water. Using a Saga-style skill system, though, he's already a competent swimmer, even though he's never received any real training in it and has avoided bodies of water like they're the plague.
> 
> Similarly, that same character has dabbled in music, and has 4 ranks or so in Perform (stringed instruments). But he's never done more than that, nor has he shown an interest in being more than a casual player. By the Saga system, though, he'd be able to retire from adventuring and live quite comfortably as a renowned minstrel.



You're assuming DCs are the same as in 3.5, you know, and ignoring the trained/untrained divide.  Making decent money as a performer may require a substantially larger modifier what with feats/talents AND training in that skill.

Also, the vast majority of mammals can swim competently at birth, and humans only fail at it when they're nervous.  We ARE naturally buoyant.  With no training, provided you're confident you can do it, you can swim in all manner of conditions for at least a little while.  And certainly are far better at it than the average 3.5 adventurer.



			
				F4NBOY said:
			
		

> My point was that I don't think that a grumpy dwarf, no matter how high his level is, should get free ranks in diplomacy.
> 
> Of course Gilberto would be better in Diplomacy check at his 1st lvl, comparing to the 10th level dwarf, but the problem I see is not with Gilberto having just a few, but with the dwarf having to much.
> 
> ...



The grumpy dwarf is still a 10th level adventurer, who is going to succeed at some amount of diplomacy checks simply because he's almost certainly a wealthy bad-arse.  That carries more weight with people than smooth talking in the VAST majority of situations, and I can throw research at you to prove it.

The 20th level wizard SHOULD be more intimidating than anything but the biggest, hairiest, ugliest 10th level barbarian.  He's a _20th level wizard_ who can rearrange your atoms in a split second.

We're so married to D&D archetypes, we're rejecting more REALISTIC social modeling.


----------



## BryonD (Aug 22, 2007)

Victim said:
			
		

> I know our group has been frustrated by a lack of skills at times.  What's the point of stealing guard uniforms or whatever when some low no CHA fighter is going to blow the disguise check regardless (often with a result so low you have to wonder if they even put the clothes on)?  It just pushes matters towards the common denominator "kill them all" method (combat ability does improve universally).



So the rules should be changed so that the low to no CHA fighter stops behaving like a low to no CHA fighter?  

I'd prefer the characters overcome their weaknesses than ignore them with a wink and a nod.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Aug 22, 2007)

BryonD said:
			
		

> So the rules should be changed so that the low to no CHA fighter stops behaving like a low to no CHA fighter?
> 
> I'd prefer the characters overcome their weaknesses than ignore them with a wink and a nod.



No, he should start behaving like a low CHA hero.

The problem with the current rules is that in most cases (barring the _extensive_ use of magic) that fighter's low Charisma means he can NOT overcome in-game weaknesses, and it automatically invalidates any approach the party can take besides "kick the door in, take names, burn the place after we collect the loot."


----------



## F4NBOY (Aug 22, 2007)

Canis said:
			
		

> The grumpy dwarf is still a 10th level adventurer, who is going to succeed at some amount of diplomacy checks simply because he's almost certainly a wealthy bad-arse.  That carries more weight with people than smooth talking in the VAST majority of situations, and I can throw research at you to prove it.
> 
> The 20th level wizard SHOULD be more intimidating than anything but the biggest, hairiest, ugliest 10th level barbarian.  He's a _20th level wizard_ who can rearrange your atoms in a split second.
> 
> We're so married to D&D archetypes, we're rejecting more REALISTIC social modeling.




From a pratical point of view I agree with you. But if I ever want to play a Wizard that  can't intimidate a cockroach, is completelly floopy and unaware of his surroundings, like Presto from D&D Cartoon, I can't. (I don't know if all of that can be attributed to poor Presto though )


----------



## drothgery (Aug 22, 2007)

F4NBOY said:
			
		

> From a pratical point of view I agree with you. But if I ever want to play a Wizard that  can't intimidate a cockroach, is completelly floopy and unaware of his surroundings, like Presto from D&D Cartoon, I can't. (I don't know if all of that can be attributed to poor Presto though )




Well, I think the 'I want to play a character who's really bad at this one skill' (usually one that his little direct bearing on his adventuring path, hence unintimidating wizards or fighters that can't swim) is something of a red herring. That doesn't explain why your unintimidating 20th level wizard shouldn't be able to swim fairly well, or sneak around well enough that it's not pointless for the rogue to even try to be sneaky, even though the skill he's really dedicated to is the study of arcane lore.

The 'really bad at one skill' thing seems like something more cut out for a flaws/disadvantages mechanic. And core D&D hasn't ever had one of those because they're notoriously hard to balance correctly.


----------



## Victim (Aug 22, 2007)

F4NBOY said:
			
		

> From a pratical point of view I agree with you. But if I ever want to play a Wizard that  can't intimidate a cockroach, is completelly floopy and unaware of his surroundings, like Presto from D&D Cartoon, I can't. (I don't know if all of that can be attributed to poor Presto though )




It's easy if you don't attempt those tests, voluntarily fail or otherwise reduce the bonus you use when you don't want the character to succeed.  Besides, there might be some times when circumstances seem to favor your wizard and you can unleash your hidden potential .


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Aug 22, 2007)

F4NBOY said:
			
		

> From a pratical point of view I agree with you. But if I ever want to play a Wizard that  can't intimidate a cockroach, is completelly floopy and unaware of his surroundings, like Presto from D&D Cartoon, I can't. (I don't know if all of that can be attributed to poor Presto though )




Why not?

If you never attempt the Persuade skill to intimidate anything, then you've never managed to intimidate anything.

However, when the chips are down, and your wizard finally decides he's going to stand up to the badguy and throw defiance in his face ... well, you've got a small heroic bonus backing you up.


----------



## F4NBOY (Aug 22, 2007)

> That doesn't explain why your unintimidating 20th level wizard shouldn't be able to swim fairly well




It does. If the wizards also happens to put no pts in Swim, he also can't swim very well. One thing is independent of the other. I can't see your point, sorry.



> The 'really bad at one skill' thing seems like something more cut out for a flaws/disadvantages mechanic. And core D&D hasn't ever had one of those because they're notoriously hard to balance correctly.




I'm sorry, but a 10th level dwarven fighter with 0 ranks in Diplomacy CAN be considered "really bad at that skill". 
I don't want anything new, just that they keep the kind of skill flexibility we have in 3E.


----------



## Aust Diamondew (Aug 22, 2007)

Hopefully it'll be easy to houserule back to the old skill points system.


----------



## F4NBOY (Aug 22, 2007)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Why not?
> 
> If you never attempt the Persuade skill to intimidate anything, then you've never managed to intimidate anything.
> 
> However, when the chips are down, and your wizard finally decides he's going to stand up to the badguy and throw defiance in his face ... well, you've got a small heroic bonus backing you up.




Your idea is valid, but does not appeal to my taste. I stay with the current skil, system, even if I consider it crumblesome. Actually, I stay with Iron Heroes skill system. 

Heroic Bonus? nah, i think "heroism" is a consequence of characters actions, not the cause for them. "Heroism" should come after the action, not before. But that's just my very personal understanding. I know that the whole design concept behind SWSE is the exact opposite of that, and I respect it, but don't buy it.


----------



## drothgery (Aug 23, 2007)

F4NBOY said:
			
		

> I'm sorry, but a 10th level dwarven fighter with 0 ranks in Diplomacy CAN be considered "really bad at that skill".
> I don't want anything new, just that they keep the kind of skill flexibility we have in 3E.




The problem with that is if you want high level characters to be competent at most things (and I think this is a worthy design goal) you need some sort of mechanic where characters automatically get better at most skills. I don't think my fighter that's spent twenty levels in the company of the mighty wizard Wazoo is incapable of recognizing a _magic missile_ when he sees one. I don't think my rogue that's spent twenty levels in the company of the devoted cleric Cuthbert is incapable of recognizing the basic tenants of the True Faith. And I don't think my wizard's ordinary hawk familiar should be better at noticing bad guys than any of the PCs in a tenth level party (actually happened in my current D&D game about 6 levels ago; said wizard is now dead, and the only one in the party with good spot & listen is the Cleric's cohort).

And the other problem is that if you want to get rid of the annoying accounting that's building skills for a high-level character (again, I think this is a worthy design goal) then the skill-point based setup is just awful. Even trying to simplify things by maxing out all skills breaks down once you start trying to figure in multiclassing and intelligence modifier adjustments over the life of the character.

The current system is not skill flexibility. The current system is 'nobody but high-int human Rogues has enough skill points to max out what's important and stay fairly competent at other things'.


----------



## F4NBOY (Aug 23, 2007)

drothgery said:
			
		

> The current system is not skill flexibility. The current system is 'nobody but high-int human Rogues has enough skill points to max out what's important and stay fairly competent at other things'.




The curent system brings more flexibility than SAGA's. I didn't say one is better than the other, or vice-versa. I didn't say keeping the skills system as it is would be a good thing, I just think turning it 100% to Saga's is a bad thing for D&D.

If you want all of that, SAGA is the skill system for you. They designed it with "jack-of-all-trades" character in mind, like the ones we see in the movies. It's not my cup of tea though.


----------



## drothgery (Aug 23, 2007)

F4NBOY said:
			
		

> The curent system brings more flexibility than SAGA's.




I think you're confusing granualarity with flexibility. Individual skill points give you a lot of room to fiddle, in theory. In practice, you can't take advantage of this (at least, not in 3.x) because in any skill you're actually going to use when it's important, you've got to have things maxed out or nearly so or you won't be able to beat DCs in level-approriate challenges. And if you do that, you don't have any skill points left to fiddle with.

Whereas the SWSE system actually gives your characters flexibilty. You can choose the skills you'll be an expert at, without fear of sucking at everything else.

(And will people stop with using the all-caps SAGA for Star Wars Saga; it's got nothing to do with the old Dragonlance SAGA system. SWSE, or Saga, okay?).


----------



## F4NBOY (Aug 23, 2007)

drothgery said:
			
		

> I think you're confusing granualarity with flexibility. Individual skill points give you a lot of room to fiddle, in theory. In practice, you can't take advantage of this (at least, not in 3.x) because in any skill you're actually going to use when it's important, you've got to have things maxed out or nearly so or you won't be able to beat DCs in level-approriate challenges. And if you do that, you don't have any skill points left to fiddle with.
> 
> Whereas the SWSE system actually gives your characters flexibilty. You can choose the skills you'll be an expert at, without fear of sucking at everything else.
> 
> (And will people stop with using the all-caps SAGA for Star Wars Saga; it's got nothing to do with the old Dragonlance SAGA system. SWSE, or Saga, okay?).




I'm not confusing anything my friend. Our tastes are only different. I like SAGA skills system because SAGA skill system makes managing skills easier than 3E skill system. But I don't think that SAGA brings as much flexibility as 3E, because in SAGA, from personal experience while playing SAGA, I see many characters looking pretty much the same regarding skills. SAGA skill system, based on the SAGA previews were meant to create jack-of-all-trades characters. That's good in SAGA, because SAGA is about simulating star wars movies, but I don't like characters being JOAT in D&D, it's not my cup of tea. 
I hope they manage to create 4E using the SAGA skill system for an easier managable skill system, but tailor it to D&D standards.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Aug 23, 2007)

F4NBOY said:
			
		

> Your idea is valid, but does not appeal to my taste.




Well, your palate stinks then!  My ideas are all awesome!  

Just kidding.  Different tastes, man.

And, actually, I partially agree with you.  I don't think the Saga skill system, as much as I like it, is a perfect fit for D&D.  It's much mo'betta tuned for the SW universe.

On the other hand, I think the current D&D skill system, as mentioned by others, has a tendency to cause characters who are absolutely awful at just about everything except for a couple things at which they are masters.  There are not enough skill points to go around to make people well-rounded without turning certain characters into actual masters of everything.  Moreover, those skill points are those classes schtick (Rogue, Ranger, Bard), and degrading their lead there is unfair.

No, even though I don't think the Saga system is a perfect fit for D&D, I think it is a much better fit than the current system.

The main problem it seeks to eliminate - and it does a really good job of doing this - is the "single character solution."  Succinctly, if 1 character in the party has put a bunch ranks into Swim, those ranks are largely useless.  The DM can't run a water-based adventure tailored to that PC's strengths because his companions just can't keep up.  Any water-based hazard which has a good chance of threatening that PC is almost guaranteed to kill the Wizard and his -1 Swim skill.  Additionally, there's a limit to the number of times you can have a believable water hazard in every single dungeon - and heaven forbid if the Swimmer was knocked out in the last combat.

Instead, if everyone has a small, "General Competence" bonus to just about every skill, then it opens up the doors for the DM to have more interesting, more varied combats, encounters, and other challenges by virtue of the fact that no one member of the party will be completely incapable.



> Heroic Bonus?




Then, as I used above, rename it a "General Competence at Life" bonus; nonheroic characters get it, too.


----------



## BryonD (Aug 23, 2007)

Canis said:
			
		

> No, he should start behaving like a low CHA hero.
> 
> The problem with the current rules is that in most cases (barring the _extensive_ use of magic) that fighter's low Charisma means he can NOT overcome in-game weaknesses, and it automatically invalidates any approach the party can take besides "kick the door in, take names, burn the place after we collect the loot."



On his own, that is right and that is the way it should be.  Anything else (within the context of this thread) would be a wink and nod to the claim that it is a low CHA fighter.  If he can be expected to pull of a disguise then he isn't, no matter what may be written on the paper.

But, if the party faceman is present then things change.  Slapping on a stolen uniform and just quietly following the lead of the bard doesn't need to require a bunch of checks.  Heck, it may not require any checks.  If someone forces an interaction with the fighter then it will fall to the bard to step in and save the day or else accept that the fighter is about to blow things.

For example, since we are already talking Star Wars, I'd say that Chewbacca had about a -10 total disguise check.  So when Luke and Han needed to get him through the Death Star dention area, they took that into account in their plan.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Aug 23, 2007)

BryonD said:
			
		

> On his own, that is right and that is the way it should be.  Anything else (within the context of this thread) would be a wink and nod to the claim that it is a low CHA fighter.  If he can be expected to pull of a disguise then he isn't, no matter what may be written on the paper.
> 
> But, if the party faceman is present then things change.  Slapping on a stolen uniform and just quietly following the lead of the bard doesn't need to require a bunch of checks.  Heck, it may not require any checks.  If someone forces an interaction with the fighter then it will fall to the bard to step in and save the day or else accept that the fighter is about to blow things.
> 
> For example, since we are already talking Star Wars, I'd say that Chewbacca had about a -10 total disguise check.  So when Luke and Han needed to get him through the Death Star dention area, they took that into account in their plan.



And they still failed their checks against the (level appropriate) commander in the detention area, AFTER they bluffed their way past hundreds of mooks in the hallway.

That's EXACTLY what Saga rules would predict.  And it was the most interesting possible outcome.

Heroic characters can beat up mooks (as long as the numbers aren't impossible), and they can also trick, confuse, and bluff them most of the time.  But as soon as they run into someone with an actual investment in his spot (or perception) check, things get interesting.

YMMV, but that makes for a more interesting game, IMO.


----------



## Scribble (Aug 23, 2007)

Maybe someone already mentioned this, but...

I wish instead of doing away with seperate hide/move silently skills they simply had a breakout average for them.. you roll perception against them both, but still have a means for breaking it down if need be.

But maybe that complicates things too much.


----------



## WayneLigon (Aug 23, 2007)

I think this is pretty interesting.  



			
				Mearls' Blog said:
			
		

> Matt drops an awesome idea on my head involving skills. This is a cool idea, something that in nine months will be loved by everyone who feels that the skill system in 3e didn't do enough.
> ...
> 
> Now, I have to be coy about the exact nature of the concept. It isn't the kind of thing that will revolutionize D&D, but it's a good, cool, solid idea that makes skills more interesting, more important in combat encounters, and more fun. I can't wait to use it in playtest.
> ...


----------



## BryonD (Aug 23, 2007)

Canis said:
			
		

> And they still failed their checks against the (level appropriate) commander in the detention area, AFTER they bluffed their way past hundreds of mooks in the hallway.
> 
> That's EXACTLY what Saga rules would predict.  And it was the most interesting possible outcome.



Um, no. 
The saga rules would have allowed Chewbacca to gain a fiat bonus to his disguise skill and very possibly made it on through the challenge despite a total lack of reason in that outcome.

As was being slammed just a few posts ago, once the low cha fighter was forced to make a check he failed and things turned to combat.  And yes, this was quite interesting.  Though perhaps if Han or Luke had been BETTER at disguise they could have covered for Chewy longer and the scene could have played out differently.

But under no analysis of what happened does it make sense to claim that things worked out because Chewy had an omincompetent bonus to his disguise skill helping out.  Exactly to the contrary, the plan worked for exactly as long as they were able to work around his complete lack of ranks.


----------



## BryonD (Aug 23, 2007)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> I think this is pretty interesting.



Me too.

Also, it furthers adds to my confidence that a straight SWSE skill system is not the decree.


----------



## UndeadScottsman (Aug 23, 2007)

After 20 levels, your grumpy, uncompromising Dwarf has learned enough through his adventures about how to better articulate why he's so grumpy and uncompromising.  So, when the King's guards say that he cannot take his weapons into the Kings chamber, he goes from

"You'll take my axe when you pry 'em from my cold, dead hands" and possibly causing an incident at early levels to "It would be an insult to my ancestors, including my father who left me this axe when he died, to let a non dwarf lay hands upon my weapon." and then being politely asked to wait outside, or even be allowed into the chamber after impressing the King's advisor with his honor.

Likewise, with the 20th Wizard and 1st Barbarian having similar intimidates, it's the difference between "Raaaaarghhh!  Thog smash!" and "I am a master of the arcane arts and if you take another step, I shall call down forces you could scarely understand and obliterate you."  That, coming from what is apparently a high level wizard, should be at least as scary as a low level barbarian screaming and charging at you.

Likewise, for the high level Wizard having a decent climb check; you'd think after the 20th thing he's had to climb over, and hanging out with other adventures who can climb up stuff, he'd pick a few things up and at least be able to climb up an average cliff with no problem (He won't be doing any advanced rock climbing, but he can get around at least)


----------



## BryonD (Aug 23, 2007)

UndeadScottsman said:
			
		

> After 20 levels, your grumpy, uncompromising Dwarf has learned enough through his adventures ...



Which means that EVERY 20th level fighter can do this and it works out the same every zzzzzzz..................


----------



## UndeadScottsman (Aug 23, 2007)

BryonD said:
			
		

> Which means that EVERY 20th level fighter can do this and it works out the same every zzzzzzz..................




Sure, if everyone rolls the same and has the same base stat.


----------



## F4NBOY (Aug 23, 2007)

BryonD said:
			
		

> Which means that EVERY 20th level fighter can do this and it works out the same every zzzzzzz..................




Exactly! Also every WizzzzZZZzzzzZZzzz.........


----------



## drothgery (Aug 23, 2007)

BryonD said:
			
		

> Which means that EVERY 20th level fighter can do this and it works out the same every zzzzzzz..................




Well, no. Some 20th level fighters cared a lot more about projecting an imposing presense than your gruff dwarf, and became trained in Persuasion. And because they were half-orcs, they had a racial ability to re-roll Persuasion to Intimidate. While other 20th level fighters were elegant Elven nobles and blademasters, who took became trained in persuasion, took skill focus in it, and put a high stat in Charisma to represent their amazing ability to be diplomatic and woo the ladies. Some also didn't care about learning to persuade, but they at least didn't have the charisma penalty your gruff dwarf does.


----------



## BryonD (Aug 23, 2007)

drothgery said:
			
		

> Well, no. Some 20th level fighters cared a lot more about projecting an imposing presense than your gruff dwarf, and became trained in Persuasion. And because they were half-orcs, they had a racial ability to re-roll Persuasion to Intimidate. While other 20th level fighters were elegant Elven nobles and blademasters, who took became trained in persuasion, took skill focus in it, and put a high stat in Charisma to represent their amazing ability to be diplomatic and woo the ladies. Some also didn't care about learning to persuade, but they at least didn't have the charisma penalty your gruff dwarf does.



Yep, and all these specialized chars are gonna go WTF when the gruff dwarf gets a pass.

Seriously, if everyone is "good enough" then great becomes a lot less meaningful.

Also, 3X already has means of specially building any character to be great at whatever skill you want if you go out of your way for it.  So that isn't an improvement.  It would just be a reason not to bother paying a cost to be great if you get good enough for free.


----------



## Jim DelRosso (Aug 23, 2007)

UndeadScottsman said:
			
		

> Sure, if everyone rolls the same and has the same base stat.




And lacks any racial or class talents that allow for rerolls, or substitution of another skill, or...


----------



## UndeadScottsman (Aug 23, 2007)

BryonD said:
			
		

> Yep, and all these specialized chars are gonna go WTF when the gruff dwarf gets a pass.
> 
> Seriously, if everyone is "good enough" then great becomes a lot less meaningful.



What exactly is "good enough" though?  None of us has looked at the system yet; we do not know what the average save DC is going to be at those levels.  For all we know, he wouldn't be able to make a equal level save DC; but he's be able to beat those of levels far earlier than his own. (I.E. the Wizards stealths past the mooks, but gets caught by the higher level guards whereas the rogue totally sneaks his way all the way to the head honcho)

Plus, even if the dwarf gets a pass, doesn't mean other characters can't do it better. (Dwarf is asked to politely stay outside instead of getting his ass kicked for being stubborn and rude; whereas the high charisma, skill focused Elf fighter manages to convince the guards to let the party in to go in with all their weapons.)


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Aug 23, 2007)

I have two problems with the Saga skill system as I understand it from the book as a direct port to D&D.

1) They still have class skills. You pick the skills you will specialize in from a limited list, with no option I can see for spending two on a cross class skill. I have more than once had multiclassing characters who had "core competency" skills that existed in only one class or the other. My private investigator type, for instance, who maxed gather info as a bard and survival (for tracking) as a ranger. The essence of multiclassing to me is to be able to have a character concept that combines two classes, not be a bard who later picks up many of the ranger traits but can never achieve full competency in a ranger's class skills. Even within a single classed character there are problems - a gladiator style fighter who could never devote skill points to perform is not acceptable for me.

2) There is also no option I see for changing a skill focus later in a character's career. The example up thread about a character who was getting over his fear of swimming was dismissed on practical grounds, but sometimes changing a character's skill investment is important to a change in the character. 

So for this system to work in D&D, I think you would have to either eliminate class skills or come up with a mechanic for picking your focused skills between class and non class. (perhaps three levels of compentence with trained cross class being equivelent to untrained class then a higher tier for trained class and the lowest but still progressing for untrained cross class?) And you would need a core rules mechanic for retraining skills later in a characters career.


----------



## Jim DelRosso (Aug 23, 2007)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> 1) They still have class skills. You pick the skills you will specialize in from a limited list, with no option I can see for spending two on a cross class skill. I have more than once had multiclassing characters who had "core competency" skills that existed in only one class or the other. My private investigator type, for instance, who maxed gather info as a bard and survival (for tracking) as a ranger. The essence of multiclassing to me is to be able to have a character concept that combines two classes, not be a bard who later picks up many of the ranger traits but can never achieve full competency in a ranger's class skills. Even within a single classed character there are problems - a gladiator style fighter who could never devote skill points to perform is not acceptable for me.




In SWSE, if you multiclass, your class skill list expands to include all the new class's skills, as well. You can then snag the Skill Training feat for the new skill you want, and you get all the benefits you get from the Trained skills you select at character creation. So, your bard/ranger PI would easily work: with Skill Training, he can get full competency in the ranger's class skills.

(EDIT: on the subject of cross-class skills, SWSE doesn't really need the distinction, since all skills get a bonus as you level. In 3.5, cross-class skills get capped at half the level of class skills. Untrained skills are kind of the equivalent of cross-class skills, without the frustration of dropping "half-ranks" into them.)



> 2) There is also no option I see for changing a skill focus later in a character's career. The example up thread about a character who was getting over his fear of swimming was dismissed on practical grounds, but sometimes changing a character's skill investment is important to a change in the character.




As I said, you can take the Skill Training feat at any time to bump a skill from Untrained to Trained. You can also add the Skill Focus feat to any skill you're trained in, not just at character creation.


----------



## Green Knight (Aug 23, 2007)

F4NBOY said:
			
		

> Torduk, the grumpy 10th level dwarf fighter(that never ever considered learning diplomacy, since it's not even a class skill for him) is as diplomatic as Gilberto, the 1st level noble paladin that trained all his life in diplomacy (he has the skill trainning in it).




I take it you never got the Star Wars Sage Edition? 

The 10th-level Dwarf Fighter would have a +5 bonus to Diplomacy (or Persuasion). The 1st-level Paladin who took Persuasion would have a +5 bonus starting right out of the gate (Untrained Skills get a bonus equal to half your level. Trained Skills get a bonus equal to half your level, plus five). And if he has Skill Training, as you say, then that's another +5 for a total +10 bonus! Torduk would have to be 20th-level before he could be as good in diplomacy as the 1st-level Gilberto. 

On top of which, you're ignoring the effects of stat modifiers. Let's take the standard array of 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, and 15. Torduk's stats would likely be as follows: 

STR: 15, DEX: 13, CON: 16, INT: 10, WIS: 12, CHA: 6 

And it's likely that neither of his stat increases would've gone into Charisma, so his final Persuasion bonus would be +3. 

Gilberto, on the other hand, would have the following statline: 

STR: 14, DEX: 8, CON: 12, INT: 10, WIS: 13, CHA: 15 

So he'd have a Persuasion bonus of +12. 

So what's the problem? The character optimized for Persuasion blows away the character who isn't by a factor of four, even though he's 9 levels lower. Torduk wouldn't even be able to equal Gilberto until he reached Level 28. 



> And whatever, I just think playing a grumpy dwarf is a lot of fun ,and I wanna be able to keep playing that.




Considering the above, I don't think you have to worry about it.


----------



## hong (Aug 23, 2007)

Grumpy dwarf = high Cha + ranks in Intimidate

which is not to be confused with

Unassuming, ignorable dwarf = low Cha + no ranks in social skils


----------



## F4NBOY (Aug 23, 2007)

> The 10th-level Dwarf Fighter would have a +5 bonus to Diplomacy (or Persuasion). The 1st-level Paladin who took Persuasion would have a +5 bonus starting right out of the gate (Untrained Skills get a bonus equal to half your level, rounding down. Trained Skills get a bonus equal to 5 plus half your level, rounding down). And if he has Skill Training, as you say, then that's another +5 for a total +10 bonus! Torduk would have to be 20th-level before he could be as good in diplomacy as the 1st-level Gilberto.




I take it you never got the Star Wars SAGA Edition?

At 1st level character choose a number of skills from the list of class skills to become trained in them. These trained skills get a +5 bonus to their modifier. The character can increase this bonus with Skill Focus, +5 to the modifier.
The only way to get more trained skills is getting the Skill Training feat.

Gilberto did not choose Persuasion as a trained skill at 1st level. He chose others and then got Skil Traning to have another trained skill: Persuasion.

Anyway, this discussion is over for me since it is irrelevant, Mike's blog just showed us skills probably won't be identical as SAGA rules, thank god.

SAGA skills system is perfect for that game. It won't be in 4E. Let's move on people.


----------



## Jim DelRosso (Aug 23, 2007)

The leap from this:



			
				F4NBOY said:
			
		

> Mike's blog just showed us skills probably won't be identical as SAGA rules




to this:



> _It won't be in 4E._




is pretty staggering, especially since what he said was:



			
				Mike Mearls said:
			
		

> ...it's a good, cool, solid idea that makes skills more interesting, more important in combat encounters, and more fun.




Which doesn't mention skill ranks vs. Trained/Untrained, or really anything that was being discussed. Just because it won't be identical to SWSE doesn't mean some of the core concepts won't make the jump.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Aug 23, 2007)

Jim DelRosso said:
			
		

> ....Skill Training feat for the new skill you want, and you get all the benefits you get from the Trained skills you select at character creation. So, your bard/ranger PI would easily work: with Skill Training, he can get full competency in the ranger's class skills.
> 
> ....
> As I said, you can take the Skill Training feat at any time to bump a skill from Untrained to Trained. You can also add the Skill Focus feat to any skill you're trained in, not just at character creation.



Spending a feat is not a reasonable cost for me to multiclass or change my character's focus on what she is learning and progressing in. It would be the equivelent to me of starting as a wizard and then if I multiclassed into fighter having to spend my first feat on getting the fighter BAB. Or spend a feat to put my 12 level stat bonus into something different than I put my 4th and 8th into. A system like Saga skills will not work for the kind of characters I like to build in D&D. But it may work well for other characters and other types of games.


----------



## RFisher (Aug 23, 2007)

an_idol_mind said:
			
		

> Using a Saga-style skill system, though, he's already a competent swimmer, even though he's never received any real training in it and has avoided bodies of water like they're the plague.
> 
> Similarly, that same character has dabbled in music, and has 4 ranks or so in Perform (stringed instruments). But he's never done more than that, nor has he shown an interest in being more than a casual player. By the Saga system, though, he'd be able to retire from adventuring and live quite comfortably as a renowned minstrel.




If I'm your DM, I'll let you apply background penalties to as many skills as you wish. The penalties can be as small (without going negative (^_^)) or as large as you wish. Go crazy.

After many, many years of playing skill-based games (my first regular group played Traveller), I've been slowly coming to prefer an "assume broad competence & selectively choose incompetence" approach to an "assume broad incompetence & selectively choose competence" one.

Although, you can get much the same effect by ignore what the system tries to tell you is a competent level. When running classic Traveller, for instance, I assume that for many, many things you don't even need skill level-0. Even skill level-1 represents rather exceptional training or talent. (Although, I think that's no so far from what that game actually intends.)

Still, I think something like the Saga approach might be easier.


----------



## Jim DelRosso (Aug 23, 2007)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> Spending a feat is not a reasonable cost for me to multiclass or change my character's focus on what she is learning and progressing in. It would be the equivelent to me of starting as a wizard and then if I multiclassed into fighter having to spend my first feat on getting the fighter BAB. Or spend a feat to put my 12 level stat bonus into something different than I put my 4th and 8th into. A system like Saga skills will not work for the kind of characters I like to build in D&D. But it may work well for other characters and other types of games.




In SWSE, everyone gets a lot more feats, so each individual feat "costs" less; the base classes each get one every even-numbered level, plus the standard feats at 1st, 3rd, 6th, etc. So, at 7th level, a non-human has 4-6 feats (plus bonus feats from their class). 

SWSE != D&D 3.5, and applying assumptions about 3.5 to SWSE is not going to give you accurate results.


----------



## BryonD (Aug 23, 2007)

UndeadScottsman said:
			
		

> What exactly is "good enough" though?  None of us has looked at the system yet; we do not know what the average save DC is going to be at those levels.  For all we know, he wouldn't be able to make a equal level save DC; but he's be able to beat those of levels far earlier than his own. (I.E. the Wizards stealths past the mooks, but gets caught by the higher level guards whereas the rogue totally sneaks his way all the way to the head honcho)



Well, the assumption being debated is a straight port of SWSE.  I'm saying THAT would be a BAD THING and we HAVE see that.  

Now, my point has been that is they make some significant changes to SWSE then it could be perfectly fine.  It is the proponents saying that “omnicompetence” would be a great thing

But if all you do is give everyone free ranks and then cancel that out with higher DCs then you are just chasing your tail.  You are not omnicompetent, you are just the same level of skill in Kelvin that you had been in Celsius. 

So a) I assume that the system will be different than straight SWSE port, b) I have no doubt that it will be more sophisticated than simply upscaling and c) we have seen SWSE so the impact of an imaginary straight port can be discussed



> Plus, even if the dwarf gets a pass, doesn't mean other characters can't do it better. (Dwarf is asked to politely stay outside instead of getting his ass kicked for being stubborn and rude; whereas the high charisma, skill focused Elf fighter manages to convince the guards to let the party in to go in with all their weapons.)



First, if everyone succeeds then a lot of the fun is gone.  Ultimately you can't win a game that it isn't possible to lose.  (Not saying you "win" D&D, just that you can't beat a challenge if you can't fall to it, because it wasn't really a challenge in the first place.)

Second, a scale of major failure, failure, success, major success offers a lot more room for excitement than a scale of success, major success.  And in that case being really great at a skill provides a lot less added bang for the buck, so those builds get the short end of the stick.


----------



## BryonD (Aug 23, 2007)

F4NBOY said:
			
		

> SAGA skills system is perfect for that game. It won't be in 4E. Let's move on people.



Yep

Maybe it will be an adapted version of SWSE and maybe it will be completely different.  But clearly SWSE is way past in the can and 4E is still in early development, so the assumption of a straight port is pretty well out the window.


----------



## F4NBOY (Aug 23, 2007)

Jim DelRosso said:
			
		

> Which doesn't mention skill ranks vs. Trained/Untrained, or really anything that was being discussed. Just because it won't be identical to SWSE doesn't mean some of the core concepts won't make the jump.




I know, but technically speaking, if they use the SAGA skill system, but make some changes to make it fit D&D concepts better, it's not SAGA skill system anymore.


----------



## Felon (Aug 23, 2007)

BryonD said:
			
		

> To have every mage  be competent at climbing, swimming and sneaking would get real old and real boring, real fast.
> 
> Not only is it a terrible jarring clash with the archetypes, but it also would make it standard fare and therefore unheroic and dull.  Things that every PC can do are automatically no big deal.



Funny, I've been thinking about all the times when a character was completely incompetent at climbing, swimming, and sneaking, and how that got pretty frustrating for everyone involved. I'm not sure why you feel that it's dull and unheroic to have characters that have some nominal ability to participate in any particular encounter.







			
				BryonD said:
			
		

> No, you are just demanding extreme examples only and thus skewing the assessment.
> 
> No one said anything about spring up cliffs.  But the idea that the assumption would be that a cliff won't make the party wait also means that the cliff is no longer a relavent item in the game.



I don't know what's so extreme about using a cliff as an example. With a +0 Str mod, a wizard would have to be 10th level to get the +5 he'd need to autosuccess a mediocre 15 DC. I don't want to be accused me of putting words in your mouth or providing extreme scenarios, so maybe you can explain what makes a cliff a relevant item in the game? Does somebody have to be unable to make it up in order for it to be relevant? 

The screwy thing about taking 10 is that if you don't have enough skill to take 10 and autosucceed, then your chances are less than 50%, and for any kind of extended check, that means your options are autosuccess or an extreme likelyhood of failure. It's kind of an all-or-nothing proposition.


----------



## Grog (Aug 23, 2007)

drothgery said:
			
		

> I think you're confusing granualarity with flexibility. Individual skill points give you a lot of room to fiddle, in theory. In practice, you can't take advantage of this (at least, not in 3.x) because in any skill you're actually going to use when it's important, you've got to have things maxed out or nearly so or you won't be able to beat DCs in level-approriate challenges. And if you do that, you don't have any skill points left to fiddle with.




Good point. Someone in another thread (I can't remember who, sorry) made the point that the supposed flexibility of the 3E skill point system is really just an illusion, because in practice, there are only four things that people ever do with a skill:

1) Ignore it completely
2) Max it out
3) Put in 5 ranks for a synergy bonus to another skill, then never touch it again
4) Put in exactly as many ranks as are required for the prestige class they want, then never touch it again

And IME, that's always been the case in 3E. There's just no incentive to do anything else.


----------



## Felon (Aug 23, 2007)

BryonD said:
			
		

> Maybe it will be an adapted version of SWSE and maybe it will be completely different.  But clearly SWSE is way past in the can and 4E is still in early development, so the assumption of a straight port is pretty well out the window.



I'm not thrilled about the way trained skills are handed out in SWSE, so I hope that's not ported. But for the most part we're discussing the 1/2 level bonus on checks, and that could easily be adopted.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Aug 23, 2007)

BryonD said:
			
		

> Um, no.
> The saga rules would have allowed Chewbacca to gain a fiat bonus to his disguise skill and very possibly made it on through the challenge despite a total lack of reason in that outcome.
> 
> As was being slammed just a few posts ago, once the low cha fighter was forced to make a check he failed and things turned to combat.  And yes, this was quite interesting.  Though perhaps if Han or Luke had been BETTER at disguise they could have covered for Chewy longer and the scene could have played out differently.
> ...



I was talking about the fact that it's incredibly easy to fail that check against a competent NPC within spitting distance of your level regardless of the bonus, but that the bonus is sufficient to get you past mooks.  That is all.  I didn't bring the rest of your baggage to the argument.

You keep arguing from a position that everyone is making DCs because of this bonus.  That is simply NOT true in Saga.  All the meaningful checks are OPPOSED checks, and you WILL fail those against non-mook NPCs.  Omnicompetence is a MEANINGLESS BUZZ WORD that in context means nothing more than "I'm awesome against the low level guards."

Also, the cliff example is old and busted seeing as the new definition for encounter is intended to INCLUDE things like climbing cliffs, so if you still want cliffs to be cockblocks for your players, you can make them that way.  It will just take more effort than setting a DC20.


----------



## Zimri (Aug 23, 2007)

So I slogged through the thread and having never seen  SWSE, I have to say I would be in favor of what was described.

Regarding some of the posited scenarios

1) The gruff dwarf with no diplomacy / persuasion. There are many ways to be persuasive. You can be diplomatic about it, you can be intimidating about it, you can be sneaky about it, you can lie about it. While I can certainly see the player of the gruff dwarf having an issue  breaking out into flowery speech I really fail to see an issue with a glare and a growl (espescially when backed up with reputation) getting you as far as a lvl 1 diplomat.

2) The " I am scared of water" person. Well this one I can see the posters point on ... kinda except as it has been described there really isn't a "swimming" skill perse, rather  athletics, running, climbing, jumping, etcetera. After 20 levels life would have taught you the basics of how to do those things. And thats what we're talking about basics. Sure you hate water... Work with your DM and ZOMG  ROLE play it. I think I know the scary part behind that proposition but I'll get to that.

I usually play the skill monkey class (rogue, monk, ascetic rogue/ beguiling dancer) And EVERY  session we've run into situations that could have been solved via stealth, diplomacy, subterfuge or Kick in the door and kill the witnesses. With one skill monkey and 3 "other" you can guess how often we choose to "be the bear" over "being the snake".

The scary part behind the "roleplay your weaknesses" scenario in my mind is it then changes from "daves character didn't have the skill points to swim and still be able to have high spot search or whatever, so we'll have to build a raft, a bridge or go around the lake" to "Dave is slowing us down because he is being a jerk and insisting that his character hates the water when we all know he can swim a little" . Luckily in my group option 2 is just as valid as option 1, but we would have some fun game time with the rest of the party trying to convince dave, maybe even some opposed  rolls or will power saves to see how it played out.


----------



## Jim DelRosso (Aug 23, 2007)

F4NBOY said:
			
		

> I know, but technically speaking, if they use the SAGA skill system, but make some changes to make it fit D&D concepts better, it's not SAGA skill system anymore.




The whole "straight port" thing was a straw man, anyway.


----------



## Jhaelen (Aug 23, 2007)

Grog said:
			
		

> Good point. Someone in another thread (I can't remember who, sorry) made the point that the supposed flexibility of the 3E skill point system is really just an illusion, because in practice, there are only four things that people ever do with a skill:
> 
> 1) Ignore it completely
> 2) Max it out
> ...



Woot! Someone's actually read and remembered the stuff I wrote! 

But back to the current discussion:
I think it's perfectly fine for every player character to be somewhat proficient in every skill that is important for adventuring. It doesn't really add to the game if it is slowed down because the (low level) wizard has trouble climbing a knotted rope.
If the characters are supposed to be heroic right from the start they shouldn't be troubled by 'standard' situations.

'Skill monkeys' will still be important and get their chance to shine because they're the only ones who can pull off the truly crazy stunts we know and love from cinematic action. The Iron Heroes system and the skill tricks from Complete Scoundrel have been steps in that direction. We'll see more of that in 4th.ed.


----------



## BryonD (Aug 23, 2007)

Canis said:
			
		

> I was talking about the fact that it's incredibly easy to fail that check against a competent NPC within spitting distance of your level regardless of the bonus, but that the bonus is sufficient to get you past mooks.  That is all.  I didn't bring the rest of your baggage to the argument.
> 
> You keep arguing from a position that everyone is making DCs because of this bonus.  That is simply NOT true in Saga.  All the meaningful checks are OPPOSED checks, and you WILL fail those against non-mook NPCs.  Omnicompetence is a MEANINGLESS BUZZ WORD that in context means nothing more than "I'm awesome against the low level guards."
> 
> Also, the cliff example is old and busted seeing as the new definition for encounter is intended to INCLUDE things like climbing cliffs, so if you still want cliffs to be cockblocks for your players, you can make them that way.  It will just take more effort than setting a DC20.



No, you are missing the point.
A +5 or +10 is a good deal more LIKELY to make the check than a +0.  All the system being discussed would do is add some frequency of extra successes for characters who aren't otherwise built in a way to succed at the given task.  Of course there would still be failures.  But sometimes the character will succeed simply only because they get a free bonus.  I'm talking about those times.  In the times the character failed anyway, it is no different than the type system I want, so there is no point is focusing on them.

If you don't like the buzz words, I'd suggest you advise those on your side not to use them.
But just declaring it meaningless and then forcing a misleading definition on it does not accomplish anything.


----------



## BryonD (Aug 23, 2007)

Jim DelRosso said:
			
		

> The whole "straight port" thing was a straw man, anyway.



It was you personally who brought up an advocation of "as-is" SWSE in post 10 of this thread.  It doesn't meet the defintion of a straw man when someone else takes issue with the EXACT point that YOU made.


----------



## BryonD (Aug 23, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> I'm not thrilled about the way trained skills are handed out in SWSE, so I hope that's not ported. But for the most part we're discussing the 1/2 level bonus on checks, and that could easily be adopted.



Yeah, if they make some clear changes to reign things in, the concept could work perfectly well.


----------



## Jim DelRosso (Aug 23, 2007)

BryonD said:
			
		

> It was you personally who brought up an advocation of "as-is" SWSE in post 10 of this thread.  It doesn't meet the defintion of a straw man when someone else takes issue with the EXACT point that YOU made.




I said "pretty much as-is" in post #10, because -- as is clear from everything else I've said -- 4e =! SWSE, and naturally some adjustments would need to be made. The concepts behind SWSE are sound, and could (and should, in my opinion) be applied in 4e. This is not the same as the mythical "straight port" that you and F4NBOY are decrying, and against which you are now holding up an oddly-interpreted quote from Mearls' blog in order to declare victory.

If you're going to ignore my posts, as promised, please ignore them in their entirety, as opposed to just the words which you don't find conducive to your screeds.


----------



## BryonD (Aug 23, 2007)

Jim DelRosso said:
			
		

> I said "pretty much as-is" in post #10, because -- as is clear from everything else I've said -- 4e =! SWSE, and naturally some adjustments would need to be made. The concepts behind SWSE are sound, and could (and should, in my opinion) be applied in 4e. This is not the same as the mythical "straight port" that you and F4NBOY are decrying, and against which you are now holding up an oddly-interpreted quote from Mearls' blog in order to declare victory.
> 
> If you're going to ignore my posts, as promised, please ignore them in their entirety, as opposed to just the words which you don't find conducive to your screeds.



Heh,

So my A leads to B leads to C reasonings are "screeds" while your posts which either simply make fiat decrees or completely reverse other statements you have already made are (I assume) quite sound in your view.

I mean, please, if you honestly think "pretty much" has any meaningful change to the context of the discussion then you are engaged in a major double standard thinking.  

The flaws in an SWSE application to D&D type games have been described above and it is you that has shown an aversion to actually taking on those points.

Yeah, I said I'd ignore you.  But the absurd claim that responding to your EXACT words is a straw man was just to much of a distortion to let pass.  And I'll go back to ignoring you again, at least as long as don't try to misrepresent my statements again.


----------



## Jim DelRosso (Aug 23, 2007)

Please come back after you've looked up "exact" and learned what it means. Hint: the meaning doesn't change when you use all-caps. Thanks!


----------



## Chris_Nightwing (Aug 23, 2007)

I wouldn't object to a straight port, as everyone is putting it. I do think it makes sense that as you gain levels, you become competent at a broad range of skills, through watching other people doing it and by taking your knowledge of other skills. The trained-only/untrained divide serves adequately to stop your 20th level Wizard ever intimidating an opponent to the point that they suffer penalties in combat, but still allows him to boss around low-level minions. Similarly, your hydrophobic elf can probably survive being flung into a pool of water (I'd impose a circumstance penalty for being afraid, which might make him fail), but won't be able to swim a rapidly flowing river.

The only adjustment I'd make would be to allow a multiclass character to pick up a skill from his new class instead of one of their feats (as the current Saga rules state). Oh, and it's Saga, not SAGA, a mistake I made a few times to being with - apparently the latter is an old RPG system.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Aug 23, 2007)

Damn, Jim, get a few posts under your belt before you wreck a thread.


----------



## Jim DelRosso (Aug 23, 2007)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Damn, Jim, get a few posts under your belt before you wreck a thread.




If I've ruined your enjoyment of this thread, or the utility it offers for you, then I am honestly sorry; it wasn't my intent. And if you feel I've broken the rules or guidelines over here, please report it, and I'll take what's coming.

Otherwise, I'm gonna keep talking about my experiences with the SWSE, and why I dig the concepts behind its skill system.


----------



## Chris_Nightwing (Aug 23, 2007)

Let's just knock it down a notch and all calm down a bit. I think we should continue to express out experiences and opinions, with examples if necessary, but refrain from nitpicking others' posts and opinions. There's nothing wrong with agreeing to disagree.


----------



## Rel (Aug 23, 2007)

Jim DelRosso said:
			
		

> Please come back after you've looked up "exact" and learned what it means. Hint: the meaning doesn't change when you use all-caps. Thanks!




See, Jim, this is what we call "intensifying the rhetoric".  It doesn't really serve to further the discussion in the thread.  It's not a flat out insult but more of a passive-agressive jab that hopes to goad the other side into a more blatant rules violation.  And for that reason, I'd like to ask that you refrain from it.  Thanks!


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Aug 23, 2007)

BryonD said:
			
		

> No, you are missing the point.
> A +5 or +10 is a good deal more LIKELY to make the check than a +0.  All the system being discussed would do is add some frequency of extra successes for characters who aren't otherwise built in a way to succed at the given task.



Perhaps we simply need to agree to disagree, but I think you haven't really looked much at how things work in Saga.  Your chance of success at any given check vs a level appropriate NPC goes DOWN as you level.

Against static DCs, you might have had a point, but that's not how it works.  If for every +1 I gain to my check, my enemies are gaining +1 to the opposed check, I'm not gaining anything _in encounters_.  I do, however, continue to get better against level 1 peons and get to deal with mundane situations like climbing a bloody tree without having to make 12 checks.

So, all else being equal (which is a demonstrably poor assumption about 4e from what I can tell, but is the entire basis of this discussion    ), the changes essentially make mundane tasks easier and do not effect chance of success against NPCs with names at all.

If you want your level 15 characters to continue to be chumps at basic tasks against level 1 characters, that's your prerogative.  It is, in my estimation, NOT a heroic sort of game.  I'd prefer them have a chance to look impressive when its fun to be so, and then actually challenge them with the level appropriate set pieces... you know... how ALL the books and movies we're inspired by work


----------



## Jim DelRosso (Aug 23, 2007)

Rel said:
			
		

> See, Jim, this is what we call "intensifying the rhetoric".  It doesn't really serve to further the discussion in the thread.  It's not a flat out insult but more of a passive-agressive jab that hopes to goad the other side into a more blatant rules violation.  And for that reason, I'd like to ask that you refrain from it.  Thanks!




My apologies. You're 100% correct: that comment was uncalled-for, and I'll try not to let my future posts sink to that level.

To the subject at hand: one of the neater things that SWSE introduced was the Trained-only uses of skills. For example: there's no Track feat in SWSE; if you're Trained in Survival, you can track, and if you're not, you can't. You're limited to the "foraging for food" end of the spectrum.

I find this pretty helpful with many of the suspension of disbelief issues that can arise when characters' skills increase with level. So your high-level Scoundrel is probably pretty decent at first aid, but hasn't learned how to perform surgery.

It's also a good way of letting characters gain distinctive abilities without spending feats on them.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Aug 23, 2007)

BryonD said:
			
		

> No, you are missing the point.
> A +5 or +10 is a good deal more LIKELY to make the check than a +0.




Yep!  The army troopers in the hallway are all walking around with their +0 or +1 level-based bonus to Perception, and Chewbacca's got a +5 level-based bonus (and probably a small Cha bonus, too).

Chewbacca is certainly able to bluff his way past the standard troopers.

The guard lieutenant in the detention block, however, is 8th-level himself, with a Wisdom bonus, *and* is trained in Perception.  So, he's at +9-11 vs. Chewie's +6.

So, against the important challenge in the encounter, Chewie's got a chance, but it's a crapshoot.  Against the terrain - the mooks - he'll do alright.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Aug 23, 2007)

I like the Iron Heroes skill system for the simple reason that it is a lot easier to build up a skill that is not "core" to your character class, and you can still be good at what your class is supposed to be good at.
In D&D 3.x, a Fighter can surely try to take ranks in Hide and Move Silently. But don't expect him to be really good at it, and do also not expect that he will be good at any other skill Fighters are usually associated with. 

The skill points cost for cross class skills are probably the most notable problem with D&D 3. It's okay that I can't get as good as it as a character that has the skill as a class skill, but deciding to do something outside of your main character role becomes so expensive that you can't fulfill your main role, either. 

Iron Heroes solves this problem by reducing the cost for cross class skills and also making it easier to be good at your core skills.

But there is a second problem with the D&D skill system: If you never bother to spend points on a skill, at some point you will have little chance of using it effectively at all. All skills that require opposed checks are out very quick. 
There are some skills in which this might make sense (maybe people really never get better at Diplomacy or Spellcraft), but for others, it makes little sense (Spot and Listen for example - these are the kinds of checks that every adventurer constantly makes)

The Saga system assumes that every skill advances as the characters general experience grows. I like that approach. 

D&D has a few other mechanics that work the same way: BAB, HD, Saving Throws. They always advance. There is a simple reason why they always advance: Everyone needs them for the "core" of the game system (which is combat.). You can't have a character whose Hit points don't improve, or whose saves don't get better, because he will be overwhelmed in a typical combat situation. That's why these abilities are not skills (unlike as in most class- and or level less systems), they just improve with your level. Sure, they improve at varying rates, but they improve constantly. 

The D&D default assumption is combat. Skills are supplementary. They are nice to have, and they give you opportunities outside of combat. But it's also obvious that you don't really need them. I don't know any published adventures that couldn't be run without social skills, and most can also go by without trap-finding (though in many, this will be costly.) But are there any adventures that can be done through skills alone? You might thing Diplomacy is enough, but try using Diplomacy against a mindless undead or construct guarding the adventure's "McGuffin", as an example. 

Combat is always a possible fall-back solution. It's rare that this woulnd't work in some way (and if it doesn't work, players might find out to late and their characters are all dead by then.)
Combat can only be this fall-back solution because everyone is getting better at it. Skills aren't that reliable, because in any given group, people might lack the required skills.

The Saga system for skills addresses this problem. It assumes that everyone needs some basic competency in skills. And since the skills have been restructured to have less skills, it is also easier to ensure that the group as a whole won't lack necessary skills. That makes it a lot easier to build adventures that might work out without ever needing to resort to combat, because everyone has some basic competence in the area of "non-combat". (Though I doubt that this will mean that this will always happen a lot in a system for a universe called Star WARS.  But it's nice to have this option.)

Iron Heroes also improved the skill system a bit further than just making skills easier to get. It also gave them (more then before) uses within combat. Which meant that people relying more on skills could also use them in combat, so they don't have to focus on combat alone - their skills can compensate for lack of pure combat abilities. 

Okay, so this sums up the advantages of using a system like the SAGA skill system, preferably combined with aspects of the IH system.

It is still true that there are some shortcomings: 
You might ask: "What if I want to have a character to be really bad at something and never getting better, because that trait belongs to his personality and I don't want to lose that.*" 
My answer might be: "You will have to ignore your "general competency bonus" and avoid using the skill. But on the bright side, if you ever want to play a Fighter that can also sneak around a bit with a real chance of remaining some competence in Climb/Jump/Swim, you can at least do that now." 
I think this fits the "options, not restrictions" paradigma very well. If you want restrictions, impose them yourself. But if you want options, the game system is there for you.

But, as always, your mileage may vary...

*) 



Spoiler



I could add: "But I don't mind that my wizard who rarely tried to make a touch or ranged touch attack in his 12 levels getting better in combat and can take out a 1st level Orc Barbarian without spells or using my wit..." for some irony. But that would assume that you (or the imagined speaker of the sentence) actually don't see that as a problem and/or are absolutely resistant to changes to the system, which I doubt.


----------



## Henry (Aug 23, 2007)

Victim said:
			
		

> It's easy if you don't attempt those tests, voluntarily fail or otherwise reduce the bonus you use when you don't want the character to succeed.  Besides, there might be some times when circumstances seem to favor your wizard and you can unleash your hidden potential .






			
				Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Why not?
> 
> If you never attempt the Persuade skill to intimidate anything, then you've never managed to intimidate anything.





And there it is, only one page later.  

From the first page: _"Not everyone wants that Conan with the +10 spellcraft, and telling them, 'just don't use it,' is kind of like telling a cleric not to use his spontaneous cure spells when the party needs it."_

I'd sooner be happy with some kind of trade-off mechanic, than a character who is competent in something 'just because,' and then not use it. Even something like, *"you get one trade-off skill, if you take no extra ranks in this skill due to level, you get a +2 to another skill of your choice that is based off of the same ability,"* or something similar.


----------



## Imaro (Aug 23, 2007)

Well I own SWSE and the skill rules are one of the things I think it does right.  Let's take D&D 3.5's climb skill.  At DC 15 it's stated you're successful at climbing..."a very rough natural rock surface, or a tree or an unknotted rope or pulling yourself up when dangling by your hands..."  This IMHO is something most beginning adventurers should be able to accomplish, and after a few levels should be virtual childs play.  

In D&D 3.5 a 1st level wizard with a +0 str can't climb a freakin tree by taking 10?  Okay, so even at 2nd or 3rd level...all the way up to 20th, and after months to years of adventuring he can't climb a tree with average strength.  Not buying it.

Now even if he max's his CC skill, he can't climb a tree on take 10 until 7th level.  IMHO this makes no sense, especially since he's devoted skill points to it.  This is comedy, not heroism, and it doesn't add anything to the game because, in an important or risky situation, he would have to roll, thus his success wouldn't be assured anyway.


----------



## Felon (Aug 23, 2007)

Grog said:
			
		

> Good point. Someone in another thread (I can't remember who, sorry) made the point that the supposed flexibility of the 3E skill point system is really just an illusion, because in practice, there are only four things that people ever do with a skill:
> 
> 1) Ignore it completely
> 2) Max it out
> ...



Another skill point spending strategem is to assume you're going to take 10 or 20 with a skill, and try to reach a point where you get the proper yield. Open Locks is a good example: once I've got a +10 bonus, I'm done. That'll get me a 30 DC check. Might be interesting to see some scenarios where locks have to be picked under pressure, but they just don't happen often. 

Indeed, for just about anything that isn't an opposed-check or combat-oriented skill, that's a better method than just maxing it out. Take it from a guy who used to foolishly max out Open Locks.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Aug 23, 2007)

Henry said:
			
		

> I'd sooner be happy with some kind of trade-off mechanic, than a character who is competent in something 'just because,'




You aren't competent "Just because," however.

You're minimally competent at certain things because you've spent down time talking with the wizard over basic spellcraft theory, watching the rogue pick locks, climbing up trees to grab an apple, going a couple rounds with the warrior in boxing practice, paddling across quiet streams, etc.

You know, all those justifications that people use when they put three skill ranks in a previously-untrained skill when they level-up in the middle of a dungeon and need to be better at picking locks.  Now, instead of skill-specific applications, its assumed you're practicing general adventuring know-how all the time.


----------



## BryonD (Aug 23, 2007)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> You aren't competent "Just because," however.
> 
> You're minimally competent at certain things because you've spent down time talking with the wizard over basic spellcraft theory, watching the rogue pick locks, climbing up trees to grab an apple, going a couple rounds with the warrior in boxing practice, paddling across quiet streams, etc.
> 
> You know, all those justifications that people use when they put three skill ranks in a previously-untrained skill when they level-up in the middle of a dungeon and need to be better at picking locks.  Now, instead of skill-specific applications, its assumed you're practicing general adventuring know-how all the time.



I never thought of Raistlin working on cliff climbing during his off time, or swimming.
Or Conan working on forgery.

If a specific character should have three ranks in a specific skill, then why not put three ranks in the specific skill.  That one character may work that way is no reason to give every character a +5 in every skill.  If they have a bonus is EVERY skill, then it ends up being "just because".

And I completely reject the idea that it is comedy that getting past a cliff is a challenge for a Raistlin style mage.  To the contrary, of Raistlin needs to get over a cliff he will either need to be carried or he will need to use up some of his magic.  That is part of what makes Raistlin be Raistlin and it is heroic that he faces challenges.  If every 4E mage were to have a basic climbing skill then it would put a big dent in the ability to truly play a Raistlin archetype.


----------



## BryonD (Aug 23, 2007)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Yep!  The army troopers in the hallway are all walking around with their +0 or +1 level-based bonus to Perception, and Chewbacca's got a +5 level-based bonus (and probably a small Cha bonus, too).
> 
> Chewbacca is certainly able to bluff his way past the standard troopers.
> 
> ...



See, I still disagree with this assessment.
Chewy didn't bluff his way past anyone.  He didn't make any checks at all.
Luke and Han put shackles on him and a wookie in shackles simply had to be a wookie in shackles.  Luke and Han took care of the bluffing and they used a plan that covered for Chewbacca's weakness.  

But even with that aside, I find it pretty poor form that the wookie would be able to bluff even a standard ST.  A +6 is way to high.

Under your scenario Chewy could have bluffed his way down the hall all by himself because his +6 would do the job until he got to the lieutenant.  I find that to be a very bad idea.


----------



## BryonD (Aug 23, 2007)

Jim, 

Anyone reading the thread can clearly see the context of what you said.  
I think if you had a stronger answer you would probably say that, rather than playing word games.


----------



## Green Knight (Aug 23, 2007)

> Gilberto did not choose Persuasion as a trained skill at 1st level. He chose others and then got Skil Traning to have another trained skill: Persuasion.




I was thinking of Skill Focus, and not Skill Training, when I read your post. Honest mistake. As for your argument... 

For one, "Gilberto, the 1st level noble paladin that trained all his life in diplomacy", probably would have Skill Focus, as he'd be above and beyond even your regular Paladin in Diplomacy, if he's trained all his life in it. Secondly, it'd be completely unnecessary for him to burn a Feat on Skill Training. He'd be able to take three Trained Skills (two base, plus one for being human), which means he can take Perception, Persuasion, and Ride, which is pretty much all he needs. Which would leave him a spare Feat which can be put into Skill Focus. 

But even without Skill Focus, once again, you forget to take into account stat bonuses. Torduk would have Persuasion +3. Gilberto would have Persuasion +7. So Gilberto, who's nine levels lower than Torduk, would still be more then twice as good, even without the Skill Focus Feat.


----------



## breschau (Aug 23, 2007)

I think SAGA got it mostly right. I really like ditching skill points for a more streamlined system. All the points made on this thread about players only touching the skills are accurate from my experience.

But, I think SAGA could go a step further, as per the 10th level meat-head being just as good at a skill as a 1st level who's trained and focused.

The house rule we've used for SAGA has been this:

Untrained skills gain a bonus equal to 1/2 character level.

Trained skills gain a bonus equal to character level.

We leave in the +5 bonus to trained skills (at lower levels, there's really no benefit to being trained), the trained only use of skills, and the option to focus in skills.

It's worked out great for us, and helps avoid the meat-head silliness mentioned above.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Aug 23, 2007)

BryonD said:
			
		

> I never thought of Raistlin working on cliff climbing during his off time, or swimming.
> Or Conan working on forgery.




So, during all of his adventures, he never had to scramble up a steep cliff?  Never had to climb a tree?

And Conan hasn't stolen enough royal seals (and pricesses' virtues), letters of marque, and royal orders to know what one looks like should he ever need to rough one up?



> If a specific character should have three ranks in a specific skill, then why not put three ranks in the specific skill.




Because, in D&D at least, that gets you a +1 bonus and costs all of your skill points for a given level.  And that's to cover *1* skill.  Heaven forbid you want to cover Climb, Swim, Jump, *and* Forgery.

In the D&D rulesystem, as is, it's inpractical, and leads to almost incompetently focused characters.



> That one character may work that way is no reason to give every character a +5 in every skill.  If they have a bonus is EVERY skill, then it ends up being "just because".




Again, you're missing the important difference between Trained-Only and Untrained uses.

Despite your bonuses, a character can never succeed at a Knowledge (XXX) check with a DC higher than 10 unless he's trained.  So your well-traveled, experienced, but otherwise unfocused warrior (+6 total bonus to Knowledge (Nature)) stands a good chance to know most of the basics: "Watch out for Poison Ivy, which looks like this."  "Don't eat elderberries, which look like that."  "Here's how to tell the flood stage of a river."  Etc.

He won't know anything of any higher DC, however: where a particular rare beast is known to live, etc.


----------



## Rel (Aug 24, 2007)

I would take it as a personal kindness if the folks in this thread would address the topic and not their fellow posters.  And if you don't feel like you owe me a personal kindness, do it because I said so.


----------



## MerricB (Aug 24, 2007)

Note that there's a big difference between a skill in Saga that is trained, and skill that isn't trained.

And I'm not just talking about the +5 bonus.

Take "Use Computer". Under Saga, "Conan the Librarian" might not be trained in Use Computer, but he can do some tasks...
...he can access information stored on the computer
...he can't astrogate (trained only)
...he can't disable or erase program (trained only)
...he can't improve access (trained only)
...he can issue routine command
...he can't reprogram a droid (trained only).

Just because Conan the Barbarian (20th level Barbarian) has Spellcraft +10 doesn't mean he can do *everything* Spellcrafty!

Cheers!


----------



## BryonD (Aug 24, 2007)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> So, during all of his adventures, he never had to scramble up a steep cliff?  Never had to climb a tree?



That is correct.  If he did he either got help or used magic.  He certainly never did it with remotely the frequency to become even a little bit skilled.



> And Conan hasn't stolen enough royal seals (and pricesses' virtues), letters of marque, and royal orders to know what one looks like should he ever need to rough one up?



 That is correct.



> Because, in D&D at least, that gets you a +1 bonus and costs all of your skill points for a given level.  And that's to cover *1* skill.  Heaven forbid you want to cover Climb, Swim, Jump, *and* Forgery.
> 
> In the D&D rulesystem, as is, it's inpractical, and leads to almost incompetently focused characters.



If that is your problem then adding skill points is a far more elegant solution.  But I've been playing 3X since it came out and I've never considered the characters to be remotely incompetent.  Yeah, the Raistlin wizard can not climb.  But that is because he is the Raistlin wizard and that is how is he supposed to be.



> Again, you're missing the important difference between Trained-Only and Untrained uses.



No. I'm really not.  In the Chewy example as brought up by me but detailed by you, Chewy would be able to bluff pasta row of STs all by himself.  I find that absurd and completely contrary to what I want in a game. Even Untrained Chewy can do vastly more than he should be able to.



> Despite your bonuses, a character can never succeed at a Knowledge (XXX) check with a DC higher than 10 unless he's trained.  So your well-traveled, experienced, but otherwise unfocused warrior (+6 total bonus to Knowledge (Nature)) stands a good chance to know most of the basics: "Watch out for Poison Ivy, which looks like this."  "Don't eat elderberries, which look like that."  "Here's how to tell the flood stage of a river."  Etc.
> 
> He won't know anything of any higher DC, however: where a particular rare beast is known to live, etc.



Yeah and that is good.  But Chewy can still bluff STs and Raistlin can still climb on his own.

And I am very confident that 4E will extend this type of thing.  I'm fairly optimistic (hopeful) that class skills will still exist in some form.  With all the talk of simplification I expect that skill points will be gone or reduced.  But, on the other hand, there has been talk to clearly deflect claims of "dumbing down" and also there has been talk that the difference between infrequent PCs write ups compared to the constant npc write ups.  So maybe classes will get automatic "ranks" in a custom selected list of skills and then have freedom to splash extra ranks in a few others to taste.  Or something complete different but along those lines in concept.


----------



## BryonD (Aug 24, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> Note that there's a big difference between a skill in Saga that is trained, and skill that isn't trained.
> 
> ...
> 
> Just because Conan the Barbarian (20th level Barbarian) has Spellcraft +10 doesn't mean he can do *everything* Spellcrafty!



I understand.  And I also think that the system works much better for SW.  As was described in one of the developmnet articles, in the movies the characters seem to be able to do whatever they need to when the time comes.  So it makes sense within the genre.  But it doesn't fit D&D the same.

And even with all that, would it not sit odd with you if a player running Chewbacca in your SW game annouced that he was going to bluff his way past a bunch of STs and by the rules he had a very good chance of success?  I would find that very unsatisfactory.  And that type scenario is a lot less common in SW.


----------



## MerricB (Aug 24, 2007)

Bluff is a really, really bad example to use with Chewie, because...
...he couldn't. Stormtroopers don't understand what he's saying.
...or he's got a big penalty because it's going to be an incredible bluff. One doesn't believe that a Wookie is the guest of honor at a party for the Grand Moff!

I really believe that Skill Points are on their way out for D&D. They're just too confusing for making up NPCs, and not particularly easy for many PCs.

Consider this, do you consider it unlikely that Raistlin...
...gets more HP as he gains levels
...gets better at swinging a sword as he gains levels?

They're both part of how D&D works at present.

Cheers!


----------



## BryonD (Aug 24, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> Bluff is a really, really bad example to use with Chewie, because...
> ...he couldn't. Stormtroopers don't understand what he's saying.
> ...or he's got a big penalty because it's going to be an incredible bluff. One doesn't believe that a Wookie is the guest of honor at a party for the Grand Moff!



Well, now you are running against the arguement that everyone else on a pro SWSE style approach has taken.  But I'd just say that hand-waving past a rule would be a bad sign.



> I really believe that Skill Points are on their way out for D&D. They're just too confusing for making up NPCs, and not particularly easy for many PCs.



I think you are right.  As I said, I hope they come up with a mixed solution that balances simple with detailed.  And I'm also hopeful that whatever the end product is, the concept of class skills and archetypes will be strongly preserved.  Skill points are not mandatory for that.



> Consider this, do you consider it unlikely that Raistlin...
> ...gets more HP as he gains levels



With the abstract concept of HP, I have no problem with this and do not see it as a meaningful contrast.



> ...gets better at swinging a sword as he gains levels?



I've always thought that the wizards 1/2 BAB was way to high.  I'd be perfectly happy with a 1/5 or whatever rate in 4E.  To hit spells can simply add a CL based magical bonus on attack roles, or numerous other alternatives.

That said, by the time a wizard gets a +3 BAB the opportunity cost of a simple melee attack in combat is so high that in practically never happens in my games.  (Never at all that I can recall).  But I can think of times that weaknesses in physical skills such as climb or swim has played a role in the challenges faced by the party.  So I'm not going to accept that a disconnect that comes up periodically is ok simply because it is comparable to another disconnect that technically exists but virtually never comes up.


----------



## MerricB (Aug 24, 2007)

BryonD said:
			
		

> Well, now you are running against the arguement that everyone else on a pro SWSE style approach has taken.  But I'd just say that hand-waving past a rule would be a bad sign.




No, it's a sign that you've chosen a bad example. You need to choose one that *does* illustrate the problem and doesn't have it's own problems. Bluff (or Persuade) has always had a large deal of GM-judgement in it. "Is this believable? What modifier does it get?"

Raistlin climbing a tree is quantifiable.

However, Raistlin could very happily swing a sword against orcs (the stormtroopers of your Chewbacca example) and deal with them handily...

The question that really needs to be answered is this: Why does Raistlin need to climb a tree? 

Cheers!


----------



## coyote6 (Aug 24, 2007)

I just realized -- if they get rid of skill points, Skill Tricks (from Complete Adventurer) will go away. Sure, they can make them class features or parts of feats -- but your number of feats are still very limited, and I wouldn't spend a feat on most skill tricks, or even "pick 2 or 3 skill tricks".


----------



## Christian (Aug 24, 2007)

Grog said:
			
		

> Good point. Someone in another thread (I can't remember who, sorry) made the point that the supposed flexibility of the 3E skill point system is really just an illusion, because in practice, there are only four things that people ever do with a skill:
> 
> 1) Ignore it completely
> 2) Max it out
> ...




5) Put in 1 rank on a trained-only skill.

(Just for completeness. Count me in for liking the general idea of re-thinking this system, even if I can't say that I'm certain I'll like the actual end result ...)


----------



## MerricB (Aug 24, 2007)

coyote6 said:
			
		

> I just realized -- if they get rid of skill points, Skill Tricks (from Complete Adventurer) will go away. Sure, they can make them class features or parts of feats -- but your number of feats are still very limited, and I wouldn't spend a feat on most skill tricks, or even "pick 2 or 3 skill tricks".




Skill tricks are effectively part of SWSE: they're called feats, talents or racial abilities. There's nothing intrinsically special about skill tricks - just "weak" feats.

Cheers!


----------



## Jim DelRosso (Aug 24, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> The question that really needs to be answered is this: Why does Raistlin need to climb a tree?




Well, he was made with, what, 1e? 2e? He probably ran out of spells for the day, and then Tasslehoff threw the Staff of Magius up there.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Aug 24, 2007)

Christian said:
			
		

> 5) Put in 1 rank on a trained-only skill.
> 
> (Just for completeness. Count me in for liking the general idea of re-thinking this system, even if I can't say that I'm certain I'll like the actual end result ...)



6) put half max ranks in it because it's a skill you want your character to have for concept purposes but not important enough mechanically to invest max skills in it.

To tangent, what I never liked about skills was the whole "plus intelligence modifier" bit. It would be all well and good if skills just covered knowledge, profession and crafting type things, but I hate the mental image of Og the Barbarian going "Og would like to swim across lake, but Og was not smart enough to be as good at swimming, climbing and jumping as some other lads...." While it would be nixed as more complicated, I'd love to see separate skill points for educated skills vs physical skills and have the physical skill points add your Con bonus....


----------



## F4NBOY (Aug 24, 2007)

Well, I've participated in this thread, which I think brings a very important discussion to the 4E boards.

I've read all posts and all opinions and the ideas here are well put and relevant. I can also see much personal taste regarding the skill system and for these kinds of issues I believe the designers should let the mechanics involved as flexible as possible, to support all kinds of tastes.

Being very objective now, what I want for 4E is a skill system in which:

-Characters can be masters in some skills, good enough in others and suckers in others.

-Characters can be masters in a few skills, good enough in most skills, and suckers in a few others.

What I don't want is a system in which:

-Characters can be masters in some skills and suckers in every other skill.(3.5)

-Characters can be masters in a few skills and good enough in every other skill.(SAGA)

Iron heroes skills system does the job quite well, but it's a little too cumbersome yet.
If the designers can come up with something in the lines of Iron Heroes with the simplicity of SAGA, I'm all for it!


----------



## RFisher (Aug 24, 2007)

Zimri said:
			
		

> The scary part behind the "roleplay your weaknesses" scenario in my mind is it then changes from "daves character didn't have the skill points to swim and still be able to have high spot search or whatever, so we'll have to build a raft, a bridge or go around the lake" to "Dave is slowing us down because he is being a jerk and insisting that his character hates the water when we all know he can swim a little" . Luckily in my group option 2 is just as valid as option 1, but we would have some fun game time with the rest of the party trying to convince dave, maybe even some opposed  rolls or will power saves to see how it played out.




Is this really so different from complaining that the cleric's choice of patron deity would be better for the party? Or any number of other things? If a group has this problem, I think they have a much bigger problem than skill mechanics.



			
				Henry said:
			
		

> I'd sooner be happy with some kind of trade-off mechanic, than a character who is competent in something 'just because,' and then not use it. Even something like, *"you get one trade-off skill, if you take no extra ranks in this skill due to level, you get a +2 to another skill of your choice that is based off of the same ability,"* or something similar.




The problem I have with this is that all skills aren't equal. & even if you carefully devised a variable cost system to compensate (as some games have) the value of a skill depends as much on the group's style as the rules, so that doesn't really make it much better either.



			
				Christian said:
			
		

> 5) Put in 1 rank on a trained-only skill.




I was going to mention that one too.



			
				Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> To tangent, what I never liked about skills was the whole "plus intelligence modifier" bit.




Completely agree. (In fact, I managed to convince someone to drop a similar rule from their homebrew system.)


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Aug 24, 2007)

F4NBOY said:
			
		

> What I don't want is a system in which:
> 
> -Characters can be masters in some skills and suckers in every other skill.(3.5)
> 
> -Characters can be masters in a few skills and good enough in every other skill.(SAGA)



Define "good enough."   That's essentially what this entire argument has been about, regardless of what bad examples and strawmen both sides have brought up.

In Saga, "good enough" means "I will fail ~90% of checks when there are enemies near my level in the mix."

However, it is being portrayed as "I am good at everything" by those who oppose the system.

Speaking of bad examples....

Chewie didn't bluff anyone.  It was Han and Luke who did the disguising and bluffing.  Incidentally, if we MUST be dogmatic about it, they made their disguise checks and any bluff checks that might have happened off-screen, but failed the only bluff check we saw them make against the commander in the cell block.  Again, if we were going to apply Saga rules, if that commander was 2 levels lower than them or higher, he would almost certainly have won the opposed check, which he did.

What I have yet to see anyone explain cogently.... why is this a problem?  If I'm a level 10 character, using a skill I've been exposed to and perhaps coached in by my adventuring buddies, is it entirely beyond reason that I would win opposed checks against level 1-5 or so characters who are also not trained in the skill?  Is it also entirely beyond reason that being a seasoned adventurer might have taught me enough tricks to have an even chance of parity at mundane tasks with a trained neophyte (level 1 person)?  This trained neophyte is STILL going to mop the floor with me in complicated tasks, since _I can't even attempt them untrained_.

Seriously.  One attempt at telling me why that makes no sense would be nice.


----------



## F4NBOY (Aug 24, 2007)

Canis said:
			
		

> Define "good enough."




In D&D:
You are master in a skill in which you have max ranks and maybe skill focus.
You are good enough in a skill in which you have half of your max ranks, or max ranks in a cross class skill.
You are a sucker in a skill in which you have no ranks or just 1.

In Saga
You are a master in a trained skill with Skill Focus.
You are good enough in the trained only skills.
You are a sucker in the skills... Well, now comes the part that intirely concearns personal taste. in which you are untrained.

Why do Wizards get 1/2 lvl bonus to their BAB?
Because knowing how to fight is part of being an adventurer. All of them need at least some kind of combat training. It's an important "skill" in the game.
If you give the same bonus to all skills, you are considering that all of them are important to the game.
You are considering that all the skills are somehow important to the adventurous life. So every character learns a bit of everything through his career, the same way the wizards learn a bit of combat, granting him the 1/2 BAB.
That's Ok, I could leave with that....

Ok, i've just changed my mind while writing this post.
If Dorkis the 20th wizard can get +10 to his BAB without ever fighting anyone, I don't see why Destructor the 20th barbarian can't get +10 to Spellcraft without ever casting a spell.
I just hope they keep a keen eye on the "this skill can't be used untrained".


----------



## Henry (Aug 24, 2007)

F4NBOY said:
			
		

> Ok, i've just changed my mind while writing this post.
> If Dorkis the 20th wizard can get +10 to his BAB without ever fighting anyone, I don't see why Destructor the 20th barbarian can't get +10 to Spellcraft without ever casting a spell.
> I just hope they keep a keen eye on the "this skill can't be used untrained".




Neither do I - But I'd like to see an option (in the DMG if nothing else) that allows for a player to be more discerning with his skills than to slap one huge bonus on them or leave them alone entirely.

It seems like some debaters are seeing this like 4E will be SAGA with no changes, and the opposing debaters seem to think that the former group wants 3E's skill system with no changes whatsoever. I'd rather have Star Wars saga as a base, but with an option that doesn't make it mandatory for a character to have a bonus in every single skill across the board.

I have no problem with BAB going up , and hit points going up, because those are the bread and butter to every adventurer. But Climbing is not the bread and butter of every character, neither is forgery, or magic device use, etc. Some characters might go their whole careers with having to climb a cliff once, or never forging a single document; but I don't think I've ever seen a wizard who hasn't made several attack rolls, or took damage (especially since 3.5, because those orb spells are really darned good!)


----------



## F4NBOY (Aug 24, 2007)

Henry said:
			
		

> I have no problem with BAB going up , and hit points going up, because those are the bread and butter to every adventurer. But Climbing is not the bread and butter of every character, neither is forgery, or magic device use, etc. Some characters might go their whole careers with having to climb a cliff once, or never forging a single document; but I don't think I've ever seen a wizard who hasn't made several attack rolls, or took damage (especially since 3.5, because those orb spells are really darned good!)




I changed my mind but I'm still divided because of that issue.

Maybe a character should gain 1/2 of his class level as a bonus to the class skills for that specific class, so a wizard 4/rogue 4 gets 2 ranks in Spot, 2 ranks in spellcraft and 4 ranks in Decipher script. He gets +5 in the trained skills and +5 in the focused skills. Of course he can only be trained in any of his class skills.
Too complicated?

Of course, on the top of all that, I still stand with Iron Heroes skill system.


----------



## pemerton (Aug 24, 2007)

F4NBOY said:
			
		

> But BAB is not a skill. Combat plays an important part in D&D games. D&D characters are adventurers, all of them need to be useful in combat, since it's an inevitable consequence of going into a dungeon full of monsters.
> Ensuring that every character is somewhat competent in combats makes D&D game better, but making them somewhat competent in every skill, in everything, may or may not make the game less interesting.





			
				Victim said:
			
		

> The lack of general competence in skills pushes the game towards areas in which characters do have general ability (combat) and away from skill based plans that involve the whole group.  Therefore, the lack of ability keeps interesting plans from working (or even from serious consideration), thus making the game less interesting.



Just adding a voice in favour of Victim's response to F4nboy.

I really think there is a coherence problem with D&D 3.x. The BAB and HP rules are _heroic_ in flavour, in the sense that every mid-to-high level character is a warrior of some skill when measured against the typical soldier (a 1st or 2nd level NPC Warrior). 

Or looking at it another way: by 14th level the average wizard has BAB and hp comparable to a lion; at 10th level the typical fighter will probably beat that lion in unarmed combat (assume DEX 16 and ST 18, giving AC 12 and 1d3+4 unarmed damge: the fighter delivers a bit over 10 hits per round (ignoring power attack) while taking 15 - the lion is unconscious in 3 rounds and the fighter is still standing).

For a human to beat a lion unarmed is a feat of supreme phyiscal heroism! It seems slightly absurd, to me at least, that such a character is at risk of drowning in a small lake on a perfectly still summer's day. But the D&D skill system makes this possible, because it is _gritty_ in flavour, like Runequest or Rolemaster or classic Traveller.

From what I've heard about 4E it will try to eliminate much of this sort of incoherence. As far as skills are concerned, I'd imagine that gritty will bite the dust.



			
				BryonD said:
			
		

> by the time a wizard gets a +3 BAB the opportunity cost of a simple melee attack in combat is so high that in practically never happens in my games. (Never at all that I can recall). But I can think of times that weaknesses in physical skills such as climb or swim has played a role in the challenges faced by the party. So I'm not going to accept that a disconnect that comes up periodically is ok simply because it is comparable to another disconnect that technically exists but virtually never comes up.



If climbing or swimming comes up _in an encounter_ then the same opportunity cost will be there, as 4E encounters will be designed so that the wizard's role is to cast a spell (perhaps a levitate spell, or one that stills the ocean waves or parts the waters), not to piddle around with half-baked skill attempts.

On the other hand, if you are envisaging climing or swimming in non-encounter contexts - eg the party comes to a cliff that it must scale, or a lake that it must cross, before it can get to the next dungeon/room/monster/whatever, then I don't think 4E will support that sort of play. The exploration/expedition aspects of D&D are, I think, being relegated to past editions. (This issue was discussed, among other things, on this now-closed thread and on this thread also.)


----------



## F4NBOY (Aug 24, 2007)

Pemerton said:
			
		

> Just adding a voice in favour of Victim's response to F4nboy.




...it may or may not make the game less interesting...

Anyway, take a look at my post #129 where I rethink that post you quoted.


----------



## pemerton (Aug 24, 2007)

F4NBOY said:
			
		

> ...it may or may not make the game less interesting...
> 
> Anyway, take a look at my post #129 where I rethink that post you quoted.



Sorry, I had seen that later post but thought your earlier one captured one important viewpoint (which Henry re-iterates in his post in reply) and Victim's the opposite.

What I was really doing was using both your and Vicitm's posts as foils to present my incoherence argument.


----------



## F4NBOY (Aug 24, 2007)

pemerton said:
			
		

> Sorry, I had seen that later post but thought your earlier one captured one important viewpoint (which Henry re-iterates in his post in reply) and Victim's the opposite.
> 
> What I was really doing was using both your and Vicitm's posts as foils to present my incoherence argument.




Actually, I the post I meant was the 127, not 129, sorry.


----------



## anton1066 (Aug 24, 2007)

I think most of the arguments being made are rather unfair. Yeah, so a 20th level barbarian who has had no 'training' in diplomacy is equal to a first level paladin who has focused on it. Whats the big deal? That +10 means that they can both talk their way bast a few city guards without trouble, but that really isn't a problem for the barbarian. He wont use that +10 except for stuff that is well beneath him. 

Remember D&D is a world of the fantastic. If you get to 20th level you ARE better then 99% of everyone out there at everything. No one bats on eye when a 20th level wizard can beat up a 1st level fighter in a fight with only weapons, 'cause the wizard is friggin 20th level. 

My point is this, the 1/2 level benefit does not scale with the challenges you should throw at the party. if you require skill checks, they should be challenging to people that have invested no resources into something, and moderately easy for someone who has. We need to think of non combat encounters the same way we think of combat encounters. That is, they have their own difficulty range that is related to the level of the parties involved and the amount of resources they have invested into them. 

If you read any D&D fiction, you will notice that all the heroes 'know a little something about everything'. The D&D world is a world where dungeoneering is a knowledge that you can learn about and adventure is an acceptable profession. 

To give an example, i would find it very tedious if a 20th level wizard could only sneak past a couple of first level thugs by casting invisibility. But as a DM i would only use an encounter like that to showcase how super cool the wizard is, no to provide a challenge to the wizard. Now if the wizard wants to sneak past a couple of balors, thats another story. only a master thiefe could do that without magic.


----------



## Falling Icicle (Aug 24, 2007)

I really hope they don't give everyone half their level in ranks in every skill they're not trained in. While I would very much like to see people have more skill points and for some of the skills to be combined, I want to keep skill selection as an important choice for characters.

Just because someone has gained power and experience and journeyed around the world doesn't mean they should gain skill at everything. It's all a matter of training. I could travel around the world a thousand times and kill a million monsters, but if I haven't spent any time training to climb, I shouldn't be any better at climbing then when I started.

In 3rd edition most characters were narrowly focused and had to resort to combat because most classes got only 2 skill points per level, which is hardly anything. All that needs to be done, imo, is to combine skills together and give characters more skill points per level. Having the skill points you get not based on intelligence would also be a good change, imo.


----------



## pemerton (Aug 24, 2007)

Falling Icicle said:
			
		

> Just because someone has gained power and experience and journeyed around the world doesn't mean they should gain skill at everything. It's all a matter of training. I could travel around the world a thousand times and kill a million monsters, but if I haven't spent any time training to climb, I shouldn't be any better at climbing then when I started.



But exactly the same logic applies to combat training. Why is a 10th level Wizard as good with a longsword as a 1st level Fighter (+5 BAB -4 non-proficiency = +1)?

Either you posit that high-level characters are heroic in all respects (as per Saga or some variant thereof) or else that everything, including combat skill, is paid for with training points (as is the case in RM, and is approximately the case in RQ).



			
				Falling Icicle said:
			
		

> In 3rd edition most characters were narrowly focused and had to resort to combat because most classes got only 2 skill points per level, which is hardly anything. All that needs to be done, imo, is to combine skills together and give characters more skill points per level. Having the skill points you get not based on intelligence would also be a good change, imo.



I don't think that that would necessarily solve the problem. The structure of D&D play, with its emphasis on level-appropriate challenges, means that it would almost always be more efficient to spend those extra points maxing out another one or two skills rather than building up a modicum of expertise in a wide range of skills. So the problem of 20th level Wizards drowning in shallow ponds would not go away.

Within the D&D adventuring paradigm, I think some variant of Saga makes sense. In another paradigm (like RM or RQ) gritty points-allocation works. I think the current mix that is D&D 3.5 doesn't work so well.


----------



## JustinA (Aug 24, 2007)

Canis said:
			
		

> What I have yet to see anyone explain cogently.... why is this a problem?  If I'm a level 10 character, using a skill I've been exposed to and perhaps coached in by my adventuring buddies, is it entirely beyond reason that I would win opposed checks against level 1-5 or so characters who are also not trained in the skill?  Is it also entirely beyond reason that being a seasoned adventurer might have taught me enough tricks to have an even chance of parity at mundane tasks with a trained neophyte (level 1 person)?  This trained neophyte is STILL going to mop the floor with me in complicated tasks, since _I can't even attempt them untrained_.
> 
> Seriously.  One attempt at telling me why that makes no sense would be nice.




Because not everyone is Leonardo da Vinci.

The SAGA system makes everyone a universal polymath. Everyone is handsome, smart, and a world-class athlete by 10th level. It's not only that this is unrealistic, it also does a lousy job of emulating even the most heroic and cinematic of genres.

I'm on the fence with it, because the parallel can be drawn to BAB and HP. But I generally like character creation systems that give me MORE control over who and what my character is. And so my instincts are rebelling pretty hard against this change.

I'll need to see it in actual play before I draw any final conclusions on the matter.

Justin Alexander
http://www.thealexandrian.net


----------



## Sammael (Aug 24, 2007)

JustinA said:
			
		

> Everyone is handsome, smart, and a world-class athlete by 10th level.



A +5 bonus doesn't make a world-class athlete. IMO, a world-class athlete could well be level 1, with training and focus in the appropriate skill, as well as a natural talent (high ability modifier). That comes out to about +14 at first level, almost three times the bonus of a non-athletic 10th level character.


----------



## Chris_Nightwing (Aug 24, 2007)

Yes, one thing many posters seem to forget are ability modifiers, circumstance modifiers and trained-only uses of skills.

For a 10th level (class x) who is trying to use (skill y) that you can't imagine them having used very much at all, chances are that their +5 level bonus is on its own, or penalised by the relevant ability. Not to mention that they can do (simple example of skill y) but have no chance of doing (complex example of skill y).

I also think that the 'opposed' nature of most really really important checks will foil said character almost all of the time. Level bonuses will only be effective against _static_ difficulties, such as environmental hazards. I still think it has a decent real world analogy too, since when you finish high school (or your appropriate level training) you are certainly better than a 16 year old at many skills you trained in formally (maths), trained in informally (social interaction - ok maybe not all of us here ) and even things you probably never did just through confidence and maturity.


----------



## Falling Icicle (Aug 24, 2007)

pemerton said:
			
		

> But exactly the same logic applies to combat training. Why is a 10th level Wizard as good with a longsword as a 1st level Fighter (+5 BAB -4 non-proficiency = +1)?
> 
> Either you posit that high-level characters are heroic in all respects (as per Saga or some variant thereof) or else that everything, including combat skill, is paid for with training points (as is the case in RM, and is approximately the case in RQ).




I never defended the BAB rules in 3.5 edition, so don't put those words in my mouth.   

That said, it isn't quite the same thing. D&D focuses heavily on combat, so it is fairly safe to assume that even wizards spend at least some of their time training in this area. It is quite another stretch to assume that the wizard has also spent time trianing in climbing, swimming, jumping, diplomacy, intimidating, sneaking, etc etc etc.




			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> I don't think that that would necessarily solve the problem. The structure of D&D play, with its emphasis on level-appropriate challenges, means that it would almost always be more efficient to spend those extra points maxing out another one or two skills rather than building up a modicum of expertise in a wide range of skills. So the problem of 20th level Wizards drowning in shallow ponds would not go away.




I have never once, in all my years of playing this game, seen a wizard drown in a shallow pond. I think one problem is that people think a skill check should be required for almost everything a character does. If an action is easy, no roll should be required, imo. You don't ask your characters to roll to tie their shoes, do you? So why ask them to check to see if they drown in a shallow pond?   



			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> Within the D&D adventuring paradigm, I think some variant of Saga makes sense. In another paradigm (like RM or RQ) gritty points-allocation works. I think the current mix that is D&D 3.5 doesn't work so well.




I don't like the way skills are handled in 3rd/3.5 edition either. I guess we just have different opinions on what the best way to change it would be. I don't think making everyone a talented generalist is the way to go. And to be honest, I don't particularly like the huge emphasis on levels either. Why not give the character's attributes a greater role instead? If I'm a very dextrous person, then it is reasonable to assume that I should be able to tumble, balance, etc fairly well, even without training. Having that based on levels makes broad experience and dabbling much more significant than natural ability, and I don't like that at all. A 20 Dexterity ends up meaning less than 20 levels in a class that has no emphasis on such skills whatsoever. I'm not comfortable with that.


----------



## Falling Icicle (Aug 24, 2007)

Another thing, I have no problem seeing people become more and more specialized as they gain levels. If I'm a mighty wizard, why would I waste time dabbling in "useless" skills? Why would I bother to learn to climb when I can cast levitate? Why would I learn to swim when I can polymorph into a fish? Why do I care to learn the arts of diplomacy when I can bend people's minds to my will?

You didn't read about Raistlin climbing up castle walls or doing somersaults, even at the height of his power. And why would he? He was rightly more interested in improving his skills in magic.

Of course, I'm not trying to put down people who do chose to have their characters learn such skills, I'm simply making the point that every single high level character wouldn't and shouldn't learn to do *everything.* Being someone with such a broad array of talents is an achievement into and of itself, and as the old saying goes, such a person is a "jack of all trades, but master of none."


----------



## ptolemy18 (Aug 24, 2007)

I can understand the desire to simplify skill points. It certainly is one of the most number-crunchy and time-consuming aspects of D&D. Although I do hope that skills will remain really something that is player-customizable, i.e., you CAN play a 20th level fighter without any Spellcraft if you want to. (To quote from everyone's Conan example.) If skills are merely hardwired into your character's class and level without any choice element, that's lame and boring. I'd frankly rather have skills vanish and become feats if this is the case. ("Hmm... I'm 3rd level... shall I take the Athletics feat or the Perception feat?")

And speaking of customized skills... I'd like to wave a lighter for the much-maligned Knowledge and Profession (and even Craft) skills! Even though Profession and Craft hardly ever have any actual play effect, I hope the core rulebook includes at least an offhanded comment about how, if you choose, you CAN spend skill points to make your character an expert in Cooking, Gambling, Astrology, Tailoring, Flower Arranging, Blacksmithing, Swordsmithing, Boat Piloting, etc. etc. yadda yadda.  (I'm thinking now of 2nd edition's lengthy and silly skill list...) Why, I've played plenty of characters who had an extra couple of skill points spent on some bizarre-ass made-up skill. 

The inclusion of these useless-in-combat skills is good for the following reasons:

(1) The core rulebook is gonna be read by a lot of newbies, and even a brief mention that your character can spend points on (relatively) useless skills of your own invention sets a good example that role-playing can be about ROLE-playing, not roll-playing.
(2) These kinds of Profession, Craft and Knowledge skills are good general categories which lend themselves to lots of applications in 3rd party supplements, i.e, in "Skull and Bones" there's a lot of applications for the made-up "Knowledge (sea lore)". It opens up the game for customization.

So, fight the good fight, Profession, Craft and Knowledge. And if you're not in that D&D4E Player's Handbook in some form -- all I ask is the slightest mention "you are welcome to invent new skills if you think they will be useful in your campaign or if you feel like using them to customize your character" -- then I will be sorely annoyed.


----------



## ptolemy18 (Aug 24, 2007)

Falling Icicle said:
			
		

> And to be honest, I don't particularly like the huge emphasis on levels either. Why not give the character's attributes a greater role instead? If I'm a very dextrous person, then it is reasonable to assume that I should be able to tumble, balance, etc fairly well, even without training. Having that based on levels makes broad experience and dabbling much more significant than natural ability, and I don't like that at all. A 20 Dexterity ends up meaning less than 20 levels in a class that has no emphasis on such skills whatsoever. I'm not comfortable with that.




Preach on, Brother Falling Icicle!


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Aug 24, 2007)

Comparing skills to BAB and HP is a false analogy, I think.

BAB is only a part of the combat equation, and a 10th level Wizard's +5 BAB expresses itself primarily in his ability to target magical rays at his opponents. For a Wizard, BAB is expressed primarily as hand-eye coordination. Should the Wizard start feeling froggy and whip out his staff for a little hand-to-hand, a simple non-magical breastplate negates all the Wizard's "combat prowess" that he has learned over 10 levels. Should he manage to land a solid blow, he's probably dealing somewhere in the range of 4-6 points of damage.

If you have a problem with a 10th level Wizard hitting a typical bandit-in-breastplate about 50% of the time and even then, in all likelihood, only wounding and not killing him, you're pretty far gone.

A  5th level warrior also has a +5 BAB, but he'll also have a STR bonus to damage; Feat bonuses; and he is far more likely to have invested in a magic weapon. 

Though they have the same BAB, the 5th level warrior is head and shoulders above the Wizard in standard combat. 

With regards to HP, they are already such an abstraction that it is hard to even justify arguing about. Suffice to say that hit points are a better abstraction of Heroism than they are of Physical Toughness.

Sometimes I think Hit Points would be better off being renamed Fate Points.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Aug 24, 2007)

Falling Icicle said:
			
		

> I never defended the BAB rules in 3.5 edition, so don't put those words in my mouth.
> 
> That said, it isn't quite the same thing. D&D focuses heavily on combat, so it is fairly safe to assume that even wizards spend at least some of their time training in this area. It is quite another stretch to assume that the wizard has also spent time trianing in climbing, swimming, jumping, diplomacy, intimidating, sneaking, etc etc etc.



But, consider this: Maybe D&D 4 edition will not force you to focus in combat. You can do everything, and no character will feel left out just because it is not his character's focus (but if it happens to be the character's focus, you can rest assured he is good at it and will be able to use his strengths...) I like that idea very much.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Aug 24, 2007)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> But, consider this: Maybe D&D 4 edition will not force you to focus in combat. You can do everything, and no character will feel left out just because it is not his character's focus (but if it happens to be the character's focus, you can rest assured he is good at it and will be able to use his strengths...) I like that idea very much.




The game is being redesigned and rebalanced around the combat encounter.

"You will be able to contribute in combat!" pretty much seems like a core design philosophy.

That's not to say the game is going to be all combat, all the time-- just saying I wouldn't expect a _de-emphasis_ on combat.


----------



## Stalker0 (Aug 24, 2007)

Henry said:
			
		

> But Climbing is not the bread and butter of every character, neither is forgery, or magic device use, etc. Some characters might go their whole careers with having to climb a cliff once, or never forging a single document; but I don't think I've ever seen a wizard who hasn't made several attack rolls, or took damage (especially since 3.5, because those orb spells are really darned good!)




On the other hand, that wizard has probably heard about his fighter buddies talk about that nasty mountain climb, or seen a hoard of crazy monsters climbing around and picked up a few things.

We have to remember, 20th level characters are darn near diety status but most traditional fantasy standards (there's a good thread somewhere talking about how Gandalf is 6th level).

Take swim for example. The 20th level wizard is in raging water, and has never swam a day in his life. But he knows how to control his fear, and he's learned some nymerian breathing techniques from a yogi he met a few years back, and he remembers a small magic charm spell that helps him out underwater, and the god of water owes him a favor. There are so many reasons why a high level character could have general competence.

And from a dm perspective, just assign background bonuses and penalties if its really important for a character to be truly sucky.

Also, some people are complaining that if everyone has general competance then their mastery will mean nothing. I think its exactly the opposite. Let's say your rogue is a master thief. Currently, he would be the only one to sneak into the castle. With a general bonus, the party might be able to sneak into the castle, but only you can sneak past the elite guards. That way if you get into trouble, your party is not halfway around the world.

Or disguise. The party might be able to sneak into a party, but only the rogue can actually talk to the head guy, who knows his guest well. The party can interact, but the rogue gets the spotlight. That makes it more fun for everyone in my opinion, and on that basis alone, I think general competance is the way to go.


----------



## Felon (Aug 24, 2007)

Falling Icicle said:
			
		

> Just because someone has gained power and experience and journeyed around the world doesn't mean they should gain skill at everything. It's all a matter of training.



Not so in many cases. Demonstrably not so. 

Trained-only uses of a skill are all about training, granted. But untrained uses are allowed for most skills exactly because there are other factors beyond training. Not all amateurs are on equal footing. Self-confidence, determination, and resourcefulness are the cornerstones of general capability. When the hero attempts a Climb check, he doesn't fall because he _needs_ to succeed. He remains calm when others would grope desperately and slip. He thinks quickly when others would panic and fail to catch themselves. 

The same applies to just about any untrained check, be it Disguise, Survival, or Stealth. The seasoned adventurer thinks of ways to succeed that the other guy doesn't. He doesn't stumble as often, and when he does he recovers more quickly. 

And let's not forget good ol' luck. We accept that heroes are favored by fate when it comes to saving throws; I don't think heroes get some special training to withstand poison, for instance. So, why's it hard to accept with skills checks?

Bottom line: heroes are about getting the job done.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Aug 24, 2007)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> The game is being redesigned and rebalanced around the combat encounter.
> 
> "You will be able to contribute in combat!" pretty much seems like a core design philosophy.
> 
> That's not to say the game is going to be all combat, all the time-- just saying I wouldn't expect a _de-emphasis_ on combat.



Yes, but this doesn't need to mean that they will also keep "non-combat" _de-emphasized_ as it is in D&D. 



> Of course, I'm not trying to put down people who do chose to have their characters learn such skills, I'm simply making the point that every single high level character wouldn't and shouldn't learn to do *everything.* Being someone with such a broad array of talents is an achievement into and of itself, and as the old saying goes, such a person is a "jack of all trades, but master of none."



A Jack of all trade in a Saga-based skill system is someone who has skill training in every skill, but never bothered to learn skill focus or get a reroll ability for his skills. He can do these skills fairly competent, but against a real specialist, he still isn't all that great. he also spent a lot of his resources on getting this skill training, so this means he also won't be a master of anything outside of skills.


----------



## Felon (Aug 24, 2007)

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> Take swim for example. The 20th level wizard is in raging water, and has never swam a day in his life. But he knows how to control his fear, and he's learned some nymerian breathing techniques from a yogi he met a few years back, and he remembers a small magic charm spell that helps him out underwater, and the god of water owes him a favor. There are so many reasons why a high level character could have general competence.



Well-said. When it comes right down to it, decisiveness and good instincts can get you through a lot.



> Also, some people are complaining that if everyone has general competance then their mastery will mean nothing. I think its exactly the opposite. Let's say your rogue is a master thief. Currently, he would be the only one to sneak into the castle. With a general bonus, the party might be able to sneak into the castle, but only you can sneak past the elite guards. That way if you get into trouble, your party is not halfway around the world.
> 
> Or disguise. The party might be able to sneak into a party, but only the rogue can actually talk to the head guy, who knows his guest well. The party can interact, but the rogue gets the spotlight. That makes it more fun for everyone in my opinion, and on that basis alone, I think general competance is the way to go.



This is really the point that folks need to get. Stop arguing abstractions and look at the bottom line. I have seen one party after another abandon any thought of trying to finesse their way through an encounter because the unskilled characters were not equipped to pull it off. Either the party has some spells or potions on hand for the situation, or they'll just say "screw it" and apply brute force. They'd rather go down fighting than blunder their way through a problem. I suspect I'm not alone in having experienced that.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Aug 24, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> They'd rather go down fighting than blunder their way through a problem. I suspect I'm not alone in having experienced that.



You're not.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Aug 24, 2007)

It would be trivially easy to satisfy all sides on this issue.  Start with SW Saga, and then modify it something like this.  (For sake of example, I'll assume that there are about 30 viable D&D skills, including variations on Knowledge skills):

Characters have a skill bonus equal to 1/2 their level, rounded down.  This bonus applies to all trained skills.  In addition, each character has a number of qualified skills.  The skill bonus also applies to these skills.  A character starts with 4 qualified skills (chosen from any skill in the skill list), and gains an additional qualified skill every even level.

Option A:  Omnicompetence - All untrained skills are considered qualified at 1st level.

Option B:  Learning on the Road - Qualified skills need not be selected immediately upon gaining access.  Instead, the player can mark a skill as qualified at any time, as long as he has qualified selections remaining, and the DM and players agree that the character could have picked up qualified level of training.



Option A is Saga.  The base produces characters that still have a few holes at upper levels, but less as they grow.  Option B has all kinds of room for variation, depending on what the group wants.  It softens the blow for those groups that want some weaknesses, but also appreciate the Saga aspect of everyone being able to ride or sneak, if it matters.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Aug 24, 2007)

JustinA said:
			
		

> Because not everyone is Leonardo da Vinci.
> 
> The SAGA system makes everyone a universal polymath. Everyone is handsome, smart, and a world-class athlete by 10th level. It's not only that this is unrealistic, it also does a lousy job of emulating even the most heroic and cinematic of genres.



See.... that's the core misrepresentation, right there.  Barring the pure physical skills, skill checks are almost universally opposed checks.  You are NOT a polymath, you are simply maintaining parity and achieving the ability to outperform the cannon fodder.

The 10th level fighter will actually get to be as intimidating as he _ought to be_ as the guy who has slain a dragon or two, countless orcs and other nasties, and is wandering around with the bestest, shiniest armor and weapons on the block.

If we assume similar DCs and a Saga-like treatment of trained and untrained, the low level wizard will be able to take 10 on a check to climb a bloody rope and succeed (like your average "90 pound weakling" in gym class manages all the bloody time).  He will, however, need someone who has training to do the free climbing first so that the rope is there for him.  How does that make him unreasonably capable?  If I've been riding horses around and camping outside dungeons and clambering around inside these undead/orc/kobold infested tombs and caves, I should have picked up enough general physical competence to handle that level of exertion when "taking 10" with no distractions or tight time limits.

I will never understand the desire to make your fantasy heroes LESS competent at mundane tasks than the average person on the street.


----------



## AllisterH (Aug 24, 2007)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> The game is being redesigned and rebalanced around the combat encounter.
> 
> "You will be able to contribute in combat!" pretty much seems like a core design philosophy.
> 
> That's not to say the game is going to be all combat, all the time-- just saying I wouldn't expect a _de-emphasis_ on combat.




Actually, that is part of the equation for rebalancing. Remember, they (WOTC) also mentioned having a better definition of encounter so that non-combat situations would be considered an encounter. It was Mearls that mentioned having an actual "method/template" for how non-combat/diplomatic encounters could be run.

Here's the thing for me personally. In previous editions, it didn't really matter what your skills/secondary skills/NWPs were. They had no effect on your character where it mattered since even if you weren't "skilled", the situation you were in would rarely adversely affect your character. 

In such a system, the 3.5 skill system where a 20th level paladin can know nothing at knowledge religion or Diplomacy isn't a big deal since the DM isn't going to make or break you on the single roll.

Once however, skills actually become important to the character's livelihood, I'm more partial to the Saga system.


----------



## Stalker0 (Aug 24, 2007)

The other reason SAGA's skill system is useful is that its dependable. When the system can rely on skills, it can utilize them more. This makes adventure creation easier. Modules can expect 10th level characters to have sneak, even if its just a routine amount. They can expect that a dechiper script check can be attempted, even if no one is a master of it.


----------



## breschau (Aug 24, 2007)

Bonner's new blog lists his chaos gnome as having 16 Bluff, here.

And before people freak about skill ranks or Saga skills. We don't know exactly what that means. Besides, this is a converted character instead of a start fresh, 1st level character, so there's no telling what level he is.


----------



## JustinA (Aug 24, 2007)

Canis said:
			
		

> See.... that's the core misrepresentation, right there.  Barring the pure physical skills, skill checks are almost universally opposed checks.  You are NOT a polymath, you are simply maintaining parity and achieving the ability to outperform the cannon fodder.




You're basically claiming that Kasparov isn't skilled at chess, because chess is resolved using an opposed check. This makes no sense.

Or, in other words, the phrase "you are NOT a polymath, you are simply achieving the ability to outperform the cannon fodder [in every skill]" doesn't make the slightest bit of sense. That's what being a polymath _means_.

Justin Alexander
http://www.thealexandrian.net


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Aug 24, 2007)

Actually, "polymath" means "a person of encyclopedic learning."

I looked it up.   Seems to me that a polymath would be the guy with all the knowledge skills trained (because untrained knowledge skills don't get you anything higher than DC 10).

And, he's not claiming that Kasparov isn't skilled at chess.  He's saying that Kasparov *is* skilled at chess and will beat the "polymath" PCs in any Chess skill-off.  The PCs, however, will be better at chess than Joe Nobody-Startingout.


----------



## FreeXenon (Aug 24, 2007)

_*BTW: I have not read the whole thread*_

I do not know if anyone has mentioned this but the Trained/Untrained thing, if I remember correctly, hearkens back to the Alternity days, and in some ways so does the condition track.

Alternity..... MMMMMmmmmmm!


----------



## BryonD (Aug 24, 2007)

pemerton said:
			
		

> If climbing or swimming comes up _in an encounter_ then the same opportunity cost will be there, as 4E encounters will be designed so that the wizard's role is to cast a spell (perhaps a levitate spell, or one that stills the ocean waves or parts the waters), not to piddle around with half-baked skill attempts.



A) 4 out of 5 times it is not in a round by round encounter.  It is still important because it uses up time (if not precise rounds) and resources.

B) On the 5th time, when it is in combat, the comparison is apples to oranges.  If the mage spends a round climbing it is because he NEEDS to be at the top of <whatever>.  Swinging a sword on the other hand is simply an inferior option for harming a monster.


----------



## BryonD (Aug 24, 2007)

F4NBOY said:
			
		

> Being very objective now, what I want for 4E is a skill system in which:
> 
> -Characters can be masters in some skills, good enough in others and suckers in others.
> 
> ...



I completely agree with this assessment.

It was never in any way my point to claim that the 3X system should be retained as is.  But the thread kinda got derailed into a conversation about a flat shift to SWSE as is.  
As I said, I expect a connection to SWSE to be obvious.  But I also expect clear tweaks to adjust the flavor from SW to D&D.
WotC has let me down before.  But they have done well much more frequently and I am quite optimistic.


----------



## BryonD (Aug 24, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> The question that really needs to be answered is this: Why does Raistlin need to climb a tree?



Well, I don't think he does.  And that fits with my assessment that he doesn't need (and shouldn't have) freebie ranks* in Climb.   (* - or whatever 4E term applies)


----------



## FreeXenon (Aug 24, 2007)

> -Characters can be masters in some skills, good enough in others and suckers in others.
> 
> -Characters can be masters in a few skills, good enough in most skills, and suckers in a few others.




I stated something similar in another thread on this topic. The SWSE skills is a little too on or off for me, at least for D&D. For Star Wars it seems to work pretty well.

 I would to have an in between area as well. Sometimes I want a little bit of one skill for background purposes or to show that my character has had a passing interest in something - usually for knowledge or profession skills.


'I Roxors'
'I am Competent'
'I have Done this before'
'Whoa, you want me to do what'
 is the kind of granularity I would like to see.

This would translate into:

Trained with Skill Focus
Trained
_Something new mechanic_
Freebee ranks

_Something new mechanic_: Perhaps splitting a Trained skill into 2 skills that are +3/4 Character Level ?


----------



## pemerton (Aug 25, 2007)

pemerton said:
			
		

> If climbing or swimming comes up in an encounter then the same opportunity cost will be there, as 4E encounters will be designed so that the wizard's role is to cast a spell (perhaps a levitate spell, or one that stills the ocean waves or parts the waters), not to piddle around with half-baked skill attempts.





			
				BryonD said:
			
		

> A) 4 out of 5 times it is not in a round by round encounter.  It is still important because it uses up time (if not precise rounds) and resources.



My impression of 4E is that:

*as I said in my earlier post, there will be an emphasis on turning all challenges into encounters, so that your (A) will no longer be true;

*there will be a good chunck of at-will and per-encounter abilities, so the notion of "resource depletion by way of environmental challenges", which was a mainstay of 1st ed, will no longer be applicable.

As I said earlier, therefore, the wizard will not be making skill checks because the game will be structured so as to give her a better, magic-using role to play.


----------



## DonTadow (Aug 25, 2007)

BryonD said:
			
		

> I completely agree with this assessment.
> 
> It was never in any way my point to claim that the 3X system should be retained as is.  But the thread kinda got derailed into a conversation about a flat shift to SWSE as is.
> As I said, I expect a connection to SWSE to be obvious.  But I also expect clear tweaks to adjust the flavor from SW to D&D.
> WotC has let me down before.  But they have done well much more frequently and I am quite optimistic.



What we don't want is to waste a ton of time on character creation for the average player, which means too much skill deliberation.  

The SWSE needs a tiny bit more customization. Perhaps you pick your skill groups at the beginning and depending on your class that is how many skill groups you can pick.  Maybe even only certain classes can access certain groups. 

However things like atheletics sounds like it should be open for a mage. Heck why can't a mage be in physically good condition. I've read a lot of fiction where the sorceror was strong enough to do physical things but not actual combat.


----------



## breschau (Aug 25, 2007)

FreeXenon said:
			
		

> I stated something similar in another thread on this topic. The SWSE skills is a little too on or off for me, at least for D&D. For Star Wars it seems to work pretty well.
> 
> I would to have an in between area as well. Sometimes I want a little bit of one skill for background purposes or to show that my character has had a passing interest in something - usually for knowledge or profession skills.
> 
> ...




Currently in SAGA all skills gain a 1/2 level bonus. Then there's trained and focused. This works for class and non-class skills. As noted above, that doesn't quite work out.

Here's how I think it will go in 4th...

*Non-class skills checks:* d20 + 1/4 character level + ability modifier.

*Class skill checks:* d20 + 1/2 character level + ability modifier.

*Trained skill checks:* d20 + 1/2 character level + ability modifier + 5 (Trained bonus).

*Trained and Focused skill checks:* d20 + 1/2 character level + ability modifier + 10 (Trained and Skill focus feat bonus).

This system makes it so there is some benefit to class skills, other than you can pick them for training/focus, and makes the skills totally foreign to a character (Jump/Climb) for a Wizard gain free bonuses at a slower rate, but it's still there. Plus, when multiclassing, the characters new class skills gain a boost.


----------



## BryonD (Aug 25, 2007)

pemerton said:
			
		

> My impression of 4E is that:
> 
> *as I said in my earlier post, there will be an emphasis on turning all challenges into encounters, so that your (A) will no longer be true;
> 
> ...



I hope not, because that would suck on a much larger scale than skills.

I doubt they will shackle DMs like this.


----------



## BryonD (Aug 25, 2007)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> What we don't want is to waste a ton of time on character creation for the average player, which means too much skill deliberation.



No problem there.  But we also don't want to dumb things down to a one size fits all.  



> The SWSE needs a tiny bit more customization. Perhaps you pick your skill groups at the beginning and depending on your class that is how many skill groups you can pick.  Maybe even only certain classes can access certain groups.



Yeah, I'm with you here.



> However things like atheletics sounds like it should be open for a mage. Heck why can't a mage be in physically good condition. I've read a lot of fiction where the sorceror was strong enough to do physical things but not actual combat.



Absolutely.  I've never claimed that a mage should be denied access to athletic skills.
I just think it is a very poor fit to say that every PC mage everywhere learns to climb and swim.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Aug 25, 2007)

Henry said:
			
		

> The biggest downfall I've seen so far discussed about Star Wars Saga-like skills is that all of them consistently increase, whether trained in them or not. Conan the level 20 barbarian will know as much about spellcraft as the level 1 wizard who spent all of his formative years in the academy of magic.




That's not correct.

First off, we don't even know if there will be a spellcraft skill at all.  The closest thing they have in SWSE is 'Use the Force' skill, which you need to be Trained in to use.

Second, if there is, chances are that to do some of the things spellcraft can do, you'll need to be Trained in it.  Something I would expect a 1st level Wizard to be, and not a 20th level Barbarian.  And if the 20th level Barbarian did spend a FEAT (in SWSE you need to spend a feat to get trained in a skill you don't start out as trained in) to be Trained in Spellcraft, then why wouldn't he know as much as a 1st level Wizard?


----------



## breschau (Aug 25, 2007)

breschau said:
			
		

> Currently in SAGA all skills gain a 1/2 level bonus. Then there's trained and focused. This works for class and non-class skills. As noted above, that doesn't quite work out.
> 
> Here's how I think it will go in 4th...
> 
> ...




The other way to go is Non-Class: 1/4, Class: 1/2, Trained: 1/1 (no bonus), and keep Skill Focus as a feat providing a +5 bonus. Not sure which way I like better.


----------



## DonTadow (Aug 25, 2007)

BryonD said:
			
		

> I hope not, because that would suck on a much larger scale than skills.
> 
> I doubt they will shackle DMs like this.



Not if Saga and Iron Heroes are any indication. Both of these require skill checks in large numbers.


----------



## pemerton (Aug 25, 2007)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> Not if Saga and Iron Heroes are any indication. Both of these require skill checks in large numbers.



But do they require wizards to make Swim and Climb checks? I assume not - a Jedi, in Saga, can presumably Use the Force to perform physical feats (like Luke in Empire Strikes Back). In D&D a Wizard should be casting spells,  not piddling around with physical skill checks.


----------



## DonTadow (Aug 25, 2007)

pemerton said:
			
		

> But do they require wizards to make Swim and Climb checks? I assume not - a Jedi, in Saga, can presumably Use the Force to perform physical feats (like Luke in Empire Strikes Back). In D&D a Wizard should be casting spells,  not piddling around with physical skill checks.



Ok, say you want to cast a spell after your ship has been capsized, the rapids are fierce. You want to cast some type of wind spell but its difficult because of the rapids.  

You're running from a horde of goblins. You reach a steep hill that needs to be climbed, in the mean time you as the wizard must create enough firepower to help the escape. 

That's kinda how iron heroes is.  Only wizards in d and d behave like wizards in d and d.  Stand still, throw some bird seed.


----------



## The Shadow (Aug 25, 2007)

Can someone tell me how Saga handles languages?  That's the one thing I can't wrap my mind around - the rest of it sounds great!


----------



## Jim DelRosso (Aug 25, 2007)

The Shadow said:
			
		

> Can someone tell me how Saga handles languages?  That's the one thing I can't wrap my mind around - the rest of it sounds great!



 Everyone understands Basic. Alien species with a native tongue also gain that for free. Characters also know how to speak a number of extra languages equal to their Intelligence bonus.

The Linguist feat allows you take even more bonus languages, equal to your Int bonus + 1. There's also a droid component that gives you the full-on C-3P0 effect.


----------



## The Shadow (Aug 25, 2007)

Jim DelRosso said:
			
		

> Everyone understands Basic. Alien species with a native tongue also gain that for free. Characters also know how to speak a number of extra languages equal to their Intelligence bonus.
> 
> The Linguist feat allows you take even more bonus languages, equal to your Int bonus + 1. There's also a droid component that gives you the full-on C-3P0 effect.




Thank you.  Do characters get special 'feat slots' as they advance only usable on Skill Training and Skill Focus?  Or does your class only give you a fixed initial amount?  (Which can be supplemented by regular feats, of course.)

It occurs to me that in D&D, freebie languages might make a decent racial advancement option.  There would also be a niche for feats like,

Learned:  You get enhancement x to y Knowledge skills, plus the "Latin" language (or the equivalent in the campaign world - a language of learning.  Draconic in 3e, maybe).  If you already know "Latin", substitute another obscure language favored by sages.

Some classes (wizard, for example), might even get something like this as a class feature of some sort.


----------



## Jim DelRosso (Aug 25, 2007)

The Shadow said:
			
		

> Thank you.  Do characters get special 'feat slots' as they advance only usable on Skill Training and Skill Focus?  Or does your class only give you a fixed initial amount?




No special slots, but in addition to gaining general feats like standard d20 characters (at 1st, 3rd, 6th, etc.), the base classes all get bonus feats every even-numbered level, and have Skill Training and Skill Focus on their list of available bonus feats.

As for D&D, I could see having characters either know a language or not if it's "living", but have some kind of skill (maybe a Knowledge area) for "dead" or mystic tongues. But, that might be more trouble than it's worth, depending on the payoff for knowing those ancient languages.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Aug 25, 2007)

In order to simplify skills, there will now only be 3 skills in the game (much like how they reduced the 7 different saving throw types in 2E into just 3).  Those skills are:

Physical
Mental
Social

Physical will cover all your physical-based skills.  Balance, Jump, Tumble, Sneak, etc.
Mental will cover all your mental-based skills.  Knowledge skills, Search, Appraise, Deciperh Script, etc.
Social will be taking care of skills such as Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate, Perform, etc.

Simplification and less bookkeeping is key!


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Aug 25, 2007)

BryonD said:
			
		

> No problem there.  But we also don't want to dumb things down to a one size fits all.
> 
> 
> Yeah, I'm with you here.
> ...



Sweet Jeebus!  Learning to climb a rope that someone else puts up there for you or a surface completely chock-full of handholds and ledges (untrained) and learning to free climb Yosemite (trained) are _demonstrably_ different things. 

Don't know how swim might be handled _vis a vis_ the trained/untrained divide, but again..... 90% of swimming is nothing more than not panicking.  It's bloody instinctive in mammals.  I suspect (barring a phobia as discussed above) the guy who has gotten used to conversing with the arcane forces that govern the world ought to know how to keep his cool when he finds himself in the water.

Again, I have to wonder why it's so important to make fantasy heroes _unrealistically_ incompetent at mundane tasks.


----------



## Henry (Aug 25, 2007)

Canis said:
			
		

> Sweet Jeebus!  Learning to climb a rope that someone else puts up there for you or a surface completely chock-full of handholds and ledges (untrained) and learning to free climb Yosemite (trained) are _demonstrably_ different things.




I've known some people in real life who due to physical disabilities or lack of exercise either couldn't do that dirt-easy rope, or were hard pressed to. Were I making game stats to represent them, I wouldn't give them a +anything in their skills, much less training or focus.

Why should someone like them be adventurers, one might ask? Because some literature has precedent for it. Lovecraftian heroes were often frail or woefully inadequate for some skills; we've seen the Raistlin example.



> Again, I have to wonder why it's so important to make fantasy heroes _unrealistically_ incompetent at mundane tasks.




Mundane tasks really shouldn't require a roll, though, meaning characters would be competent enough to do them. Above a +5 is not "mundane" to me however - it's actually as decent a bonus as someone trained in doing the task regularly (in other words, hitting a DC 15 without trying hard.)


----------



## wgreen (Aug 25, 2007)

Henry said:
			
		

> I've known some people in real life who due to physical disabilities or lack of exercise either couldn't do that dirt-easy rope, or were hard pressed to. Were I making game stats to represent them, I wouldn't give them a +anything in their skills, much less training or focus.



What level were they?  



			
				Henry said:
			
		

> Why should someone like them be adventurers, one might ask? Because some literature has precedent for it. Lovecraftian heroes were often frail or woefully inadequate for some skills; we've seen the Raistlin example.



Yeah, but D&D doesn't model fantasy literature.  It models D&D.  Heck, even Raistlin's original AD&D 1e stats don't reflect the near-cripple the novels make him out to be.

If 4e won't let me play high-level characters who can't do basic stuff, I don't think I'll shed too many tears.  

-Will


----------



## Someone (Aug 25, 2007)

All adventurers of every class, in every edition, have been able, from level 1, to make an 8 hours march on foot over hard terrain, even jungles, rugged hills or mountains, without any kind of effect on their performance in combat at the end of it (an exception may be walking a Dark Sun desert without water - then there may be some penaty). Those guys can surely swim in a quiet pond, or climb a tree.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Aug 25, 2007)

Henry said:
			
		

> I've known some people in real life who due to physical disabilities or lack of exercise either couldn't do that dirt-easy rope, or were hard pressed to. Were I making game stats to represent them, I wouldn't give them a +anything in their skills, much less training or focus.
> 
> Why should someone like them be adventurers, one might ask? Because some literature has precedent for it. Lovecraftian heroes were often frail or woefully inadequate for some skills; we've seen the Raistlin example.



In the pseudo-medieval D&D milieu, such people would probably not have made it to adulthood, you know.  And if they had, they sure as heck would NOT be adventurers. 



> Mundane tasks really shouldn't require a roll, though, meaning characters would be competent enough to do them. Above a +5 is not "mundane" to me however - it's actually as decent a bonus as someone trained in doing the task regularly (in other words, hitting a DC 15 without trying hard.)



Most characters can't climb a tree without a roll, man.  That's a MUNDANE task.  DCs are VERY variable.  In some skills, a 15 does in fact model something that's hard in real life.  In other cases, two 15s in the same skill represent things that are enormously different in their real world difficulty, IMO.

Maybe I'm the one at fault for expecting the system to have some relationship to reality.


----------



## teitan (Aug 25, 2007)

F4NBOY said:
			
		

> Torduk, the grumpy 10th level dwarf fighter(that never ever considered learning diplomacy, since it's not even a class skill for him) is as diplomatic as Gilberto, the 1st level noble paladin that trained all his life in diplomacy (he has the skill trainning in it).
> Being a sucker is not always bad, it creates interesting roleplaying situation sometimes. If the wizard can't climb, he must find a creative solution for it. It's a challenge, and the game is about overcoming challenges. And solutions that are not in the book are funny too.
> And whatever, I just think playing a grumpy dwarf is a lot of fun ,and I wanna be able to keep playing that.




Then think of your grumply old dwarf with half his skill level in diplomacy untrained as simply being the loveable grumpy old dwarf whether he likes it or not... consider also that at level 30 it would only be a +15 if it uses the Star Wars rules...


----------



## beepeearr (Aug 25, 2007)

The more I think about SWSE skill system the more I think it's not so much the flat bonus to all skills that bother me, it's that your really not that much better than someone who isn't trained, so why not a mix of both systems.  

All skills get a bonus equal to half your level (or if you really wanted to tinker each class gets a Base Skill Bonus progression), and then you get skill points to spend on top of that bonus each level.  At first level just take the number of trained skills the current system gives you to determine the number of starting skill points, at each level you gain an additional number of skill points equal to the same number.  This way you can still customize your character, and stick roughly to the DC's as stated (if the system is like the one in SWSE).  Your trained skills will start off lower than what they would have been under SWSE, but can potentially wind up higher if you focus all your skill points on the same set of skills, or you can choose to spend them on other skills instead, negating the need for a skill training feat.


----------



## RFisher (Aug 25, 2007)

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> In order to simplify skills, there will now only be 3 skills in the game (much like how they reduced the 7 different saving throw types in 2E into just 3).  Those skills are:
> 
> Physical
> Mental
> Social




What about Spiritual?

You could also replace the saves with these: Fortitude & Reflex become Physical. Will becomes Mental. & you now have a Social save as well.


----------



## Szatany (Aug 25, 2007)

F4NBOY said:
			
		

> Being very objective now, what I want for 4E is a skill system in which:
> 
> -Characters can be masters in some skills, good enough in others and suckers in others.
> 
> ...



Agreed. I would do it like this:

- When you create a character (before you choose your class), you gain Skill Focus with a # of skills equal to 3+Int modifier (maybe more, depending on how big the skill list is in 4e). 

- Skill Focus feat gives you a +5 bonus to a skill.

- First level and all other odd levels of any class give you a +1 bonus to all your class skills. Character level doesn't matter. Class skills have no other uses or implications.

- Humans pick 2 skills more.

- Example (using 3,5's skill set): A dwarf fighter with Int 10 takes Ride, Swim, and Diplomacy to receive a +5 bonus. He has 8 fighter levels and 3 barbarian levels. He has +4 bonus to all fighter class skills, +2 bonus to barbarian class skills (total of +6 for skill on both lists, like Climb), and a +5 bonus to Ride, Swim, and Diplomacy on top of that.

Simple and diverse
Any takers?


----------



## BryonD (Aug 25, 2007)

Canis said:
			
		

> Again, I have to wonder why it's so important to make fantasy heroes _unrealistically_ incompetent at mundane tasks.



Sounds to me like you may be messing up your DCs.  
If it is a mundane task then the DC should not be over about a 5, 10 tops. 
A Raistlin copycat under a 3X system with no ranks is not incompetent at these tasks.  He is quite realistically somewhat hampered by them.


----------



## BryonD (Aug 25, 2007)

Henry said:
			
		

> Mundane tasks really shouldn't require a roll, though, meaning characters would be competent enough to do them. Above a +5 is not "mundane" to me however - it's actually as decent a bonus as someone trained in doing the task regularly (in other words, hitting a DC 15 without trying hard.)



Exactly.



			
				wgreen said:
			
		

> If 4e won't let me play high-level characters who can't do basic stuff, I don't think I'll shed too many tears



Setting aside that you have completely ignored the correction regarding what merits being called "basic stuff".....  (and the wild misrepresentation of "can't do")

"won't let" isn't a phrase I'm hoping to see a lot of in 4E.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Aug 26, 2007)

I'm liking skills in the SAGA system.  They remind me how D&D worked for 25 years before D&D skills.  Roll a d6 and everyone has the same chance to succeed.  

How do you change your chances?  By changing the situation, the environment, all the RP and specific details about what your PC is doing.  Those penalties and bonuses adjudicated by the DM are the only real alteration.  Attempting to come up with quite literally a million different core modifiers for a million different situation is an exercise in futility.  Codifying and simplifying everything into bracketed single solutions creates tunnel vision IMO.  Imagination operates in the realm of imaginable choice, not pick your mechanic choice.

I hope they keep SAGA's "everyone is good at untrained" & "specializing = mastering".


----------



## DonTadow (Aug 26, 2007)

Szatany said:
			
		

> Agreed. I would do it like this:
> 
> - When you create a character (before you choose your class), you gain Skill Focus with a # of skills equal to 3+Int modifier (maybe more, depending on how big the skill list is in 4e).
> 
> ...



But that's far too much math and you're back into the same boat of managing skills and different ranks at different levels. 

New system, i am this level, my skill rank is this, no math. Does it take someting away from the game? 

No. Sure there's no more tweaking. but their trying to design the automatic transmission not a muscle car.


----------



## SteveC (Aug 26, 2007)

I just thought that I would take a moment to pimp my own suggested fixes for this in Star Wars Saga edition. Take a look here...and let me know what you think.

--Steve


----------



## Henry (Aug 26, 2007)

Canis said:
			
		

> Most characters can't climb a tree without a roll, man.  That's a MUNDANE task.  DCs are VERY variable.  In some skills, a 15 does in fact model something that's hard in real life.  In other cases, two 15s in the same skill represent things that are enormously different in their real world difficulty, IMO.




I don't know - a tree climb is described as an example of a DC 15 task, which someone with a +5 bonus could do while taking 10 as long as they're not rushed. When you say "most characters couldn't climb a tree without a roll," I assume you're speaking about 3E currently - which is my point. I can respect wanting to make your average adventurer an all-around survivor (having a decent chance to climb trees, bluff past guards, etc.) but by the same token you have players who don't want the all-around competent guy - they want someone with more "realistic" deficiencies, to make them more "real."



> Maybe I'm the one at fault for expecting the system to have some relationship to reality.




Relationship to reality to me IS that not every adventurer/mercenary type will have basic skill in everything. TONS of stuff yes, but everything, no.

What it REALLY comes down to is not what's real or plausible or not, but down to _what players want_. If a significant portion of players want the option for tweaking skills more my personal belief), then WotC would be better off serving their customer base and giving them one. If not enough are complaining about it, then they shouldn't see any need to. That's why I'm adding my two cents here and elsewhere, to let them know there's at least some dissent with a system too close to Star Wars Saga.  It's also why you find me piping up about misgivings at "per-encounter" design, but that's a topic of a different thread.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Aug 26, 2007)

Henry said:
			
		

> Relationship to reality to me IS that not every adventurer/mercenary type will have basic skill in everything. TONS of stuff yes, but everything, no.
> 
> What it REALLY comes down to is not what's real or plausible or not, but down to _what players want_. If a significant portion of players want the option for tweaking skills more my personal belief), then WotC would be better off serving their customer base and giving them one. If not enough are complaining about it, then they shouldn't see any need to. That's why I'm adding my two cents here and elsewhere, to let them know there's at least some dissent with a system too close to Star Wars Saga.  It's also why you find me piping up about misgivings at "per-encounter" design, but that's a topic of a different thread.



Fair enough.  And I'll defend minimal bookkeeping until the cows come home.


----------



## Miar (Aug 26, 2007)

After reading all this I'm not sure where the problem is.  It seems like people's biggest problem is the the thought that everyone might end up good at everything.  If this is in fact a problem you could just require all characters to choose 2 skills or whatever that they will always suck in.   Or let the default stand but if a character chooses say two skills to be completely hopeless in give them an extra skill focus or skill trick in something else.  The wizard can't swim because his real interest is in romance novels in which he has skill focus.


----------



## Szatany (Aug 26, 2007)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> But that's far too much math and you're back into the same boat of managing skills and different ranks at different levels.
> 
> New system, i am this level, my skill rank is this, no math. Does it take someting away from the game?
> 
> No. Sure there's no more tweaking. but their trying to design the automatic transmission not a muscle car.



Too much math? Where are you from, it doesn't even use skill points.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Aug 26, 2007)

BryonD said:
			
		

> Sounds to me like you may be messing up your DCs.
> If it is a mundane task then the DC should not be over about a 5, 10 tops.




I'd agree that DC15 for climbing a tree is too high.

A lot of problems with the skill system are actually better mitigated by setting the DCs at the right point and making better use of Take 10 than I have typically seen.

I think here it falls on the DM not to hassle the players with even having to _tell him_ they are taking 10. You can speed up play a lot by assuming it.

"Gord is the first to get to the top of the rocky slope, but with some difficulty, the rest of you scramble up after him. Still, you probably wouldn't want to have to try that with bandits shooting at you."


----------



## BryonD (Aug 26, 2007)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> "Gord is the first to get to the top of the rocky slope, but with some difficulty, the rest of you scramble up after him. Still, you probably wouldn't want to have to try that with bandits shooting at you."



Yep, things exactly like this are common at my table.
Also, sometimes it is more like "Maboo doesn't like the look of the short cliff to much.  He can make it, but it may take a little effort."  Which means that Maboo is the only one who can not automatically climb it.  Often this is just flavor and we assume 3 or 4 "rolls" and maybe a couple scrapes and bruises.  But if round by round is important everyone knows that they need to consider if Maboo climbing is the best choice.


----------



## Visceris (Aug 26, 2007)

Skill wise every fighter is going to be the same, every wizard will be the same, nearly every rogue will be the same.  Its just lame.


----------



## The Grackle (Aug 26, 2007)

Visceris said:
			
		

> Skill wise every fighter is going to be the same, every wizard will be the same, nearly every rogue will be the same.  Its just lame.




Isn't that the case now?  maybe not w/rogues, but wizards an fighters?  I'll bet if we compared a lot of PCs, they would be remarkably similar.


----------



## Grog (Aug 26, 2007)

The Grackle said:
			
		

> Isn't that the case now?  maybe not w/rogues, but wizards an fighters?  I'll bet if we compared a lot of PCs, they would be remarkably similar.




Even most rogues are probably well over 50% similar, skill-wise, under the 3.x rules.


----------



## The Grackle (Aug 26, 2007)

I'm all for the SAGA system (from what I understand of it) modified a bit for D&D.  

I actually see this development as very D&Dish-- a class/level based system and not a point a buy.  It gives you options, but also forces you to advance in a certain way at a certain rate.  You don't pick which saves to boost each level, for example.  Skills are the one point-buy part of 3e, and they show the flaw of point-buys, i.e. sucking hard at everything but that one thing you're totally awesome at.  Changing that a little doesn't seem bad to me.  

Honestly, I'm all for a character with an interesting weak point, but I'm all against all characters of a class having (the same) dozen or so weak points.  That doesn't define your character, it makes him exactly like all the other amazing fighters who can't tie their shoes or powerful wizards that can't do a pull up.  For interesting weak points, you need Flaw/Disadvantage rules.

***
Also, this system (like many of the changes) seems to be for the benefit of adventure-designers.  Balance checks on a heaving boat are not fun if everyone but the rogue will certainly fail.  If the rogue will likely succeed and the others all have a chance, that's an exciting event that still showcases the rogues skills.


----------



## IanArgent (Aug 26, 2007)

I would love to see a saga-type system where skills scale with level. I could set an encounter on difficult ground that requires, say, a balance check every round (such as, I dunno, the deck of a tossing ship, or an slick/icy surface, etc) beyond first level and both challenge the fighter/wizard/cleric without making them suck, and at the same time not make it trivial for the skill monkey who has spent his time maxing his balance. I _can't_ do this right now. There's an encounter in the "Shadows of the Last War" which takes place on a sheet of glass that requires anyone who moves to take a DC 15 or so balance check (I don't have the module handy). This is fine for a 2nd level encounter, the rogue who has been maxing Balance is +5 skill relative to the rest of the party (who hasn't) before stat and equipment adjustments. The rogue has an easier time of it, but the rest of the party isn't rendered ineffective.

I could not run this encounter at higher levels; either the skill monkey isn't challenged at all, or the rest of the party is non-functional. There's a bunch of skills that this applies to, incidentally. And concentrating on the Wizards ability to use arcane magic to bypass environmental hazards doesn't help the Cleric, the mounted fighter who's been maxing ride instead of swim, or even the rogue who has been dumping skill points into social rather than environmental skills.

From the behind-the-screen point of view; I have a lot more freedom in encounter design if I can assume there is a 10-point spread at most between the untrained and skill monkey characters (before stat adjustments).  Beyond that, Saga gives re-rolls (either pick the best or pick the last, depending) to increase the likelihood of the skill monkey making a check, without decreasing the probability that the non-skilled will make the check. Essentially, right now; no-one takes Balance or Swim, because outside of a few specialized situations, there's no way I'm going to set up an encounter for the _party_ that uses those skills because it would hose the players who didn't take balance/swim. That's not fun. Really not fun, especially if the consequence of failing a check is DEATH. (Which shouldn't be a consequence of failing a single check ever, but that's a consequence of encounter design. No, I don't like save or die spells, either, why do you ask?   )


----------



## AllisterH (Aug 26, 2007)

The Grackle said:
			
		

> ***
> Also, this system (like many of the changes) seems to be for the benefit of adventure-designers.  Balance checks on a heaving boat are not fun if everyone but the rogue will certainly fail.  If the rogue will likely succeed and the others all have a chance, that's an exciting event that still showcases the rogues skills.




With a maximum 10 pt spread, this is my main liking of the Saga system. I can use skills in adventures and not have to worry "ok, this is an auto-succeed for the rogue but everyone else looks like they're boned".

Monsters/Spells are designed with the idea that "this will be an appropriate challenge for this level" but the current system of skills means that one can't use skills at all because of the HUGE divergence between characters.


----------



## drothgery (Aug 27, 2007)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> With a maximum 10 pt spread, this is my main liking of the Saga system. I can use skills in adventures and not have to worry "ok, this is an auto-succeed for the rogue but everyone else looks like they're boned".




Closer to 15 if you're figuring in ability modifiers. Or 20 if you're figuring in that and Fool's Luck. But yeah, 10 point range is about right.


----------



## IanArgent (Aug 27, 2007)

Which is why Saga seems to go with giving re-rolls rather than mechanical bonuses. Rerolls help a single player, but don't require that you make the challenge impossible for people without them.


----------



## Aage (Aug 27, 2007)

They should make AC increase 0.5/level too, otherwise it will be pretty much the only thing not increasing with your character level...
Or, if I could decide, make BAB a factor in AC (makes sense)...


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Aug 27, 2007)

The only problem I have with the Saga system is the lack of Crafting rules...instead its just handwaved. I can understand why its done, I just don't like that part of it.

And if that still carries over to 4e with the rest of the skill system staying roughly the same as it is in Saga...I'll live. Its a small thing, in the end, and the skill system is nice and easy to use.


----------



## BryonD (Aug 27, 2007)

The Grackle said:
			
		

> Isn't that the case now?  maybe not w/rogues, but wizards an fighters?  I'll bet if we compared a lot of PCs, they would be remarkably similar.



There is a difference between accepting that 85% of the characters are going to choose to go with a standard build and having a system that will force 100% to have the same build.

That said, I'm not at all concerned that this is going to happen.


----------



## BryonD (Aug 27, 2007)

IanArgent said:
			
		

> I could not run this encounter at higher levels; either the skill monkey isn't challenged at all, or the rest of the party is non-functional.



The rogue makes the balance checks, the mage and cleric use magic to either overcome or avoid the checks.  The fighter either makes the checks, or climbs, or uses some kind of magic.  Or perhaps this is that time that the rogue gets to save the fighter's butt.  After all, everyone should shine some of the time.

But "non-functional" is just way off from how I have every found the current system to work.  Way way off.

On the other hand, if the mage can make the balance checks of the rogue, then the rogue is getting screwed out of his role.  You may as well let the rogue start tossing fireballs.


----------



## IanArgent (Aug 27, 2007)

Aage said:
			
		

> They should make AC increase 0.5/level too, otherwise it will be pretty much the only thing not increasing with your character level...
> Or, if I could decide, make BAB a factor in AC (makes sense)...




Essentially, in Saga it does. Both what D&D considers AC and what D&D considers Reflex save are rolled up into a Reflex Defense.

D&D's answer to this has historically been to ramp up HP as Attack Bonus ramps up, rather than ramping AC as AB ramps.


----------



## Psion (Aug 27, 2007)

BryonD said:
			
		

> Me too.
> 
> Also, it furthers adds to my confidence that a straight SWSE skill system is not the decree.




I would hope so.

Amidst all the nice things about SWSE, I loathed the skill system. I'm honestly baffled why anyone thinks the current 3.5 system is inadequate. I could see combining some skills, but the SWSE "chucking skill ranks" thing is just batty to me.


----------



## IanArgent (Aug 27, 2007)

BryonD said:
			
		

> The rogue makes the balance checks, the mage and cleric use magic to either overcome or avoid the checks.  The fighter either makes the checks, or climbs, or uses some kind of magic.  Or perhaps this is that time that the rogue gets to save the fighter's butt.  After all, everyone should shine some of the time.
> 
> But "non-functional" is just way off from how I have every found the current system to work.  Way way off.
> 
> On the other hand, if the mage can make the balance checks of the rogue, then the rogue is getting screwed out of his role.  You may as well let the rogue start tossing fireballs.





I have tried to run this type encounter at mid-levels; it doesn't work; at and quite low levels the disconnect becomes obvious. Try this at third level and tell me what the Wizard, fighter, and Cleric do when they have to make a DC 20 Balance check (a challenge for the maxed-out balance-monkey - he has to roll 10 on his balance check if he's maxed Dex or a 12 if he skimped on a 14). 

Forget the cleric and wizard for a bit, you just handwaved the fighter completely (and I would like to point out that "being rescued by the fighter" != "being completely unable to participate in a fight because I can't make a balance check"). The fighter has neither innate ability to bypass balance checks, nor Balance on his skill list. Having to depend on a magic item shuts down all kinds of interesting "take-their-gear-away" adventures (another problem with mid-high D&D3.5 play, BTW). Or how about the poor sorcerer who didn't happen to choose the right spell for spells known?

I also can't think of any Cleric spells that help you increase a balance check while wearing heavy armor (that pesky max dex rating strikes again) - certainly not in the PHB at low to mid-level.
Nor anything short of flying that will let you bypass the need.

IMHO (and in this case it appears to be the decision of Game Design) no player should spend any significant period of time during the game standing around doing nothing effective. And there are several skills that aren't worth putting character resources into in the general case right now, because the lack of them will stymie a party.

I've yet to see any rogue in any campaign I've been in put any more ranks in Balance than necessary to get a synergy bonus; and I've had a hard time justifying putting ranks in Climb, given that by the time I've gotten anywhere, the casters can cast at least levitate. And when was the last time ANYONE not in a seafaring campaign put any ranks into swim at all?

Considered in a vacuum, the Saga skills system is only so-so. One of my favorite gaming systems is Shadowrun, a pure point-based skills system. But in that system, the points-based-skill system isnt' a bolt-on. And, for better or for worse, it is in D20.

And, quite frankly, unless a classes skill list numbers less than its available skills + 4, the 100% of characters looking the same is hyperbole. At least as long as all skill son a skill list are equal in use (which, to be fair, is not the case in D&D right now - saga appears to be a bit better with that).

We can all cherry-pick our examples of use-cases that prove our respective points till the Tarrasque comes home; but it's a religious issue in the end. I want all characters to have a chance, even if it's somewhat remote, to do something in a scenario that challenges the expert. Several people disagree.

I justify my stance by saying it's not fun for the players if they can't do anything; and therefore I have to design around NO-ONE having the relevant skills if it is to be an encounter for the whole party, or setting DCs low enough that unskilled users can pass. And if I want to run an adventure someone else wrote that assumes the entire party will be able to make their way down a crumbling staircase, under fire from goblin archers, after expending their entire magical resources in encounters earlier in the day?


----------



## IanArgent (Aug 27, 2007)

Psion said:
			
		

> I would hope so.
> 
> Amidst all the nice things about SWSE, I loathed the skill system. I'm honestly baffled why anyone thinks the current 3.5 system is inadequate. I could see combining some skills, but the SWSE "chucking skill ranks" thing is just batty to me.




I hated the SWSE skill system when I first saw it too. But I "grew up" playing Shadowrun, a pure skill-based system; with no real restrictions on what skills you can take and a system that doesn't have the huge ranges in power than D&D has.

I now look at the D&D skill system and wonder why I still have to deal with the antiquated 3.5 system for the next 9 months...


----------



## AllisterH (Aug 27, 2007)

IanArgent said:
			
		

> I hated the SWSE skill system when I first saw it too. But I "grew up" playing Shadowrun, a pure skill-based system; with no real restrictions on what skills you can take and a system that doesn't have the huge ranges in power than D&D has.




QFT.

The skill system has always been an "add-on" feature. You don't use it in normal adventures unless the DC is set really low (basically in the range of ability mods having an effect) since the designer really has no clue as to what capability a PC would have.

In other skill games, you know the range of possibility


----------



## Psion (Aug 27, 2007)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> QFT.
> 
> The skill system has always been an "add-on" feature. You don't use it in normal adventures unless the DC is set really low (basically in the range of ability mods having an effect) since the designer really has no clue as to what capability a PC would have.




I beg to differ. _*I*_ most certainly DO use it in normal adventures. 

As for published adventure, I am a believer in multiple paths to success. If a player doesn't have the maxed out level in all the skills doesn't mean they can't give you credit for varying levels of skills. I have seen this in published adventures before.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Aug 27, 2007)

Psion said:
			
		

> I beg to differ. _*I*_ most certainly DO use it in normal adventures.
> 
> As for published adventure, I am a believer in multiple paths to success. If a player doesn't have the maxed out level in all the skills doesn't mean they can't give you credit for varying levels of skills. I have seen this in published adventures before.



Sure, but as previously stated in this thread, unless multiple people have the _right_ skills, the only available alternative is usually, "Kick in the door, kill everything in sight."

That's fun for a while, but to be honest, I'm bored to death with it.  Generally, the only way around it is a complicated plan whereby the skill-monkey and maybe the caster/druid (depending on what spells are available) get to do all kinds of sneaky/social/what-have-you stuff for half an hour while everyone else sits on their hands and waits because if they even got within 100 yards they'd ruin everything.


----------



## Glyfair (Aug 27, 2007)

Canis said:
			
		

> Generally, the only way around it is a complicated plan whereby the skill-monkey and maybe the caster/druid (depending on what spells are available) get to do all kinds of sneaky/social/what-have-you stuff for half an hour while everyone else sits on their hands and waits because if they even got within 100 yards they'd ruin everything.




I think hits one issue with the skill system as it is.  When the game is completely social (roleplaying with little emphasis on skills) everyone can participate.  When the game is combat oriented, everyone can participate (in most games, anyway).  However, when other skills are important it's usually having everyone stand back while the character(s) with the appropriate set of skills does their thing.  Not a problem if it's a simple roll, but potentially a problem when it's something extended (such as sneaking in the enemy camp to find something).

With extended skill encounters the players who don't have those skills don't usually have the option of participating at a lesser level.  Having the plodding fighter trying to sneak into the camp with the sneaky characters is a disaster waiting to happen.  Some characters are less effective at social encounters or combat encounters, but they get to participate.

Does the new system solve this problem?  Maybe not completely.  I have to believe that it reduces those situations, though.


----------



## IanArgent (Aug 27, 2007)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> I think hits one issue with the skill system as it is.  When the game is completely social (roleplaying with little emphasis on skills) everyone can participate.  When the game is combat oriented, everyone can participate (in most games, anyway).  However, when other skills are important it's usually having everyone stand back while the character(s) with the appropriate set of skills does their thing.  Not a problem if it's a simple roll, but potentially a problem when it's something extended (such as sneaking in the enemy camp to find something).
> 
> With extended skill encounters the players who don't have those skills don't usually have the option of participating at a lesser level.  Having the plodding fighter trying to sneak into the camp with the sneaky characters is a disaster waiting to happen.  Some characters are less effective at social encounters or combat encounters, but they get to participate.
> 
> Does the new system solve this problem?  Maybe not completely.  I have to believe that it reduces those situations, though.



 In Shadowrun this works because there was no barrier to entry (and no excessive cost) to picking up the base set of "sneaking" skills. (Around my table, you got warned about bringing a character to the game without the ability to minimally participate in sneaking and socializing - by the other players. OTOH, SR has skill points as a core mechanic, and they aren't particularly rare or difficult to come by. Unless you're a rogue, you have very little skill points. And I don't care for the rogue as skillmonkey archetype that 3.x emphasises, either. Starting at 1st-level rogue for the skill points before going elsewhere is a problem, people)


----------



## BryonD (Aug 27, 2007)

IanArgent said:
			
		

> I have tried to run this type encounter at mid-levels; it doesn't work; at and quite low levels the disconnect becomes obvious.



To the contrary, I use it all the time over a wide range of levels and it works great.

Heck, this isn't even the issue that is being discussed for why a change needs to be made.  Virtually no one is complaining about the in play function.  The complaint has been effort required to build a PC/NPC.

But the bottom line is your claim is just completely outside of reality as I have experienced it.  And if it were really the case as you describe it then it would not be possible for me to have the positive experiences that I have.  Perhaps you are simply using the system incorrectly somehow.


----------



## BryonD (Aug 27, 2007)

Psion said:
			
		

> I would hope so.
> 
> Amidst all the nice things about SWSE, I loathed the skill system. I'm honestly baffled why anyone thinks the current 3.5 system is inadequate. I could see combining some skills, but the SWSE "chucking skill ranks" thing is just batty to me.



heh,

I wouldn't say I loathed it.  For a simple, quick start, everything in one book, SW-theme focused game, it is quite adequate.  However, not a single one of those qualifiers meets what I am looking for in D&D.

I can understand the desire to simplify building.  I don't mind it as is, but I can understand the desire.  But the SWSE system as D&D core would be a really bad move.


----------



## BryonD (Aug 27, 2007)

Oh, and BTW it is not a hand wave to say that characters should be expected to face challenges outside their normal abiltities.  That is a feature, not a bug.  To the contrary, to assume that characters should be able to handle anything that comes their way every time would be a terrible bug.


----------



## BryonD (Aug 27, 2007)

Canis said:
			
		

> Sure, but as previously stated in this thread, unless multiple people have the _right_ skills, the only available alternative is usually, "Kick in the door, kill everything in sight."



That has been claimed.  But that doesn't make it true.
It is a false scenario to suggest that one key skill is always (or even often) the only way to avoid fights.


----------



## Psion (Aug 27, 2007)

Canis said:
			
		

> Sure, but as previously stated in this thread, unless multiple people have the _right_ skills, the only available alternative is usually, "Kick in the door, kill everything in sight."




Did you read the post you just quoted? I'll re-emphasize *"multiple paths to success"*. Which means that there are a variety of skills that could be applied to a given situation to improve the odds/ease of success. It's not difficult to write adventures this way, and more skill based systems have done so for a long time.


----------



## Psion (Aug 27, 2007)

BryonD said:
			
		

> I wouldn't say I loathed it.  For a simple, quick start, everything in one book, SW-theme focused game, it is quite adequate.  However, not a single one of those qualifiers meets what I am looking for in D&D.




Fair enough. For my purposes (which is, I don't expect to run any campaign games with deep character development, just an occasional one of or short campaigns), SWSE's skill system might serve the purpose.

For a longer campaign of the nature I often get involved with for D&D, I consider the SWSE skill system inadequate.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Aug 27, 2007)

In my opinion, skill points are only a hassle when the DM is statting up encounters. Since we already know that monsters <> PCs, there is no reason to think that the skill system for PCs _must_ be designed away from the current method.

It's never been a hassle for me, as a player, to keep track of my skill points and assign them where I want them. Doesn't matter if I happen to follow the "Five Big Rules of Skill Allocation;" it still seems like an empowering choice.

I wouldn't take away PC empowerment simply to fix DM headache on the monster/NPC side. That is definitely a "baby with bathwater" solution.


----------



## Visceris (Aug 27, 2007)

The Grackle said:
			
		

> Isn't that the case now?  maybe not w/rogues, but wizards an fighters?  I'll bet if we compared a lot of PCs, they would be remarkably similar.




Well my wizard/fighter (2/1) has ranks in 4 different Craft skills (Alchemy, Painting, Armorsmithing, Weaponsmith), 3 different Knowledge skills (Arcana, History, Local-Sharn), and ranks in Heal, Perform (Dance), Concentration, Decpher Script, Spellcraft, and Swim.


----------



## Psion (Aug 27, 2007)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> In my opinion, skill points are only a hassle when the DM is statting up encounters.
> (...)
> It's never been a hassle for me, as a player, to keep track of my skill points and assign them where I want them. Doesn't matter if I happen to follow the "Five Big Rules of Skill Allocation;" it still seems like an empowering choice.
> 
> I wouldn't take away PC empowerment simply to fix DM headache on the monster/NPC side. That is definitely a "baby with bathwater" solution.




That's pretty much where I'm coming from.

Cept I have no clue what the "Five Rules" are.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Aug 27, 2007)

Psion said:
			
		

> That's pretty much where I'm coming from.
> 
> Cept I have no clue what the "Five Rules" are.




Farther up this thread:

1) Max the skill.
2) Ignore the skill.
3) Put in 5 ranks for synergy.
4) Put in 1 rank so it is "trained."
5) Put in exactly how many ranks you need for your PrC and no more.


----------



## IanArgent (Aug 27, 2007)

BryonD said:
			
		

> Oh, and BTW it is not a hand wave to say that characters should be expected to face challenges outside their normal abiltities.  That is a feature, not a bug.  To the contrary, to assume that characters should be able to handle anything that comes their way every time would be a terrible bug.




The handwave was "Depending on magic items". Sure, anyone can handle a challenge if they get to have a specific magic item for the job (skill-boosters are the easiest one here). I will point out, that using the SWSE system, if the DC is set to be a challenge someone trained in the skill, the chances of an unskilled person making the test are much lower (roughly 25%, depending on the specific DC). If it's one that a trained person can make under no stress virtually all the time (a Take-10 allows passing), the untrained person can make it that 25% (has to roll a 15). So it's clearly NOT impossible to set up a challenge such that the skilled person shines. Furthermore, if it is a "trained use" of the skill, there's no way the untrained person can even test. I don't want a system where characters can handle anything. I do want a system where I can set up challenges that untrained _heroes_ can deal with challenges that mooks would find challenging (without making it too easy for the specialist), but when it's important the specialist has to step up, because no-one else can do it. I very much want trained-only skills or skill uses. But in the end, I want the entire party to have a chance to sneak past the 1-st level guards when they are 5th level, but still have the 5-th level guard commander spot them on his rounds, say. Or have the 15-level thief who hasn't decided to be an intimidating thug can still intimidate a 5-th level fence.



			
				Psion said:
			
		

> Did you read the post you just quoted? I'll re-emphasize "multiple paths to success". Which means that there are a variety of skills that could be applied to a given situation to improve the odds/ease of success. It's not difficult to write adventures this way, and more skill based systems have done so for a long time.




Most skill-based systems can safely assume that each PC has a few spare skill points. To pick some examples of PHB core classes that don't: Fighters, clerics, and Sorcerers. All 2 skill points per level, and all have a fairly restrictive class skill list. The heavy armor types also have the additional disadvantage of either having to give up their armor or eat the penalties associated with the armor in relation to stealth skills. At least one of those "multiple paths to success" has to allow an untrained person to be able to make the test. Most paths to success require that everyone be able to pass the same check at some point. So you either have to set a rather low DC, or figure out how the fighter with no stealth skills and only intimidate in social skills can get through.

You can design around your specific party, of course. But generic adventure writers can't do that. When you target an unknown party, you have to target the "iconic" party, who only has the one character capable of sneaking, bluffing, balancing, or swimming.


----------



## el-remmen (Aug 27, 2007)

The only problem I see with the skills system as is, is the whole monster/NPC issue - which is easily handwaved.

As for PCs and important NPCs, I personally perform MORE skills not less.


----------



## GlassJaw (Aug 27, 2007)

Visceris said:
			
		

> Well my wizard/fighter (2/1) has ranks in 4 different Craft skills (Alchemy, Painting, Armorsmithing, Weaponsmith), 3 different Knowledge skills (Arcana, History, Local-Sharn), and ranks in Heal, Perform (Dance), Concentration, Decpher Script, Spellcraft, and Swim.




And your character would be the exception.  As Wulf stated, I would bet a large sum of money that the vast majority of characters ever created in the 3ed system follow those 5 rules.

Perform (dance) for a Ftr/Wiz?!  Gimp!!


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Aug 27, 2007)

Visceris said:
			
		

> Well my wizard/fighter (2/1) has ranks in 4 different Craft skills (Alchemy, Painting, Armorsmithing, Weaponsmith), 3 different Knowledge skills (Arcana, History, Local-Sharn), and ranks in Heal, Perform (Dance), Concentration, Decpher Script, Spellcraft, and Swim.







			
				GlassJaw said:
			
		

> And your character would be the exception.  As Wulf stated, I would bet a large sum of money that the vast majority of characters ever created in the 3ed system follow those 5 rules.
> 
> Perform (dance) for a Ftr/Wiz?!  Gimp!!





All kidding aside, that kind of sub-standard skill allocation represents a legitimate design problem.

I think we can all agree by now that D&D Design and Development is heavily Gamist, focusing ever-more on the "encounter," on the essential d20 mechanic as the arbiter of "dramatic conflict," and balancing the design around that.

So when you compare two characters side by side, both with the same number of skill ranks, and you have one who has spent his skill points on Craft, Dance, and Profession, and the other character has invested his skill points in Jump, Balance, and Tumble, is it really any wonder at all that 4e will (allegedly) do away with the "sub-standard" skills like Profession?

They are at odds with efficient and balanced design. (And I make that observation without any value judgment.)


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Aug 27, 2007)

Psion said:
			
		

> Did you read the post you just quoted? I'll re-emphasize *"multiple paths to success"*. Which means that there are a variety of skills that could be applied to a given situation to improve the odds/ease of success. It's not difficult to write adventures this way, and more skill based systems have done so for a long time.



I did read it.  My point is that "multiple paths to success" is an illusion in almost all cases (at least in D&D).  Sure, the paths _might_ be laid out in better adventures, and certainly were when I did my damnedest to build them in myself, but you almost never have enough characters capable of following it.

Result: The players kick in the door again, because it's the only thing at which ALL of them are good.  EDIT: Correction: It's the only thing at which all of them are _competent_.

As has been pointed out at least a half dozen times in this thread, D&D does not provide nearly as much versatility in skills for most characters as legitimately skills-based systems, which is the source of the problem.  No one EVER has enough points in the skills they need to get interesting things done, unless you've got a party full of rogues and bards who consulted with each other on what bases to cover.... in which case the party sucks at combat if you don't stack the environment in their favor or entirely change the nature of encounters.


----------



## Zimri (Aug 27, 2007)

BryonD said:
			
		

> That has been claimed.  But that doesn't make it true.
> It is a false scenario to suggest that one key skill is always (or even often) the only way to avoid fights.




I assure you it happens at my gaming table weekly Bryon. I am the subterfuge, sneaky skill monkey, well one of two, coupled with a psionicist that won't use mind affecting abilities, and a cleric in plate with a bow. The cleric can't sneak past anything and we can't exactly leave her behind, When our frontliner does show up she is less stealthy than a bull in a china shop but hey at least someone will get in close so the ninja and my ascetic rogue can get a flanking bonus.

So please tell me how to save my badwrongfun from clerics that can't climb or sneak. From a party of friends with no frontline fighter to provide essential services, and players and characters that are about as well received diplomatically as Paris Hilton at a mensa symposium. Shall I make them re-roll, or just take the ninja and myself out places and leave them behind to run the bar ?

Of course given the tone of the post I have quoted I am obviously spouting untruths.


----------



## IanArgent (Aug 27, 2007)

I'm not arguing that you can't do the skilled party thing in D&D as it stands. I _am_ arguing that it is harder than it needs to be and that SWSE gives a better approach for the general case.

I prefer Shadowrun to D&D, to be honest, at least partially because it _is_ a skill-based system at the core; and it's a lot easier to do skill challenges from the GM side, and to meet them from the PC side.

Is a SWSE-type skill system the best ever? No, an RPG built out from the core is much better. Is it a better bolt-on system than we have now? IMHO, yes.


----------



## Psion (Aug 27, 2007)

IanArgent said:
			
		

> Most skill-based systems can safely assume that each PC has a few spare skill points. To pick some examples of PHB core classes that don't: Fighters, clerics, and Sorcerers. All 2 skill points per level, and all have a fairly restrictive class skill list.




Ah... now we are getting somewhere. THAT is an aspect of the system that, AFAIAC, is most singularly responsible for the skill system being under-utilized in 3e and that is worthy of addressing. Many characters should have more skill points, particularly those at the low end of the scale.



> You can design around your specific party, of course. But generic adventure writers can't do that. When you target an unknown party, you have to target the "iconic" party, who only has the one character capable of sneaking, bluffing, balancing, or swimming.




Once again, I am going to have to insist this is incorrect, having seen many non-D&D adventures (and even a few D&D adventures) over the year that do just that.

After all, your skill points have to go _somewhere_. If you design the skill based challenges such that:
1) having the requisite skill level is more helpful than essential (I emphasized this point in the post you quoted, but there it is again.) and/or
2) a given task has multiple skills that can accomplish it (for example, getting through a door might be accomplished by sneaking in after a legitimate visitor, picking the lock, intimidating a merchant with the key, or bluffing a guard), and/or
3) different DCs provide different levels of success and benefit from different skills levels...

then not is the writing of such adventures possible, I can point to many actual examples where such adventures actually exist.


----------



## Psion (Aug 27, 2007)

Canis said:
			
		

> I did read it.  My point is that "multiple paths to success" is an illusion in almost all cases (at least in D&D).  Sure, the paths _might_ be laid out in better adventures,




Well, I would hope that if the aim of 4e is to provide for better gaming, better adventure methodology would come with it.



> As has been pointed out at least a half dozen times in this thread, D&D does not provide nearly as much versatility in skills for most characters as legitimately skills-based systems, which is the source of the problem.




Sure. And that is a point worth addressing. Characters need more and broader skills.



> No one EVER has enough points in the skills they need to get interesting things done, unless you've got a party full of rogues and bards who consulted with each other on what bases to cover....




And yet somehow, in Living Spycraft games, player who have NEVER had a chance to consult with each other seem to manage. Of course, it's noteworthy that in Spycraft 2.0, no character class has only 2 base SP per level, and there are more skills combined (True20 and SWSE also combine skills). D&D could definitely afford to learn from its protoge's here.


----------



## BryonD (Aug 27, 2007)

Zimri said:
			
		

> I assure you it happens at my gaming table weekly Bryon. I am the subterfuge, sneaky skill monkey, well one of two, coupled with a psionicist that won't use mind affecting abilities, and a cleric in plate with a bow. The cleric can't sneak past anything and we can't exactly leave her behind, When our frontliner does show up she is less stealthy than a bull in a china shop but hey at least someone will get in close so the ninja and my ascetic rogue can get a flanking bonus.
> 
> So please tell me how to save my badwrongfun from clerics that can't climb or sneak. From a party of friends with no frontline fighter to provide essential services, and players and characters that are about as well received diplomatically as Paris Hilton at a mensa symposium. Shall I make them re-roll, or just take the ninja and myself out places and leave them behind to run the bar ?
> 
> Of course given the tone of the post I have quoted I am obviously spouting untruths.



Resorting to putting words in my mouth now, eh?

You claim is "can't".  My claim is "can".  Your apparent lack of working within the system doesn't prove "can't", it only shows a case of "didn't".  My consistent positive experience does prove that "can" exists.

I can't begin to speak to why it isn't working in your game, because I don't have a fraction of the needed information.  But in my game, players with diverse skill sets are able to work as teams and get things done even when only 1 or 2 has the exact skill required at certain times.

And the bottom line is, you can have exactly what you want already by changing the DCs.  (Which might be the root of the problem.)  After all, if you want everyone in the party to make the checks, what real difference is there between everyone beating DC20s because of high bonuses and everyone just beating DC5s?  Nothing really.  As long as all party members achieve the same result you are there.  
Your alternative however would flat out deny everyone else the option of a system that works to provide a range of challenges to truly diverse parties.


----------



## IanArgent (Aug 27, 2007)

Psion said:
			
		

> Well, I would hope that if the aim of 4e is to provide for better gaming, better adventure methodology would come with it.
> 
> Sure. And that is a point worth addressing. Characters need more and broader skills.




Heres the problem with this thinking in 3.5 - Skills is about all the Rogue has going for him. Bumping everyone's skill points make the rogue less powerful relatively - if everyone can be _good_ at skills outside their expertise, whither the rogue? Even if the rogue bumps his skill points as well (and I can make an argument that the rogue needs more skill points, or at least some consolidated skills), more skill points all around waters down the big class feature of the rogue (those 8 skill points per level).

SWSE skill system tries to walk the middle ground between making everyone capable of anything and only having the skilled capable of anything. In some ways I don't like it - I'm still not convinced that a class skill list is a terribly good idea, but since multiclassing grants you access to the sum of the class skill set, and you can pick up a new skill at a reasonable skill-level by expending a less rare resource (feats are rather more common in SWSE, as are stat bumps), I can live with it.


----------



## BryonD (Aug 27, 2007)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> All kidding aside, that kind of sub-standard skill allocation represents a legitimate design problem.
> 
> I think we can all agree by now that D&D Design and Development is heavily Gamist, focusing ever-more on the "encounter," on the essential d20 mechanic as the arbiter of "dramatic conflict," and balancing the design around that.
> 
> ...



Which leads to a fairly obvious conclusion that a separate system for building encounter skills and background/profession skills would be very worthy of consideration.

Every character gets a pool for defining each category and you don't sacrifice one to build the other.


----------



## IanArgent (Aug 27, 2007)

BryonD said:
			
		

> Resorting to putting words in my mouth now, eh?
> 
> You claim is "can't".  My claim is "can".  Your apparent lack of working within the system doesn't prove "can't", it only shows a case of "didn't".  My consistent positive experience does prove that "can" exists.
> 
> ...





How do I challenge, in the same encounter, a character with a +15 skill check modifier and a character with a +0 (or even a negative skill modifier due to armor-check penalties) with the same environmental challenge, and have both _be_ challenged, but not prevented from acting? Without having to rely on the magic-item christmas tree? Or when the casters are out of magic?

Please note, there is still a place for the skilled character to do that which the unskilled cannot, but you can also challenge both of them at the same time.

And pardon me for not having the prep time I did in college. I pretty much have the time to read an adventure summary, skim the encounters to try and make sure that there's nothing to break the party in there, and then run it straight up. I may change some names to make it fit a little better in my world, but if I have an hour prep time per session, I've got better things to do than to hand-tune DCs that may or may not come up (I do prefer adventures with the multi-paths).


----------



## iwatt (Aug 27, 2007)

IanArgent said:
			
		

> How do I challenge, in the same encounter, a character with a +15 skill check modifier and a character with a +0 (or even a negative skill modifier due to armor-check penalties) with the same environmental challenge, and have both _be_ challenged, but not prevented from acting? Without having to rely on the magic-item christmas tree? Or when the casters are out of magic?




Spirit of the Century handles this by using shifts: if you succeed by a lot, you get some additional benefit like looking really cool, or doing it really fast, or others. True20 and Iron Heroes allow you to be extra cool by taking challenges (a skill penalty or increase in the DC). So climbing that wall is still DC 15, except that Roger the rogue get's to keep his Dodge bonus (-5 penalty to his climb check) and does it at his normal speed (another -5 penalty).


----------



## Baumi (Aug 27, 2007)

I think the 1/2 level bonus is awesome! You can have finaly have a whole group sneak into the lair instead of sending the rogue alone (and split the party), let fighter try to be diplomatic once in a while (seducing a barmaid!) or a wizard climb a tree (when he flees from some bears ),... 

It's like in combat where also everyone gets a level-bonus (BAB, HP's, AC, Saves,...) so that everyone can participate without spendig all ressources/effort for combat.

With the +5/+10/rerolls bonus you still shine in your speciallity and let's not forget that the most powerfull skill-uses are only for trained Characters (like the Tumble Part of Athletic or Threat Poison from Healing).


----------



## Zimri (Aug 27, 2007)

BryonD said:
			
		

> Resorting to putting words in my mouth now, eh?
> 
> You claim is "can't".  My claim is "can".  Your apparent lack of working within the system doesn't prove "can't", it only shows a case of "didn't".  My consistent positive experience does prove that "can" exists.
> 
> ...




No your assertion was that the claim I made that this happens is untrue. I know it IS true because it happens to ME all the time. Your claim that it is untrue is calling me a liar and I don't know how you can competently do that without having sat at my table.


----------



## IanArgent (Aug 27, 2007)

iwatt said:
			
		

> Spirit of the Century handles this by using shifts: if you succeed by a lot, you get some additional benefit like looking really cool, or doing it really fast, or others. True20 and Iron Heroes allow you to be extra cool by taking challenges (a skill penalty or increase in the DC). So climbing that wall is still DC 15, except that Roger the rogue get's to keep his Dodge bonus (-5 penalty to his climb check) and does it at his normal speed (another -5 penalty).




Good for Roger. But the DC 15 is still a bloody hard challenge for a wizard at 10th level if he has no climb, and worse if he has a strength penalty. It's even worse for the fighter who hasn't been buying climb, because of armor-check penalties. Whereas the rogue who's been maxing Climb for the past 10 levels can potentially take 0 on the base challenge, so he can breeze the hard stuff. It gets worse from there. And a SWSE-style skills system doesn't prevent him from doign things like that, either.

Ramping the DC is not always a viable answer, whether by doing via the base DC or by penalties.

Yes, the wizard could bypass by use of spells (and probably should). But that requires him to have a fairly specific spell set ready. If he wasn't expecting to have to climb a tree today, what does he do? (That's possibly answered by the new resource management system, I hope it is  anyway). It doesn't help the fighter, and I'm not sure it helps the cleric.

At any rate, game design should not be driven by character design. And to the extent that adventure design is driven by character design, I would prefer to have more options to challenge the characters _before I know what the character's are capable of_ than I do now. Without knowing what skills the party has, I can't begin to set a DC appropriate to their level, because I don't know what skills they have, and I don't know what skill bonus they have. SWSE tells me, within a 10-point range (+/- stat bonus), what DCs I should be using, without having any knowledge whatsoever of the character or party capabilities. As an adventure consumer, I can therefore assume that a competently-written module can set DCs appropriate to the party's capability without knowing anything about my party. That means that, among other things, there can be a purely skills-based encounter without a "kill them all" escape hatch, without having to guess that my party has enough characters with a particular skill-set to get through the encounter.

If I had the time to hand-tune each encounter to my party, I'd care a lot less. I don't. I have the time to take off-the-shelf adventures, change a name or two, and run it as-is. I've had near-TPK because module authors have made assumptions about skillsets that aren't the case in my party. I've also had it go the other way where what was supposed to be a challenging encounter for the party was not at all for the same reason.

I don't care as much about how much this makes NPC design easier; I don't design NPCs right now. But to the extent it does, I'm all for it. I am glad to hear that the devs are looking to make adventure design easier, maybe that will let me do it again. But while I'm working 10-hr days, and have social obligations on the weekends that limit me to maybe 1 or 2 sessions a month of around 4 hrs each; I'll take simplicity over complexity every time.


----------



## Victim (Aug 27, 2007)

BryonD said:
			
		

> And the bottom line is, you can have exactly what you want already by changing the DCs.  (Which might be the root of the problem.)  After all, if you want everyone in the party to make the checks, what real difference is there between everyone beating DC20s because of high bonuses and everyone just beating DC5s?  Nothing really.  As long as all party members achieve the same result you are there.
> Your alternative however would flat out deny everyone else the option of a system that works to provide a range of challenges to truly diverse parties.




If you just change the DCs to get the result you want, then there's no incentive to allocate resources to skills.  If the party is always just good enough (or if the challenge is always just a touch too hard), then skills are pointless.  They have zero mechanical worth if you're going to precisely tailor every skill based challenge, so characters might as well sacrifice skills and devote the resources to other abilities.  Unless of course you do that for every sort of challenge, and then the entire rules system and Game element is negated.


----------



## iwatt (Aug 27, 2007)

IanArgent said:
			
		

> Ramping the DC is not always a viable answer, whether by doing via the base DC or by penalties.




I don't understand what you're aiming at here. You asked how too handle challenges for PCs with vastly differing skill modifiers. I answered by saying: set the DC as appropriate for the "typical" skill value, and then allow the skill monkeys to benefit from cooler effects. That way you can have skill encounters that everybody can use, and still allow those who specialize to shine.



> At any rate, game design should not be driven by character design. And to the extent that adventure design is driven by character design, I would prefer to have more options to challenge the characters before I know what the character's are capable of than I do now. Without knowing what skills the party has, I can't begin to set a DC appropriate to their level, because I don't know what skills they have, and I don't know what skill bonus they have. SWSE tells me, within a 10-point range (+/- stat bonus), what DCs I should be using, without having any knowledge whatsoever of the character or party capabilities. As an adventure consumer, I can therefore assume that a competently-written module can set DCs appropriate to the party's capability without knowing anything about my party. That means that, among other things, there can be a purely skills-based encounter without a "kill them all" escape hatch, without having to guess that my party has enough characters with a particular skill-set to get through the encounter.




Is this aimed at me? Because it has nothing to do with what I posted. Seems more like you have an issue with the way adventures are designed than a problem with the skill system per se. 

BTW, I'm all for a simplified and streamlined skill system in which PCs are more skillful than in 3.5 I haven't checked out SAGA yet, but I play in systems in which character are generally more skillful than in D&D (True20, Iron Hereoes, etc..).


----------



## IanArgent (Aug 27, 2007)

BryonD said:
			
		

> And the bottom line is, you can have exactly what you want already by changing the DCs.  (Which might be the root of the problem.)  After all, if you want everyone in the party to make the checks, what real difference is there between everyone beating DC20s because of high bonuses and everyone just beating DC5s?  Nothing really.  As long as all party members achieve the same result you are there.
> Your alternative however would flat out deny everyone else the option of a system that works to provide a range of challenges to truly diverse parties.




If I mess with the DCs, I am hard-capped by the system at right around DC18 or so if I want an unskilled person to ever make the check. Softcapped at DC 15. Skillmonkey can "take 0" against a DC 15 test at around 10th level assuming a +2 stat bonus. He can "take 0" against it at 5th level if he takes 2 feats. He can take 0 against it by 3rd level with an 18 in his stat. If it's a skill for which there is a synergy bonus, the minimum level is 2. I need a minimum DC of 20 to challenge skillmonkey at this point, and that's the maximum DC I can expect the rest of the party to pass. Once his skill check breaks +15, the rest of the party struggles. Once it breaks +20 (at a minimum of 7th level and a realistic max of 15th level), the rest of the party cannot keep up. That is an inescapable function of the skill system as it stands - too much variance.


----------



## IanArgent (Aug 27, 2007)

iwatt said:
			
		

> I don't understand what you're aiming at here. You asked how too handle challenges for PCs with vastly differing skill modifiers. I answered by saying: set the DC as appropriate for the "typical" skill value, and then allow the skill monkeys to benefit from cooler effects. That way you can have skill encounters that everybody can use, and still allow those who specialize to shine.




See my immediately previous post - the current skill system has too large a range to make messing with DCs anything but a band-aid.




			
				iwatt said:
			
		

> Is this aimed at me? Because it has nothing to do with what I posted. Seems more like you have an issue with the way adventures are designed than a problem with the skill system per se.
> 
> BTW, I'm all for a simplified and streamlined skill system in which PCs are more skillful than in 3.5 I haven't checked out SAGA yet, but I play in systems in which character are generally more skillful than in D&D (True20, Iron Hereoes, etc..).




No, it wasn't aimed at you. I have a problem with adventure design because it has to be able to handle a job that's too big, as a consequence of the wide-open potential of the skill system. And that is an issue with the skill system, not adventure design. It was more of a shot at ByronD, which is why I went and made another post about it.


----------



## Psion (Aug 28, 2007)

IanArgent said:
			
		

> Heres the problem with this thinking in 3.5 - Skills is about all the Rogue has going for him. Bumping everyone's skill points make the rogue less powerful relatively - if everyone can be _good_ at skills outside their expertise, whither the rogue? Even if the rogue bumps his skill points as well (and I can make an argument that the rogue needs more skill points, or at least some consolidated skills), more skill points all around waters down the big class feature of the rogue (those 8 skill points per level).




Waitaminnit... just a second ago, you were on about how the Bard and Rogue couldn't manage unless they pre-planned. Now it's "poor rogue" when the rogue gets more?   

Sorry, I don't buy it, and I have play experience to back me up on this one. I bumped all classes by 2 points in my last campaign, and the more skill oriented nature of the game itself made the rogue's role more than adequate.


----------



## Psion (Aug 28, 2007)

IanArgent said:
			
		

> How do I challenge, in the same encounter, a character with a +15 skill check modifier and a character with a +0 (or even a negative skill modifier due to armor-check penalties) with the same environmental challenge, and have both _be_ challenged, but not prevented from acting?




I covered this in a post you already responded to on the last page, but iwatt's got the right of it: differing benefits for different degrees of success. You don't all have to be the best, but if you are, you deserve to benefit from it.

As for ACP: I would hope if a character is going to bank heavily on skills that have an ACP, they would be smarter than to tromp around in plate mail.


----------



## Jondor_Battlehammer (Aug 28, 2007)

Back on the notion of skill tricks, is it possible that these may become once per day tricks dedicated to a single skill, if the PC is trained in them?


----------



## IanArgent (Aug 28, 2007)

Psion said:
			
		

> Waitaminnit... just a second ago, you were on about how the Bard and Rogue couldn't manage unless they pre-planned. Now it's "poor rogue" when the rogue gets more?



Ehn? I didn't say anything about how the bard and rogue can't manage unless they preplan (though it is, to a certain extent, true, because they don't have enough skill points to cover all their bases simultaneously). And I'm "poor rogue" if EVERYONE ELSE gets more skill points (even if the rogue does). I don't want the rogue to get more skill points at any rate, it's a bandaid solution to a systemic problem.


			
				Psion said:
			
		

> I covered this in a post you already responded to on the last page, but iwatt's got the right of it: differing benefits for different degrees of success. You don't all have to be the best, but if you are, you deserve to benefit from it.




See my post at #249 in this thread. Once the delta between skilled and unskilled goes over about +15, the system breaks down, even more obviously when it is an opposed test. All you are suggesting is putting off the inevitable, because as it stands, the skill monkey can make a DC 15 test at level 2 with no immediate effort (take-0 on the roll) . Tacking on modifiers just hides that until later levels. Eventually you reach the point that you either have to set the base DC high enough that the skillmonkey can fail, or you allow the skillmonkey to breeze the check in favor of letting the rest of the party have a chance. For those following the nitty-gritty, the skillmonkey can take-10 a DC 35(!) check at 12th level with no spell or magic item assistance. that's a 50% chance of making a DC25 check with a cumulative modifier of -10 to his roll; a check that an untrained party member can't hope to make _before_ adding the flourishes. At that point you might as well just make the fancy uses of the skill trained-only and be done with it, because the unskilled people can't make it anyway. Plus, I thought we didn't want superheroes in D&D.

This actually isn't entirely the fault of the skilled vs. unskilled issue - it's a fault of being able to ramp your skill bonus by 1 per level. That forces DCs to go ridiculously high ridiculously quickly. But I don't see any way to stop that in the system as it stands. Cutting max skill ranks in half, inasmuch as the DCs would only have to ramp half as fast. This is also an example of why NOT to give out more skill points - it just makes the problem worse, in that more skills can be maxed. Chopping max skill ranks in half, but leaving the same number of skills just doubles the number of skills a character will have; at the cost on not being able to advance half your skills each time you level, but still having to advance the other half! And it still does nothing to address the cross-class skill issue, where cross-class skills aren't worth the expenditure of skill points. Plus, once you've done this, you're halfway to the SWSE system anyway.

A +10 delta between untrained and focused is quite enough. The +5 difference between trained and untrained is enough for most purposes. If a trained character can make the check on a roll of a 10, the untrained character needs a 15, and the focused character makes it on a 5. If the 'advanced' use of a skill has a -5 penalty attached, the trained person has to make a 15, the focused person has to make a 10, and the unskilled person has to pray for a 20... If the highest skill check in the system is +25 before stat adjustment (30 levels gets you a +15 base check, +5 for training, +5 for focus), a -5 penalty is meaningful at all character levels.

You do need to make some uses of skills "trained only", I'll admit, so you can set DCs low enough for low-level characters to be able to make them, but untrained characters still can't make them. Guess what, SWSE does that.


----------



## BryonD (Aug 28, 2007)

Zimri said:
			
		

> No your assertion was that the claim I made that this happens is untrue. I know it IS true because it happens to ME all the time. Your claim that it is untrue is calling me a liar and I don't know how you can competently do that without having sat at my table.



I never said that.  You said it can't be done and I said it can.  Your statement is not factual and mine is.
I never said that the claim that you don't experience it is untrue.
So that is two unfactual claims you have now made.

I'm not going to play this game further.
If you have a comment on the actual topic, please express it.


----------



## BryonD (Aug 28, 2007)

Victim said:
			
		

> If you just change the DCs to get the result you want, then there's no incentive to allocate resources to skills.  If the party is always just good enough (or if the challenge is always just a touch too hard), then skills are pointless.  They have zero mechanical worth if you're going to precisely tailor every skill based challenge, so characters might as well sacrifice skills and devote the resources to other abilities.  Unless of course you do that for every sort of challenge, and then the entire rules system and Game element is negated.



Agreed.  I think this is a bad idea.  

But it is no different than giving everyone enough ranks to be able to likely pass any likely tasks.  That was the point.


----------



## BryonD (Aug 28, 2007)

IanArgent said:
			
		

> See my post at #249 in this thread.



Here is the impass.  Just as I was replying to Zimri, Saying that you have not made it work does not remotely mean that the system breaks.  If the system was broken then no one else could do make it work.  This is not the case.  Not remotely.


----------



## BryonD (Aug 28, 2007)

IanArgent said:
			
		

> How do I challenge, in the same encounter, a character with a +15 skill check modifier and a character with a +0 (or even a negative skill modifier due to armor-check penalties) with the same environmental challenge, and have both _be_ challenged, but not prevented from acting? Without having to rely on the magic-item christmas tree? Or when the casters are out of magic?



There is a vast array of answers to this.
And it has been covered well.

But the bottom line is that it is an absurd limitation to force a rule stateing that no PC should ever be required to find a different way to skin a cat.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Aug 28, 2007)

IanArgent, it's interesting to read your arguments here, but I have a thought.  It seems like your arguments are always based on artificially raising the DCs for an encounter so that the best characters have an X% chance.  But why is it not OK if the Rogue can auto-succeed at the low DC check?  I don't think there's a problem at all if the DC 15 challenge is an automatic success for the skill monkey and a risky chance for everyone else.  In D&D, you can have fun with a DC 15 Balance check on a shaky ship for a variety of levels--you don't need an arbitrarily shakier ship that constantly ramps up its DC to be equal to 10 + 5 + 1/2 level.  That may keep the target number the same, but it eliminates all accomplishments for the skill monkey player because the challenge aribtrarily scales to meet her.  

It's the same problem as one might encounter in battle--in some games, every time the PCs level up, suddenly every NPC they ever encounter is also one level higher, so the PCs never get a chance to feel like they've grown because the game environment keeps everything in stasis.


----------



## BryonD (Aug 28, 2007)

IanArgent said:
			
		

> If I mess with the DCs, I am hard-capped by the system at right around DC18 or so if I want an unskilled person to ever make the check. Softcapped at DC 15. Skillmonkey can "take 0" against a DC 15 test at around 10th level assuming a +2 stat bonus. He can "take 0" against it at 5th level if he takes 2 feats. He can take 0 against it by 3rd level with an 18 in his stat. If it's a skill for which there is a synergy bonus, the minimum level is 2. I need a minimum DC of 20 to challenge skillmonkey at this point, and that's the maximum DC I can expect the rest of the party to pass. Once his skill check breaks +15, the rest of the party struggles. Once it breaks +20 (at a minimum of 7th level and a realistic max of 15th level), the rest of the party cannot keep up. That is an inescapable function of the skill system as it stands - too much variance.



Feature, not bug.

If any balance check that the skill monkey can possibly be made is a balance check that ANY character can make with a decent roll, then the balance monkey can never be the really heroic example in his area.  

Players at my table face situations where only a few can possibly make the roll.  The others do not sit and their hands and whine about lack of direct ability to take on the single task.  They find other ways to help the stars of the moment or other ways to avoid the need to make the check.

And you know what?  It is great fun for everyone.  The players that can not make the roll and challenged with coming up with smart solutions and the players that can njoy getting the chance to shine.


----------



## BryonD (Aug 28, 2007)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> IanArgent, it's interesting to read your arguments here, but I have a thought.  It seems like your arguments are always based on artificially raising the DCs for an encounter so that the best characters have an X% chance.  But why is it not OK if the Rogue can auto-succeed at the low DC check?  I don't think there's a problem at all if the DC 15 challenge is an automatic success for the skill monkey and a risky chance for everyone else.  In D&D, you can have fun with a DC 15 Balance check on a shaky ship for a variety of levels--you don't need an arbitrarily shakier ship that constantly ramps up its DC to be equal to 10 + 5 + 1/2 level.  That may keep the target number the same, but it eliminates all accomplishments for the skill monkey player because the challenge aribtrarily scales to meet her.
> 
> It's the same problem as one might encounter in battle--in some games, every time the PCs level up, suddenly every NPC they ever encounter is also one level higher, so the PCs never get a chance to feel like they've grown because the game environment keeps everything in stasis.



Absolutely correct.
This is the other end of the spectrum and it also provides highly satisfactory results and should come into play on a regular basis.


----------



## Psion (Aug 28, 2007)

IanArgent said:
			
		

> Ehn? I didn't say anything about how the bard and rogue can't manage unless they preplan




Oops, that was Canis... my bad.



> I don't want the rogue to get more skill points at any rate, it's a bandaid solution to a systemic problem.




Okay, the rogue really doesn't need more points, but that's not the vital point. The real point is that by making the skills arena a more viable area for resolving conflict, you are _implicitly_ keeping the rogue import without changing their skill points at all.



> Once the delta between skilled and unskilled goes over about +15, the system breaks down, even more obviously when it is an opposed test.




No, it really doesn't. You are assuming here that all players have to have some capability at all rolls. That's ludicrous. That's about like saying that the system breaks down unless all characters can take on the fighter in hand-to-hand combat.



> that's a 50% chance of making a DC25 check with a cumulative modifier of -10 to his roll; a check that an untrained party member can't hope to make _before_ adding the flourishes.




Why would the untrained characters have to do the job of the skill monkey? D&D is a team oriented game. Not all characters have to do everything.



> At that point you might as well just make the fancy uses of the skill trained-only




Skilled only uses are a burden because they add more uses you have to memorize or look up about skills. That's a poor solution, even if I was interested in making all characters into jacks-of-all-trades.


----------



## Zimri (Aug 28, 2007)

BryonD said:
			
		

> I never said that.  You said it can't be done and I said it can.  Your statement is not factual and mine is.
> I never said that the claim that you don't experience it is untrue.
> So that is two unfactual claims you have now made.
> 
> ...




Lets see I was one of several that claimed that the people with skills were hampered by those without and that the saga system would help alleviate that. 

That was the claim that you then said was untrue in post 223



			
				BryonD said:
			
		

> That has been claimed. But that doesn't make it true.
> It is a false scenario to suggest that one key skill is always (or even often) the only way to avoid fights.




It in fact is true. I and others see it happen frequently. I assure you we are NOT lying as we have nothing to gain from doing so. I have not once claimed that there are circumstances where your experience can not play out and yet twice now you have claimed that what I have experienced is not factual, is untrue, and can not have happened. At least in my lexicon untrue, unfactual, false scenarios don't happen yours may differ.


----------



## IanArgent (Aug 28, 2007)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> IanArgent, it's interesting to read your arguments here, but I have a thought.  It seems like your arguments are always based on artificially raising the DCs for an encounter so that the best characters have an X% chance.  But why is it not OK if the Rogue can auto-succeed at the low DC check?  I don't think there's a problem at all if the DC 15 challenge is an automatic success for the skill monkey and a risky chance for everyone else.  In D&D, you can have fun with a DC 15 Balance check on a shaky ship for a variety of levels--you don't need an arbitrarily shakier ship that constantly ramps up its DC to be equal to 10 + 5 + 1/2 level.  That may keep the target number the same, but it eliminates all accomplishments for the skill monkey player because the challenge aribtrarily scales to meet her.



I don't have a problem with low-level PCs being challenged by a DC 15 skill check (nor really with the thought that the rogue can auto-pass that skill check). I have a problem with mid-level PCs not being able to pass a DC 25 skill check that the skillmonkey _still_ autopasses. I have a HUGE problem with a D20-based game that requires DCs in the 40's at the high end to deal with the maxed skillmonkey. Heck, when you require a DC35 to make the skillmonkey have a 50% chance of failing at what is nominally within the sweet-spot of 3.5 play (12th level), that's a problem too. You don't need a DC 35 to lock out untrained characters, a DC higher than 20 will do that more or less. (That is addressed to ByronD). Speaking of which:



			
				ByronD said:
			
		

> Here is the impass. Just as I was replying to Zimri, Saying that you have not made it work does not remotely mean that the system breaks. If the system was broken then no one else could do make it work. This is not the case. Not remotely.




I'm not saying you can't make the system work; just stay away from the extreme skillmonkey. But the system starts creaking once the skillmonkey has a skill check +15 higher than the rest of the party, and is breaks once the skillmonkey is at +20 over the rest of his party. Or is a DC35 skill check a remotely appropriate challenge at 12th level, and a DC40 check an easy challenge at 20th level for the same character? Does the answer change depending on if he is with the rest of the party or not? I'm not being facetious here - this is a real question that has to be answered by game design; what is an appropriate DC for a challenge to a skilled character vs. an unskilled character at each level. Should the system be set up to encourage deep, focused characters, or broadly-skilled generalists, or someplace between?

I haven't been arguing from this line earlier because it took writing up my previous posts to realize WHY the 3.5 skill system falls short when compared to SWSE. There's much too large a range of possible skill levels. And you have to take into account _all_ of them in adventure design. You have to account for the skillmonkey that has been maxing 8+int skills, focusing on any of them; plus you have to account for the skillmonkey who decided to go for half-max in 16+2xInt skills, with no feats spent on the skills. That means there's a difference in the skill check for a [i[skilled[/i] character of up to 5+1/2 level. IOW, the jack of all trades has a skill check of 10 _worse_ than the focused skillmonkey at 12th level. 

As I posted earlier, it could be dealt with by simply halving max ranks per level; but that's rather more than halfway to SWSE already. Plus, it's just wonky in that you get x skill points but can only advance x/2 skills when you level if you're maxing them all. I already use fractional accounting for saves and BAB, do I need to start using fractional skills as well? And if you go for the half-max option, the trained skill user still doesn't get to be +5 better than the untrained user until he's 8th level anyway (barring feats and assuming the same control stat). If he goes for the feat option, he has to blow 2 feats to get +5 to a skill (and +2 to another) under 3.5. Or you can go to Saga which has a +5 for skill focus for one feat, and a relatively larger # of feats anyway.




			
				Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> It's the same problem as one might encounter in battle--in some games, every time the PCs level up, suddenly every NPC they ever encounter is also one level higher, so the PCs never get a chance to feel like they've grown because the game environment keeps everything in stasis.




But you can deal with the PCs advancing their combat abilities either by advancing the skills of the opponents, or by increasing the number of opponents. Also, to a certain extent, the D20 system DOES advance the skills of opponents, by advancing the CR of the expected opponents.

I'm not trying to be argumentative for it's own sake. I don't think the SWSE system is the best possible answer to the question of skills in a D20 system. For all I know, WotC will go with reducing the max skill ranks per level cap, or something like that. I feel that the SWSE skill system is a _better_ answer than what we have now, that's all.


----------



## IanArgent (Aug 28, 2007)

Psion said:
			
		

> IanArgent said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




the Fighter, at 20thlevel, has a +10 delta over the wizard in BAB. Well inside the +15 delta that I am claiming as the point at which the system starts to break down.



			
				Psion said:
			
		

> Why would the untrained characters have to do the job of the skill monkey? D&D is a team oriented game. Not all characters have to do everything.




A character never gets more than +10 "better" than any other at attacking. A character never gets more than +6 "better" than any other when making saving throws. It's only in skill checks that you see a delta of +15 or more. But somehow we don't worry about the wizard overshadowing the fighter in attacking in melee. (I'm not touching the overshadowing the fighter in general; that's not an area where the skill system has a big impact right now; both classes have 2 skill points per level, and the wizard has what I would consider a more restrictive skill list)




			
				Psion said:
			
		

> Skilled only uses are a burden because they add more uses you have to memorize or look up about skills. That's a poor solution, even if I was interested in making all characters into jacks-of-all-trades.




It's not the best solution, it's just a better solution. I would love to see a better one, and rather hope we do see one in 4th ed. I don't want to see a rehash of the 3.5 skill system, though, because that's wor


----------



## BryonD (Aug 28, 2007)

Zimri said:
			
		

> Lets see I was one of several that claimed that the people with skills were hampered by those without and that the saga system would help alleviate that.
> 
> That was the claim that you then said was untrue in post 223
> 
> ...



Are you really incapable of following the logic here?
No one is saying you are lying.
But I am saying you are wrong when you claim that because something happens to you it is
a fundamental truth of the game.


It is a false scenario to suggest that one key skill is always (or even often) the only way to avoid fights. 

That is a true statement. 

It can also be a true statement that no one in any game you have ever played in has thought of one.  I completely accept this as truth as you claim it.  But failure to come up with a solution does not remotely evidence that the other solutions do not exist.  And the equally true fact that alternate solutions ARE reached on a regular basis in many other people's games is proof that the solutions do exist.  Denying them is simply and flatly wrong.


----------



## Victim (Aug 28, 2007)

IanArgent said:
			
		

> A character never gets more than +10 "better" than any other at attacking. A character never gets more than +6 "better" than any other when making saving throws. It's only in skill checks that you see a delta of +15 or more. But somehow we don't worry about the wizard overshadowing the fighter in attacking in melee. (I'm not touching the overshadowing the fighter in general; that's not an area where the skill system has a big impact right now; both classes have 2 skill points per level, and the wizard has what I would consider a more restrictive skill list)




I disagree.  Sure, the difference in Base attack or save is smaller.  But that's only part of the story.  By the time you include different ability score selections, feats, magic items, etc, the difference grows significantly.  A cleric only has +6 in base Will save over the rogue, but his emphasis on WIS can provide another 10 points of difference - and if he PrCs into a few classes with good Will, then the gap grows.  Sure, a wizard is 10 Bab behind the fighter.  But the 20th level fighter is probably pumping his attack bonus through STR, feats, different items that the wizard won't have, buffs that boost his melee will be applied by the group.  He could be pushing +40 attack while the wizard is lucky to get +5 in misc mods for a total of +15.

Of course, the wizard likely has combat options that render his deficiency in melee bonus moot.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Aug 28, 2007)

Basically, to explain what BryonD is saying without throwing out charged terms like 'lying', he is trying to explain that it is much much harder to prove a 'cannot' than it is to prove a 'can'.  To wit, you can say something like "It is impossible to..." or "You cannot balance...", but it is very hard to prove, requiring one of several complex proof techniques.  On the other hand, you can prove "It is possible to..." or "You can..." by providing a single example.


----------



## BryonD (Aug 28, 2007)

IanArgent said:
			
		

> I'm not saying you can't make the system work; just stay away from the extreme skillmonkey. But the system starts creaking once the skillmonkey has a skill check +15 higher than the rest of the party, and is breaks once the skillmonkey is at +20 over the rest of his party. Or is a DC35 skill check a remotely appropriate challenge at 12th level, and a DC40 check an easy challenge at 20th level for the same character? Does the answer change depending on if he is with the rest of the party or not? I'm not being facetious here - this is a real question that has to be answered by game design; what is an appropriate DC for a challenge to a skilled character vs. an unskilled character at each level. Should the system be set up to encourage deep, focused characters, or broadly-skilled generalists, or someplace between?



So everyone should be denied acces to the extreme skill monkey to suite you?

You keep claiming the system breaks, but you keep not addressing the point that many people play quite fine with the game as is.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with certain characters having the skill to easily do a task that someone else can not do at all.  Being a superstar at something is awesome. Overcoming a challenge that required thinking outside the box is awesome.

The game does a great job as is at allowing deep focused, broadly skilled and some place inbetween, all at the same time.  In a good adventure there will be a wide range of task DCs.  Some will be easy to everyone.  Some will be a bit of a challenge to the best of the best.  Most will span the difference.  If you are specialized you will find that you shine brightly when on and will need help more often.  Because most DCs are in the middle somewhere, the broad based character will find that they can handle almost everything except the really tough ones, but will almost always be able to overcome.  These are both good options.  



> I'm not trying to be argumentative for it's own sake. I don't think the SWSE system is the best possible answer to the question of skills in a D20 system. For all I know, WotC will go with reducing the max skill ranks per level cap, or something like that. I feel that the SWSE skill system is a _better_ answer than what we have now, that's all.



Neither am I.
But again, I haven't even read this as an issue that WotC has expressed concern about.  So I really doubt they are even planning to let other classes start elbowing in on the rogue's specialties.
I feel that SWSE for D&D would be vastly worse than what we have now.  But I don't expect to see the elements that concern me in 4E.


----------



## BryonD (Aug 28, 2007)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> Basically, to explain what BryonD is saying without throwing out charged terms like 'lying',



To be clear, I'm not accusing anyone of "lying".  



> he is trying to explain that it is much much harder to prove a 'cannot' than it is to prove a 'can'.  To wit, you can say something like "It is impossible to..." or "You cannot balance...", but it is very hard to prove, requiring one of several complex proof techniques.  On the other hand, you can prove "It is possible to..." or "You can..." by providing a single example.



It is a little more than that.  If you say "can not" and someone does it, then "can not" was incorrect.

If you say "can" and someone else doesn't, well "can" is still true as long as someone did it.

Can not is a much stronger statement than can.
I can't run a 5 min mile.  (not even close).  It would be very wrong for me to claim that a 5 minute mile can not be run.


----------



## BryonD (Aug 28, 2007)

Victim said:
			
		

> I disagree.  Sure, the difference in Base attack or save is smaller.  But that's only part of the story.  By the time you include different ability score selections, feats, magic items, etc, the difference grows significantly.  A cleric only has +6 in base Will save over the rogue, but his emphasis on WIS can provide another 10 points of difference - and if he PrCs into a few classes with good Will, then the gap grows.  Sure, a wizard is 10 Bab behind the fighter.  But the 20th level fighter is probably pumping his attack bonus through STR, feats, different items that the wizard won't have, buffs that boost his melee will be applied by the group.  He could be pushing +40 attack while the wizard is lucky to get +5 in misc mods for a total of +15.
> 
> Of course, the wizard likely has combat options that render his deficiency in melee bonus moot.



Right.  In my current game the mage has a +6 attack bonus (+6 BAB, +1 weapon, -1 STR).   The Barbarian has +25 when raging.  
The worst save is a +5 (Shaman / Healer Reflex) and the best is +17 (Barbarian Fort, +20 during Rage) with a few +16s around.
L13 chars

And yes, the wizards lack of attack bonus is not a problem.


----------



## Zimri (Aug 28, 2007)

BryonD said:
			
		

> Are you really incapable of following the logic here?
> No one is saying you are lying.
> But I am saying you are wrong when you claim that because something happens to you it is
> a fundamental truth of the game.
> ...




An untrue statement is a what again ?

It IS a fundamental truth of MY game. In most sessions a combat that could have been avoided, information that could have been learned, time that could have been saved, Widget x from npc y to help with scenario z have all been lost due to lack of skills  from characters that could not rightly under the current skill system have been expected to have them. The Saga system will at least ameliorate some of this. I'm all for failures happening but the current state is "let's not even bother trying to avoid the guard fight at the gate. The barbarian will burp rudely or insult someone if we try diplomacy or bluff, the cleric will clang if we try to sneak" etcetera. So my diplomatic, sneaky character is relegated to  "let's be the bear" it gets old.


----------



## Zimri (Aug 28, 2007)

BryonD said:
			
		

> To be clear, I'm not accusing anyone of "lying".
> 
> 
> It is a little more than that.  If you say "can not" and someone does it, then "can not" was incorrect.
> ...




You said my statement .. that it happens .. was untrue

What is an untrue statement again 

I never said It happens to everyone, I never said it doesn't happen to other people. I said it happens and it sucks when it does and something should be done to make it happen less often especially for those of us it routinely happens to.

If your wizard doesn't want to ever climb a tree, if your barbarian never wants to be diplomatic, if your elven fighter wants to be afraid of the water those are all things you can choose to do or not do of your own volition by refusing to make a skill check and roleplaying it out or finding another way around.

Though why people think wizards need to be clumsy and frail is beyond me


----------



## Chris_Nightwing (Aug 28, 2007)

Ok guys, let's stop arguing semantics and draw a line over all of your previous statements. One of you doesn't think it's a problem, one of you does, the end.

My take on the situation is that many opportunities to make interesting adventures at medium to high levels are lost due to skill checks. If at any point you want to make an interesting environmental hazard that makes balance or climb important, it typically splits the party in two. One of my favourite adventure styles in a murder-mystery type thing, and it always turns into one half of the party actually investigating and the other half waiting around for the next fight, which nobody enjoys. You can get away with it at low-levels because the skill differences are much smaller.

I can see the argument that the nimble rogue should be able to automatically pass hazard checks with low DCs that allow the rest of the party to just about make it. I find this leads to lack of investment in the skill because it just isn't fun to use, there's no challenge. Balance is one of the most neglected skills in the game because beyond a few ranks, the DM is unlikely to challenge you and you alone to a difficult check in it. Whilst I do enjoy a good rifle through the PHB to find a spell to get out of a certain situation, that typically results in XP or gold loss to get the required spell, which just isn't as _exciting_ as physically overcoming the challenge.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Aug 28, 2007)

Victim said:
			
		

> I disagree.  Sure, the difference in Base attack or save is smaller.  But that's only part of the story.  By the time you include different ability score selections, feats, magic items, etc, the difference grows significantly.  A cleric only has +6 in base Will save over the rogue, but his emphasis on WIS can provide another 10 points of difference - and if he PrCs into a few classes with good Will, then the gap grows.  Sure, a wizard is 10 Bab behind the fighter.  But the 20th level fighter is probably pumping his attack bonus through STR, feats, different items that the wizard won't have, buffs that boost his melee will be applied by the group.  He could be pushing +40 attack while the wizard is lucky to get +5 in misc mods for a total of +15.
> 
> Of course, the wizard likely has combat options that render his deficiency in melee bonus moot.



That's true. But many of these differences are also added on the current skill system, which means that saves and attack bonuses still have a lower potential to go "out of sync" then skills.


----------



## Rel (Aug 28, 2007)

Chris_Nightwing said:
			
		

> Balance is one of the most neglected skills in the game because beyond a few ranks, the DM is unlikely to challenge you and you alone to a difficult check in it.




Not that it has much to do with the debate at hand, but after one of the games I ran at GenCon a player told me, "I've never made that many Balance checks in any game I've ever played before."  This prompted another player to say, "I haven't made that many Balance checks since I started playing 3.0!"

I didn't set out to make that a feature of the game but when you have big skyships maneuvering around each and occasionally ramming each other, there are going to be a lot of Balance checks.


----------



## IanArgent (Aug 28, 2007)

I was in fact talking about "inherent" bonuses to BAB, saves, and skills. If you start talking about additions from magic, the delta gets worse. Magic weapons are limited by the rules to a +5 enhancement bonus. Skill bonuses _start_ at +5 and amp up from there, and a +5 skill bonus costs about as much as a +1 attack bonus. Saves bonuses are likewise much smaller. Spell bonuses to skills obtainable at the same level outstrip bonuses to attacks and saves. There is a game design reason for this, and it's to keep up with the skillmonkey. But there's nothing stopping the skillmonkey from picking up a skill-boosting item to increase his dominance. Which means adventure design has to ramp DCs to keep up with the magic items and spells even faster than if you just look at the gains by character level. And adding skill points to everyone, or even just the non-rogues, doesn't help this. This can be fixed by jiggering the magic item rules and the spells, of course, but the magic item design for skills is set up because of the awesome variability of skills. Jump gives you a +10 bonus to jump checks, whereas magic weapon, a spell of the same level, only gives a +1 bonus. And the Jump spell ramps at 9th level to +30! These are all consequences of the skill system as it stands, with the huge variability of skill levels.

One of the complaints I saw (and I don't remember whether it was here or the WotC forums) is that SWSE skills sytem means we get superheroes, not heroes. We already _have_ that problem, it's just that nobody notices because skills are often trivialized (you can run a campaign with skill importance, but the general cases in game desgn trivialize certain skills). And skills are trivialized because it's too hard to design for all cases when writing up a mass-market edventure; there has to be either a "path to success" for _every_ possibility of skill sets from the maximum-single-skillmonkey in each skill to the possibility that the party might not have anyone with a single maxed skill, or even anyone with a particular skill at all. That means, among other things, there has to be an escape hatch that doesn't depend on game-mechanical skills (as opposed to pure roleplay) at all either "kill-them-all" or a macguffin from a previous encounter than allows the party to depress the DC of the skill check(s) low enough that an unskilled party can pass it. And if that skill-depresser macguffin is there, then the party with the skillset to pass the test beforehand can take advantage of it and not have to worry about the test at all.

Let me give an example of what I'm talking about. I'm an adventure designer, writing up a module to be published to the wide world. At a certain point, I have a primary encounter that the entire party needs to be at (a "boss fight", say). And I want to set up a set of barrier encounters to make the party work a bit to get to the boss fight. Say the "boss" is in a castle holding a party, and the PCs have to figure out how to get into the castle to disrupt the party and kill and/or destroy the influence of the host. I want to set up one of those "multiple path to victory" scenarios. The party is (nominally) 10th level, and this is calibrated to be a challenge worth XP for the party. Some of the paths to victory can require use of spells, but if the party doesn't want to use or hasn't got the spells prepped, there has to be non-magic-based challenges. What skill sets do I require, and what DCs do I set those challenges at? For the purposes of this example, I don't want a "kill them all" escape hatch. I have to pick skillsets that most parties will have, and I have to challenge both the single-skill full-maxed-monkey, the broad-skill half-maxed-monkey, as well as the party that has holes in their skill coverage that they are covering with magic. Lets say one of the challenges is a wall that has to be climbed, but there are other ways to get in. What do I set the climb DC at such that it is not both a no-brainer for the cat-burglar-concept character and too hard for the fighter who has been dropping skill points into climb every other level because he has to also balance it with Ride and Intimidate, because the party rogue has been going for social skills rather than athletic skills (or the rogue multiclassed to wizard a while back and his climb skill hasn't kept up, or what-have-you). Not only do I have to accoutn for the fact that one character can be +2, +3, or even +5 better than another who has been maxing the exacct skill depending on feat choice, but I also have to account for the skilled character who has decided to split his skill ranks between 2 skills (so is half-maxed in both). At 10th level, the maxed charater with both skill feats has a +18 skill mod before stat or magic boosts. If he picked up magic items to help him focus that skill further, it could be a +23 or +28. Whereas the half-maxed character (who we have to consider, since the big benefit of the 3.5 skill set is flexibility in assignment of skills) could only have a +9 check, and may not have chosen to pick up any skill-boosting items because he's a generalist, not a specialist. 2 characters who have been training in the skill, who are both much better than the rest of the party. And you can't even challenge both of them because the delta after magic items is right around +20 I certainly can't assume every party at 10th level has slippers of spider-climbing in adventure design; but a tthe same time I hae to take that into account.

Repeat across all skillsets, and you very quickly find out that depending on the party, either _none_ of the skill challenges are actually challenging because the party can bypass them due to a skillmonkey with a high enough check, or they are _all_ too hard, because there is nobody in the party with high enough skill checks. And anything I put in to make the lesser-skilled party have an easier time with the checks can also be used by the more-skilled party.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Aug 28, 2007)

IanArgent said:
			
		

> What do I set the climb DC at such that it is not both a no-brainer for the cat-burglar-concept character




Here this goes again--why does the DC have to not be a no-brainer for a dedicated cat-burglar.  By 10th-level, if you want to be a good climber, I want to let you be a good climber, not set up a special castle that "is magically so hard to climb, you can barely make it and might fall" to take that away.  A true climb-focused character can succeed with ease, even under archer fire and while moving at an accelerated pace.  And that's cool!

But let's say I decided to make it really hard to Climb for some reason.  The great thing about the skill system is that you often only need the expert to succeed and then make things easier for the others.

Expert climbed the superhard cliff that nobody else could climb?  Awesome!  We love you climb expert because without you we'd be lost--now drop a rope and lower the DC for everyone else.

Expert disarmed the superhard trap that nobody else could disarm?  Awesome!  We love you disarm expert because without you we'd be lost--now we can pass through safely.

Expert found the secret door that leads to all the treasure?  Awesome!  We love you search expert because without you we'd miss the treasure--now we can all go there.

Expert talked her way into the king's good grace and managed to double the party's reward, or seduced the evil emperor's daughter and convinced her to give him a map of the stronghold?  Awesome!  We love you diplomacy expert because without you we'd miss out on all these extras--now we can all enjoy the benefit you bring us!  You're the man!

But when everyone can make the check, it's much less interesting for the expert.  Climb expert got to the top of the really hard cliff?  Oh well, the guy who rolled two 15s did at the same time, and everyone else will make it shortly.  Yeah, we don't really need you climb expert.  I mean I guess you're a little bit faster on average, but you're basically unnecessary.  Search expert found the secret door?  Eh, an untrained fellow could have found it with three of us other guys Aiding Another for a +6.  No big deal.  We don't really need you, Search expert.  Diplomacy expert seduced the overlord's daughter?  Meh, Grumpington the dwarf needed to roll a teeny bit higher, but he got a 14, so he did too.  And she's an elf.  Take that diplomacy expert!


----------



## Rystil Arden (Aug 28, 2007)

Or to put it more simply--players feel *good* if they have the right thing to complete a task.  They don't feel bad if the task was easy because they thought to have the correct niche item or skill.  If they bought Slippers of Spider Climbing and the climb was a synch, they're going to high-five the guy who thought to bring the Slippers.  It would, at least in my groups, be poor adventure design of the highest degree to try to make the encounter challenging for the group that brought the optimal solution along.  If the skill system was changed so that everyone could automatically handle a particular aspect of the task, and not only that, the DCs were arbitrarily scaled by a GM with the explicit power level of the PCs in mind, it takes away any sense of accomplishment:

"Yeah, I know I have +25 to Balance now, but I still only make Balance checks about 75% of the time, just like at first level, because everything is just harder to balance with now.  It's weird that way."


----------



## ruleslawyer (Aug 28, 2007)

Not really the issue, though, is it?

The real question vis-a-vis, say, SWSE, is whether a +5 difference is sufficient to distinguish an untrained character from a trained one, or a +10 difference is sufficient to distinguish an untrained character from a specialist in the skill. My feeling is that when you add in the stat modifiers and trained-only skill uses, it probably is enough.

Moreover, I'm seeing a bit of a strawman argument here in people being worried about the difference between skill-monkeys and others at high levels. Are we really concerned about the fact that a *twentieth-level wizard* (Climb +10) might actually be able to climb a difficult slope? Does it really matter, even?


----------



## Christian (Aug 28, 2007)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> Here this goes again--why does the DC have to not be a no-brainer for a dedicated cat-burglar.




Because if there are never any walls that are DC 30 Climb checks, then nobody ever will spend those ranks to get to that level of expertise. In general, a 20th-level Rogue with 15 ranks in 15 skills will virtually always out-Rogue the 20th-level Rogue with 23 ranks in 10 skills; because the extra 8 ranks in the 10 skills will virtually never matter, whereas the 15 ranks in the other five (where Rogue number 2 has none, because he was busy maxing out his other skills) will come up much, much more often. No matter which fifteen skills you're talking about.

Yes, there's the roleplaying benefit of being able to lord it over the other Rogue--"I'm a faster wall-climber than you! Nyah-nyah!" Whatever.


----------



## Gentlegamer (Aug 28, 2007)

ruleslawyer said:
			
		

> The real question vis-a-vis, say, SWSE, is whether a +5 difference is sufficient to distinguish an untrained character from a trained one, or a +10 difference is sufficient to distinguish an untrained character from a specialist in the skill. My feeling is that when you add in the stat modifiers and trained-only skill uses, it probably is enough.



It is my feeling, as well.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Aug 28, 2007)

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> It is my feeling, as well.



 Wo.

I'm in total agreement with Gentlegamer.

How did _that_ happen?


----------



## Rystil Arden (Aug 28, 2007)

Christian said:
			
		

> Because if there are never any walls that are DC 30 Climb checks, then nobody ever will spend those ranks to get to that level of expertise. In general, a 20th-level Rogue with 15 ranks in 15 skills will virtually always out-Rogue the 20th-level Rogue with 23 ranks in 10 skills; because the extra 8 ranks in the 10 skills will virtually never matter, whereas the 15 ranks in the other five (where Rogue number 2 has none, because he was busy maxing out his other skills) will come up much, much more often. No matter which fifteen skills you're talking about.
> 
> Yes, there's the roleplaying benefit of being able to lord it over the other Rogue--"I'm a faster wall-climber than you! Nyah-nyah!" Whatever.



 I'm not so sure, particularly when you say "No matter which 15 skills".  When it comes to opposed skills, the Rogue who took max ranks is going to do quite well compared to the Rogue who stopped 8 ranks short.  In fact, she will outperform the Rogue who stopped 8 ranks short (the same Rogue you suggest will outperform her!) more in those skills than she would an untrained character in SWSE.

Climb is one of those skills that doesn't need super high DC checks because eventually (And sometimes sooner rather than later--I've seen a first level Wizard with an owl have the owl carry and hook a light grappling hook) you can fly.  Put in too many rooms with an antimagic field and no air currents so natural flyers can't fly, and you're being more than a bit unfair, I think.


----------



## Gentlegamer (Aug 28, 2007)

Another way to look at the possible Saga style skill system is that the skill bonus of high level untrained characters is not actual experience in the skill, but rather a consequence of that certain _je ne se qua_ and luck that experienced characters possess. In fact, it is more like their saving throw bonuses, which don't necessarily represent extra training or skill in the save category but a sort of heroic reserve that can get them out of situations that would kill those of "lesser" mettle. This is probably a great way to look at it since many skills are actually used like saving throws against many different effects.


----------



## Gentlegamer (Aug 28, 2007)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Wo.
> 
> I'm in total agreement with Gentlegamer.
> 
> How did _that_ happen?



We are not so different, you and I.


----------



## IanB (Aug 28, 2007)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> Or to put it more simply--players feel *good* if they have the right thing to complete a task.  They don't feel bad if the task was easy because they thought to have the correct niche item or skill.  If they bought Slippers of Spider Climbing and the climb was a synch, they're going to high-five the guy who thought to bring the Slippers.  It would, at least in my groups, be poor adventure design of the highest degree to try to make the encounter challenging for the group that brought the optimal solution along.  If the skill system was changed so that everyone could automatically handle a particular aspect of the task, and not only that, the DCs were arbitrarily scaled by a GM with the explicit power level of the PCs in mind, it takes away any sense of accomplishment:
> 
> "Yeah, I know I have +25 to Balance now, but I still only make Balance checks about 75% of the time, just like at first level, because everything is just harder to balance with now.  It's weird that way."




This is exactly what happens now though - looking through my high level Dungeon adventures I see DC 30-40 checks all over the place - and these are the adventures that people generally seem to consider to be the *good* ones.

And really, if every other challenge in the game scales with level ("Yeah, I know I can easily wipe out a tribe of kobolds, but for some reason I just never seem to fight them anymore!"), I'm not sure that skill-based ones shouldn't as well - and there needs to be some way to deal with the fact that everyone in the party has to get across that slippery rope bridge or fight on that ice-covered floor, or whatever. Saga seems to handle that quite well to me.


----------



## Grazzt (Aug 28, 2007)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Wo.
> 
> I'm in total agreement with Gentlegamer.
> 
> How did _that_ happen?




Rolled a "1" on your save? 

Actually- I agree wth Gentlegamer as well. And you too it seems.


----------



## Gentlegamer (Aug 28, 2007)

Don't give me too much credit . . . we're all agreeing with ruleslawyer on this one!


----------



## IanArgent (Aug 28, 2007)

Should characters have the tools to take on wildly non-level appropriate challenges, though? What is a level appropriate DC for a 10th level character. Why is that a level-appropriate DC for a 10th level character? Under the current skill system, that question cannot be answered for the general case, it can only be answered for the particular party that is encountering the challenge.

Please stop concentrating on the specific skill examples I'm using - I think I'm going to start using opposed skills from now on; as opponent skill levels should scale with Encounter Level (as should envirnmental DCs in many non-opposed skill encounters according to game design).

Let take a look at a different "gateway" encounter: The PCs have to get a particular item from an NPC - this is a an encounter with an EL equal to the party's APL, so the DC shoud absolutely be scaled to the party's level. They can get it by social skills (diplomacy/bluff), they can get it by picking his pocket, or they can kill him and loot his corpse. What should I set the NPCs skill levels in Sense Motive and Spot to to make it a challenge for most parties? Lets go back to my 10th-level examples. Assume for the nonce that all parties can kill&loot at equal effectiveness, and that all parties can RP for bonuses at an equal level, so we care about social vs sense motive, and sleight of hand vs spot. First of all, I have to deal with characters who have been splitting focus between bluff and diplomacy vs characters who have been focusing on one or the other. Assuming my 10th level example, and assuming the parties could optionally have a magic item that grants +10 to either skill, the range of skill bonuses runs from +9 to +28. That's a 21-point delta, if I split the difference to set the NPCs skill on Sense motive at a 50% chance for the middle (IE, a check of +19), the lower example has to roll a 20 to beat the NPCs 10, whereas in the higher example, the NPC has to roll a 19 to beat the PCs check of 10. In other words, I've bought the worst of both worlds - I am simultaneously overly challenging the PC who has split his skill points between bluff and diplomacy and not picked up feats or magic items to boost the skill itself and not challenging the character who has focused on one of the skills and has picked up feats or magic items. The same goes for sleight of hand (because it is such a niche skill, most people won't max it, but it cant be ruled out). What is an appropriate skill level for the NPC on his Spot check, when facing a 10th-level party?

And there are 2 consequences here - if I set the DC too low, the party doesn't get challenged and shouldn't be given XP for the encounter (if there is no element of risk, it's not a challenge). If I set it too high, it automatically defaults to kill&loot and has the secondary effects of a combat (other enemies alerted, etc).

Whereas in SWSE I can relatively easily figure out what the DC should be. 5 for 1/2 level, plus 0, 5, or 10 for untrained, trained or focused respectively, and +2 for a reasonable assumption about stats. "Base" DC is either 5, 10 or 15 if I want an easy, moderate, or difficult challenge. If I set a middle of the road challenge of 17, that's exactly right for a trained character, the focused character still finds the encounter interesting. If I am worried about an untrained character making the check, I can either bump the DC to 20, or make sure the use of the skill is "trained-only". And in the end, who cares if the untrained character lucks out and makes the check?

One of the design & Development articles (IIRC) talks about how the devs are working on a social challenge system of making multiple checks - that would put to bed my worries about the untrained character making one check by luck, if they have to make several (via roleplaying) to make it through an encounter. He made it once, can he do it again?


----------



## pemerton (Aug 30, 2007)

BryonD said:
			
		

> If the system was broken then no one else could do make it work.



I think the test for non-broken-ness of an RPG is not "can someone make it work" but "can more-or-less everyone who wants to play it make it work".

Thus, the fact that a number of people say that they can't make the skill system work is highly relevant to (although, given the small size and self-selecting character of the sample, hardly determinative of) the question of its broken-ness.


----------



## IanArgent (Aug 30, 2007)

pemerton said:
			
		

> I think the test for non-broken-ness of an RPG is not "can someone make it work" but "can more-or-less everyone who wants to play it make it work".
> 
> Thus, the fact that a number of people say that they can't make the skill system work is highly relevant to (although, given the small size and self-selecting character of the sample, hardly determinative of) the question of its broken-ness.




Thank you - that's a very good point. D&D, for better or for worse, is the "mass-market" RPG, as much as we have such a thing. This means, among other things, that compromises for ease of use ought to be made.


----------



## Just Another User (Aug 30, 2007)

pemerton said:
			
		

> But exactly the same logic applies to combat training. Why is a 10th level Wizard as good with a longsword as a 1st level Fighter (+5 BAB -4 non-proficiency = +1)?




Except that this isn't true, because the wizard probably would have a STR penalty while the fighter would have certainly a STR bonus and possibly weapon focus, the wizard would have more HPs (but not by that much) but the fighter, if we don't consider magic/magic items would have probably a better AC, all considered a 1st level fighter is still a better fighter than a 10th level wizard.


----------



## IanArgent (Aug 30, 2007)

Just Another User said:
			
		

> Except that this isn't true, because the wizard probably would have a STR penalty while the fighter would have certainly a STR bonus and possibly weapon focus, the wizard would have more HPs (but not by that much) but the fighter, if we don't consider magic/magic items would have probably a better AC, all considered a 1st level fighter is still a better fighter than a 10th level wizard.





But those same factors apply to skills as well. In fact, the skills example is worse because all skill-boosting spells and skills start with +5 and ramp by 5's from there. Magic weapons and armour are capped at +5, at, essentially, 20th level; whereas boots of elvenkind give you a +10 bonus at 3rd level to skills.


----------



## Just Another User (Aug 30, 2007)

IanArgent said:
			
		

> I could not run this encounter at higher levels; either the skill monkey isn't challenged at all, or the rest of the party is non-functional.




Why not? For some reason glass become more slippery at high levels?

/rant
I mean, I understand nastier monsters, I understand stronger magic, I understand more complicated traps, but a sheet of glass is a sheet of glass and (like many other things) there is no reason to give it an higher DC only becasue the PC that walk on it have an higher level, just give it the same DC, the rogue will be totally unhindered (and what is the problem with it?) and the other PCs either had put some ranks in their Balance (and then deserve to pass it without problem) or not (and then deserve to have the same problems they should have at 2nd level. This is why nobody bother to increase his skills if not to max them, because adventures give absurd DC to encounter, so at 20 level to have 8 ranks in I.E. Balance means you have wasted 8 skill points because if there is an encounter that need Balance the adventure will give it a DC 35 or near so, And of course in the new edition you need to give PC automatic bonus in everything to give them a chance to succed in those overblown DCs. Maybe if they keep some reasonable DC the PCs would not put all their skill points in X + INT skills so a fighter could even put some ranks in disguise or a wizard some ranks in balance, for example. So what if the skill monkey would pass those challenges without breaking a sweat? He is the skill monkey, it is what is supposed to do. People don't complain if a fighter defeat an average monster with ease, or if a cleric heal a condition with a single spell.  Then every now and then you put the DC35 skill check, that only the skill monkey can hope to succed, but not every single time, maybe that could help solve some of the problems with the skill system.

Sorry for the rant.



			
				IanArgent said:
			
		

> We can all cherry-pick our examples of use-cases that prove our respective points till the Tarrasque comes home; but it's a religious issue in the end. I want all characters to have a chance, even if it's somewhat remote, to do something in a scenario that challenges the expert. Several people disagree.




I'm one of those, if something is a challenge for the expert there is very little a non-expert can do in the same situation, if you build a cell that challenge Houdini don't expect Bob the jasnitor to be able to evade from it) but even so there is a lot of thing someone can do even if he fail his balance check (for the previous example

1- casting spells, if he can
2- throwing-shooting things at the enemy.
3- "walk" helping with his arms (like a horsie) unless I mistaken that is +4 to balance
4-  just crawl and fight prone (disadvantageous!? well, yes. I thought that was the idea)
5- use your immagination (slide on the glass? try something to improve friction ("I should have some honey in my backpack, maybe if I put some on my boot's soles...", slip a fifty to your GM, etc, etc)

And the same is , i suppose, true for other situation, you had to use your brain to solve the problem or find a way around it, not just roll a dice and do nothing if you fail.


----------



## IanArgent (Aug 31, 2007)

Just Another User said:
			
		

> Why not? For some reason glass become more slippery at high levels?



The glass wasn't particularly slippery at this point, actually; IIRC it was a DC 10-15 balance check, or something similar. If I was to run a *level-appropriate* encounter for higher level characters, I would probably have "slipperier" glass - otherwise it wouldn't be a level-appropriate challenge. (For those of you unfamiliar with the Shadows of the Last War - there is a town that was buried under a magical glass flow; think lava except glass, not rock. It's not a smooth plate of glass; that would have a much higher DC. This is a situation where I could ramp up the DC to make it level-appropriate; except, that, I can't because the entire freaking party would fail the check except the one guy trained in balance (if I have one guy trained in balance in the party). As an adventure designer for the mass market, I always have to leave the DC for a terrain challenge at DC 10-15 no matter the level I'm targeting because I can't guarantee that _anyone_ in the party can beat anything higher.




			
				Just Another User said:
			
		

> I mean, I understand nastier monsters, I understand stronger magic, I understand more complicated traps, but a sheet of glass is a sheet of glass and (like many other things) there is no reason to give it an higher DC only becasue the PC that walk on it have an higher level, just give it the same DC, the rogue will be totally unhindered (and what is the problem with it?) and the other PCs either had put some ranks in their Balance (and then deserve to pass it without problem) or not (and then deserve to have the same problems they should have at 2nd level. This is why nobody bother to increase his skills if not to max them, because adventures give absurd DC to encounter, so at 20 level to have 8 ranks in I.E. Balance means you have wasted 8 skill points because if there is an encounter that need Balance the adventure will give it a DC 35 or near so, And of course in the new edition you need to give PC automatic bonus in everything to give them a chance to succed in those overblown DCs. Maybe if they keep some reasonable DC the PCs would not put all their skill points in X + INT skills so a fighter could even put some ranks in disguise or a wizard some ranks in balance, for example. So what if the skill monkey would pass those challenges without breaking a sweat? He is the skill monkey, it is what is supposed to do. People don't complain if a fighter defeat an average monster with ease, or if a cleric heal a condition with a single spell.  Then every now and then you put the DC35 skill check, that only the skill monkey can hope to succed, but not every single time, maybe that could help solve some of the problems with the skill system.




Yeah - I'm arguing exactly that, except that since mass-market modules can't make any assumptions about the skill level of a party, they have to either put in DC 10-15, or DC of APL+20. That's bad design. The fighter can defeat the average moster with ease and the rest of the party cannot despite the fighter not having any better a BAB than the _wizard_ than +10 at 20th level. It's not about the skillmonkey being better than the rest of the party, it's that he doesn't need to be _that much_ better than the rest of the party. (Don't get started on bonuses; every type of bonus that can be applied to BAB can also be applied to a skill check, only larger and at lower levels). Plus, the utterly ridiculous cross-class skill rules mean that the figher can _never_ have a level-appropriate check in disguise, nor the wizard a level-appropriate check in bluff.



			
				Just Another User said:
			
		

> I'm one of those, if something is a challenge for the expert there is very little a non-expert can do in the same situation, if you build a cell that challenge Houdini don't expect Bob the jasnitor to be able to evade from it) but even so there is a lot of thing someone can do even if he fail his balance check (for the previous example
> 
> 1- casting spells, if he can
> 2- throwing-shooting things at the enemy.
> ...




You're quoting a post of mine very early into my thoughts on this; they've evolved somewhat since that post. The biggest problem with the skill system as it stands in 3.5 is that there is no way to predict within a 5-point range what the skill level of either the party or the individual character is. You can't set a DC for a level-appropriate challenge without knowing what the expected skill check is going to be. There are a mess of skills that don't get picked up because they aren't used in modules. They aren't used in modules because the module writers can't set a DC with any degree of accuracy.

This isn't a problem in handrolled adventures, the DM can target his party with exactly the right level of challenge. But _I don't have the time_ to go through even a published adventure and hand-tune the DCs to make them appropriately challenging for my players; especially if it would require changing an NPC or a monster. Anything more than about +/-5 from the DC that _should_ be challenging will throw the entire expected outcome off.

WotC (for better, IMHO) is targeting the players (including the DM) who don't necessarily have the time to invest more than about 4 hrs every couple of weeks in their game. That means a redo is necessary for the skills system to make it more predictable when designing adventures.

My predictions for the 4th ed skill system - Skills and BAB values and advancement rates will be very similar to each other throughout a characters career, as will the magical temporary and permanent buffs to each; there will be no more than a 10-point difference between max-skill character and unskilled character at any point in advancement; and that there will be applications of skills that the unskilled _cannot_ use. Oh, and that decisions made at 1st level will not hamper you at 15-level, and that expert knowledge of the skill system will neither be necessary to generate a highly effective character, nor to generate a challenge appropriate to that character or the rest of their party. I don't know if it will look exactly like SWSE; but I suspect it will because it is simple and fairly elegant. The player of the character has to make 2 decisions about their skills once they've chosen a class (what trained skills do I want, and what, if any, skills do I want to focus on); and the DM can generate appropriate DCs based on the party's level without having to understand all the subtleties of the current system.

The game _has_ to attract newbies, otherwise it will die out, because the grognards will become bored, and there will be no new blood to _be_ the next generation of grognards. This is what almost killed 2ed, and did kill Rolemaster. I played both Rolemaster and MERPS, and the only reason I did was that I lucked out and got a GM who _had_ an intimate knowledge of the system; so that he could painlessly bring me into it, abstracting away the complexity of the system. I _never_ read a single Rolemaster/MERPS rulebook, the closest I got was to read the spell list my Monk had at one point. Likewise the campaign of WHFRP I was in. I literally _never_ read the rules; I never had to because the GM of that campaign was good enough that I never had to. I'm not that good; I failed to bring a complete gaming newb into D&D 3.5 because I could not abstract away the complexities of the system, and it eventually destroyed my campaign. It wasn't just skills (though they were part of it); it was the whole complex ball-of-yarn-wrapped-around-sacred-cows that is 3.x. I started with 1ed AD&D, played some 2ed, and had a gamingasm when 3ed came out because of it's relative simplicity. But it has never, even in its earliest days of 3 books, ever approached mechanical simplicity. I don't expect 4th ed to be the Zen of gaming (as far as simplicity goes of the games I've played Shadowrun sits as the reigning king of _mechanical_ simplicity; but it's not the right system for high-fantasy gaming), but I do expect it to get rid of a lot of the needless complexity and awesome variability that 3.x has in the skill system.

"A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away." 
Antoine de Saint-Exupery 

Advise as good for RPGs as for aircraft.


----------



## AllisterH (Aug 31, 2007)

Just Another User said:
			
		

> Why not? For some reason glass become more slippery at high levels?
> 
> /rant
> . So what if the skill monkey would pass those challenges without breaking a sweat? He is the skill monkey, it is what is supposed to do. People don't complain if a fighter defeat an average monster with ease, or if a cleric heal a condition with a single spell.  Then every now and then you put the DC35 skill check, that only the skill monkey can hope to succed, but not every single time, maybe that could help solve some of the problems with the skill system.
> ...




Ah, but what about the most *common* situation. The rogue only has a 50/50 chance of hitting the creature yet the fighter only has a 80% chance....

Currently, in combat, you can pick a creature whose AC is set so the following three situations can be used.

1. Everyone (including the wizard) can hit the creature
2. Only the barbarian can hit the creature
3. Everyone can hit the creature but it is not automatic and there are differing percentages.

Situation 3 is the most common one yet you can't do that with the skill system which has just a wide variety even at 5th level.


----------



## Just Another User (Aug 31, 2007)

IanArgent said:
			
		

> Yeah - I'm arguing exactly that, except that since mass-market modules can't make any assumptions about the skill level of a party, they have to either put in DC 10-15, or DC of APL+20. That's bad design.




It is bad design in more that a way, an encounter challenge should never be based around the result of a roll, it should be based on the players thinking a way increase their odds to solve it or finding a way to go around it, 3.xrd edition with his level based DC for skills fail at it (If I just rolled a 40 on my bluff check, why should I specify what kind of bluff I'm using, I'm afraid 4ed edition will fail even more.

but on the othr hand I kinda liked 2nd edtion NWPs so what do I know?


----------



## jonrog1 (Aug 31, 2007)

Just Another User said:
			
		

> It is bad design in more that a way, an encounter challenge should never be based around the result of a roll, it should be based on the players thinking a way increase their odds to solve it or finding a way to go around it, 3.xrd edition with his level based DC for skills fail at it (If I just rolled a 40 on my bluff check, why should I specify what kind of bluff I'm using, I'm afraid 4ed edition will fail even more.
> 
> but on the othr hand I kinda liked 2nd edtion NWPs so what do I know?




With all due respect, not "bad design", but "different design", because commercial game designers are working under different contraints for publishable adventures.

On a different note, if you just "rolled 40 on my bluff check, why should I specify what sort of bluff I'm using", you should not only because a.) you're a roleplayer but b.) it may well affect your future choices vis a vis this NPC or other possibilities in the game.  Claiming you need to get into the Castle to see the king because you're a foriegn dignitary is very different than claiming you're his illegitimate son.  You're coming at this from the idea that a DM as to allow any old skill check you want, rather than justifying your choice of skill check relevant to the situation.  Which would be a very very poor DM, not bad design.


----------



## BryonD (Aug 31, 2007)

pemerton said:
			
		

> I think the test for non-broken-ness of an RPG is not "can someone make it work" but "can more-or-less everyone who wants to play it make it work".
> 
> Thus, the fact that a number of people say that they can't make the skill system work is highly relevant to (although, given the small size and self-selecting character of the sample, hardly determinative of) the question of its broken-ness.



Not in the context it has been used in this thread.
The implication has steadily been that it can not be made to work.  Which is very false.
Plus, ime, we are hearing a vocal minority here.  I'd say your more-or-less everyone criteria is not missed by much, if at all.


----------



## IanArgent (Aug 31, 2007)

Just Another User said:
			
		

> It is bad design in more that a way, an encounter challenge should never be based around the result of a roll, it should be based on the players thinking a way increase their odds to solve it or finding a way to go around it, 3.xrd edition with his level based DC for skills fail at it (If I just rolled a 40 on my bluff check, why should I specify what kind of bluff I'm using, I'm afraid 4ed edition will fail even more.
> 
> but on the othr hand I kinda liked 2nd edtion NWPs so what do I know?





Isn't a combat encounter a challenge based on the result of several rolls? It appears that the devs are taking this into account that an encounter should be similar whether its combat or non-combat...



			
				BryonD said:
			
		

> Not in the context it has been used in this thread.
> The implication has steadily been that it can not be made to work. Which is very false.
> Plus, ime, we are hearing a vocal minority here. I'd say your more-or-less everyone criteria is not missed by much, if at all.




Which is why I changed my argument. I'm no longer arguing that I as a DM can't make it work, I'm arguing that an adventure designer cannot design an adventure that can be made to work without DM customization, and that differing levels of familiarity with character creation leads to differing effectiveness of characters. In other words, I'm moving my argument from character design to game design. In the specific case, where the DM knows the capabilities of his party _and_ all the players can design their characters to the same degree of efficiency, the DM can set appropriate challenges to individuals and to the party as a whole. But if the adventure designer has no idea what the capabilities of the party are or could be, the system breaks, because the adventure designer has no idea what to set the difficulty to.

It's obvious by reading the dev blogs that they are embracing this philosphy of simplicity in design, where it will be easier for the DM to set a challenge (whether combat or non-combat) wihtout having to guess at what is the "right" leevel of challenge. See the changes in monster design, for example.

If a group of complete newbies cannot generate characters, elect one of their number as DM, and have him run a module without knowing _only_ what is in the rules, the system is broken. The system needs to be accessible and usable by someone with no experience whatsoever, and right now it's not.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Sep 1, 2007)

BryonD said:
			
		

> Not in the context it has been used in this thread.
> The implication has steadily been that it can not be made to work.  Which is very false.
> Plus, ime, we are hearing a vocal minority here.  I'd say your more-or-less everyone criteria is not missed by much, if at all.



The entire hobby constitutes an extreme minority.  I think that may be what concepts like "You don't flop over dead when the cat looks at you funny" are trying to address


----------



## Li Shenron (Sep 3, 2007)

Henry said:
			
		

> The biggest downfall I've seen so far discussed about Star Wars Saga-like skills is that all of them consistently increase, whether trained in them or not. Conan the level 20 barbarian will know as much about spellcraft as the level 1 wizard who spent all of his formative years in the academy of magic. Also, the negative connotation is that you won't have a character who ISN'T skilled in any skill whatsoever - the tweaking and customization that some players enjoyed would be gone.




I'm a fan of 3.0 skills much more than 3.5 skills, so for me the SW skills are not very nice. Some musings...    

1. A trained skill has a bonus = level/2 + ability bonus + 5. 
This means that a level 1 character has ab+5, compared to a maximum of ab+4 in 3.x.
A level 10 character has ab+10, compared to ab+13.
A level 20 character has ab+15, compared to ab+23.
A level 30 character has ab+20, compared to ab+33.

This actually means the 4ed character advances more slowly, BUT the skill focus feats is going to be +5, and eventually there will be something like improved skill focus (+10) and maybe even a greater skill focus (+15) available only after a certain level. 
Otherwise the other option to keep the real skills about as good as in 3ed would be to re-design all the DCs to make them lower, which I think it's much more complicated for the designers.

Maybe it doesn't really change that much in the game. The new system would be good for NPC who can be 1st level and still be very good at their skills. For example the "greatest cook on earth" could be a 1st level commoner (weak in any fight) but have ab+10. This is good except that... the typical NPCs skills (craft, profession) are being removed from the game, so this benefit will not be used at all  :\ 


2. An untrained skill (that can be used even if untrained) is always going to be 5 points lower compared to a character than has it trained, and 10 points lower compared to someone who has it trained and focused (makes sense that you need it trained before you get the focus).

I don't like the image of a wizard who learns to jump/swim better by living as an average wizard, but ok there's not much damage to the game. This will have a benefit on group skills like move silently (the worst of the group makes the group fail, but now the worst of the group is not "as worse" as before).

I don't like very much that the difference is constant. But once we factor Skill Focus in (and now SF is a much bigger and a much more needed bonus than before, so we'll see it taken more often), the difference is not constant any more. Basically we are just seeing a reduction of the difference, but it will still pratically scale with levels. 


3. So now Skill Focus is VERY important to keep up with the challenges. There's a problem here: a Rogue has a lot of skills trained, therefore he NEEDS a lot of Skill Focuses to keep up in ALL her skills. Let's hope that the Rogue gets loads of bonus feats that can be spent on SF, otherwise a high-level Rogue may seriously suck if half or more of her skills are lagging behind the DCs.


4. I do not like the idea of merging skills. I understand that WotC noticed a lot of people do it as house rules, and wanted the please the audience, fine. I don't like it because it reduces the difference between characters. Also, when you get very few skills using the same ability, you could go ahead and just turn it into an ability check. 3ed introduced skills exactly to differentiate between a wise character that's good at listening, one that's good at spotting, one that's good at both and one that's good at none. Now you can only be good at both or none. Something you could be in 3ed only, but now you have some choices less. But ok, if everyone likes it the new way, then no big deal.


5. You cannot spread your skill points anymore. This is tricky... People complain that this was "difficult", but that's not true, because it's totally optional in 3ed. If you want it simple, just max as many skills as your skill points and you're done. However it happened to me many times in 3ed, particularly with Rogues, that I wanted to have more skills: i could choose for example to spread my skill points of 2 skills over 3 skills instead and have each of them 2/3 max, which isn't bad, effectively becoming able at 1 new skill. Some skills don't need to be maximized to be effective, so this option was good.

Now if you're a Rogue and get 8 skills, then you just have to max 8 skills. However, I suspect there will be a feat that will simply add 1 more skill to your set, so maybe this will be back in the game just in a different form.


----------



## Li Shenron (Sep 3, 2007)

One more thing...

6. Now you don't need to worry about backtracking a permanent increase of Int during the game. In 3ed we needed a rule that said that if your Int increases permanently, you get more skill points _from now on_ but you don't get more points from your previous levels. In 4ed increasing Int will add you 1 new trained skill, which is the same as indeed applying it backwards.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 3, 2007)

Good compilation of advantages and disadvantages of the system.

Just one point: I don't think there will be an improved skill focus feat that improves your bonus with a skill. That would defeat the purpose of making the suitable ranges of DC more predictable. What I can see is an Improved Skill Focus feat granting the character an additional reroll (Starwars has many racial abilities and talents in this regard), or maybe reducing the time for take 20, or allowing to take 15 instead of take 10. 

Difficult DCs that are still supposed to be made within an average group (with retries/take 20) will probably be around range of 15  + 1/2 level, meaning that a Rogue doesn't have to skill focus all his critical skills, only those that he wants to be really good at, because that's his shtick. (Sneaky Halfling takes Skill Focus Stealth, while the Dwarven Trapmaster takes Skill Focus Disable Device). 
Difficult DCs that are to be made only by real professional should make regularly will a DC of 20 + 1/2 level. 
Tasks beyond this difficulty probably belong in the area of "extra special benefits". Like allowing PCs to bypass some encounters, or getting helpful information or items that will make things easier in the adventure later on, but nothing that will mean they simply cannot succeed in their adventure goals.


----------



## IanArgent (Sep 3, 2007)

Li Shenron said:
			
		

> I'm a fan of 3.0 skills much more than 3.5 skills, so for me the SW skills are not very nice. Some musings...
> 
> 1. A trained skill has a bonus = level/2 + ability bonus + 5.
> This means that a level 1 character has ab+5, compared to a maximum of ab+4 in 3.x.
> ...




Feature, not a bug. As I've said, if you know within +/-5 or so what the party's skill level is, adventure design is much easier (not harder). Yes, the DCs have to change, but because the skill bonuses are more predictable, the DCs are much easier to set - game design can spend more time on other things.



			
				Li Shenron said:
			
		

> Maybe it doesn't really change that much in the game. The new system would be good for NPC who can be 1st level and still be very good at their skills. For example the "greatest cook on earth" could be a 1st level commoner (weak in any fight) but have ab+10. This is good except that... the typical NPCs skills (craft, profession) are being removed from the game, so this benefit will not be used at all  :\



NPCs (and monsters) no longer follow the same design sequence as PCs. At any rate, in 3.x, skill level is STILL tied to class level, so the "greaters cook on earth" has to be a high level expert. And again, NPCs have never used the same craft/profession skill as PCs anyway, so no big loss.



			
				Li Shenron said:
			
		

> 2. An untrained skill (that can be used even if untrained) is always going to be 5 points lower compared to a character than has it trained, and 10 points lower compared to someone who has it trained and focused (makes sense that you need it trained before you get the focus).
> 
> I don't like the image of a wizard who learns to jump/swim better by living as an average wizard, but ok there's not much damage to the game. This will have a benefit on group skills like move silently (the worst of the group makes the group fail, but now the worst of the group is not "as worse" as before).
> 
> I don't like very much that the difference is constant. But once we factor Skill Focus in (and now SF is a much bigger and a much more needed bonus than before, so we'll see it taken more often), the difference is not constant any more. Basically we are just seeing a reduction of the difference, but it will still pratically scale with levels.




This really is a good thing for adventurers (who are _not_ average and do _not_ lead average lives. An adventuring wizard PC is going to be a good deal more athletic than the one who stays homeewr, because he spent a good chunk of his life walking or in the saddle. at any rate, for me Fun > Realism.



			
				Li Shenron said:
			
		

> 3. So now Skill Focus is VERY important to keep up with the challenges. There's a problem here: a Rogue has a lot of skills trained, therefore he NEEDS a lot of Skill Focuses to keep up in ALL her skills. Let's hope that the Rogue gets loads of bonus feats that can be spent on SF, otherwise a high-level Rogue may seriously suck if half or more of her skills are lagging behind the DCs.




Feats are much "cheaper" (more available) in SWSE than in 3.x. For that matter, this is _already_ a problem in 3.x, the rogue doesn't have enough skill points to cover all the bases anyway. Compression of skills will probably solve this problem more than increasing the number of feats avaialble. Also, game design should _not_ require that all PCs be focused in every class skill. Focus should be optional, not mandatory. To make skill checks more important, have the skilled PCs make more of them; just as the fighter's BAB is important now not because the wizard is around +5 behind the fighter for the "swet spot" of 3.x play, but because the fighter can more reliably hit the higher AC creatures, and do more damage when he does. If skill challenge DCs for trained characters are calibrated at what the "skilled" character with a decent stat bonus can make, the untrained will have a hard time making the DC on anything like a regular basis. Really, a +7 differential (+5 skilled, +2 stat) is enough for this. And that makes Skill Focus special.




			
				Li Shenron said:
			
		

> 4. I do not like the idea of merging skills. I understand that WotC noticed a lot of people do it as house rules, and wanted the please the audience, fine. I don't like it because it reduces the difference between characters. Also, when you get very few skills using the same ability, you could go ahead and just turn it into an ability check. 3ed introduced skills exactly to differentiate between a wise character that's good at listening, one that's good at spotting, one that's good at both and one that's good at none. Now you can only be good at both or none. Something you could be in 3ed only, but now you have some choices less. But ok, if everyone likes it the new way, then no big deal.




It may be cool in theory, in practice it sucks. Especially for new players. Also, it makes it much easier to min/max. Past time for it to leave.




			
				Li Shenron said:
			
		

> 5. You cannot spread your skill points anymore. This is tricky... People complain that this was "difficult", but that's not true, because it's totally optional in 3ed. If you want it simple, just max as many skills as your skill points and you're done. However it happened to me many times in 3ed, particularly with Rogues, that I wanted to have more skills: i could choose for example to spread my skill points of 2 skills over 3 skills instead and have each of them 2/3 max, which isn't bad, effectively becoming able at 1 new skill. Some skills don't need to be maximized to be effective, so this option was good.




Pure min/maxing. Plus, it mucks up adventure design - being able to figure out what is an appropriate DC becomes that much harder if you have to target both the person who full-maxed the skill, and the one who half-maxed it. 



			
				Li Shenron said:
			
		

> Now if you're a Rogue and get 8 skills, then you just have to max 8 skills. However, I suspect there will be a feat that will simply add 1 more skill to your set, so maybe this will be back in the game just in a different form.




There is a feat that makes you trained in a skill. Plus, if there are less possibilities to train skills than skills available, characters can be differentiated.

Just as a tangent, SWSE characters get 17 feats in 20 levels as opposed to 7 for D&D3.x characters. 10 of them are bonus feats drawn for your class(es), but most classes have a fairly large list of bonus feats. I'm hoping that they go with one of my house rules and move feats to an every odd, instead of every 3, level progression, for a grand total of 20 feats,but I don't anticipate that. There's also less "chained" feats (Running Attack, the equivalent of both Spring Attack and Shot On The Run is obtainable at 1st level), but many feats are less powerful either because of rules changes or because the feat changed. Running Attack no longer cancels AoE, and Rapid Shot just adds a die of damage to your siongle attack (where most ranged weapons do 3dX of damage) instead of adding a second chance to damage.


----------



## szilard (Sep 3, 2007)

My biggest concern about 4e having SWSE roles for skills?

You can never be trained in a cross class skill. Want a fighter who is a good lute player? Tough. You can't have it.

-Stuart


----------



## Sun Knight (Sep 3, 2007)

I just don't like how generalized the point structure is.  I like to know exactly how skilled my character is in a particular field and have direct control on how skilled he or she is.  Skill ranks of 3.5e allow for this.  SWSE skill system does not.


----------



## drothgery (Sep 3, 2007)

Li Shenron said:
			
		

> This actually means the 4ed character advances more slowly, BUT the skill focus feats is going to be +5, and eventually there will be something like improved skill focus (+10) and maybe even a greater skill focus (+15) available only after a certain level.
> Otherwise the other option to keep the real skills about as good as in 3ed would be to re-design all the DCs to make them lower, which I think it's much more complicated for the designers.




At least for SWSE, they have been pretty clear that they're not going to introduce _anything_ beyond what's in the core rules that produces a skill bonus beyond a small equipment bonus. And they've made point to cut-off top-end DCs.

I don't think redesinging the 'hard' DCs to make them lower (and the 'easy' DCs to make them higher) is any more complicated than introducing skill checks with DCs was to begin with, especially when you were replacing 2e-style purely arbitrary thief skill values for the most common skills...


----------



## Wormwood (Sep 3, 2007)

szilard said:
			
		

> My biggest concern about 4e having SWSE roles for skills?
> 
> You can never be trained in a cross class skill. Want a fighter who is a good lute player? Tough. You can't have it.
> 
> -Stuart




You'll probably be able to burn a talent or feat to gain a skill, right?


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Sep 3, 2007)

Li Shenron said:
			
		

> 4. I do not like the idea of merging skills. I understand that WotC noticed a lot of people do it as house rules, and wanted the please the audience, fine. I don't like it because it reduces the difference between characters. Also, when you get very few skills using the same ability, you could go ahead and just turn it into an ability check. 3ed introduced skills exactly to differentiate between a wise character that's good at listening, one that's good at spotting, one that's good at both and one that's good at none. Now you can only be good at both or none. Something you could be in 3ed only, but now you have some choices less. But ok, if everyone likes it the new way, then no big deal.



The difference between spot and listen in-game is entirely semantic, you know.   The outcome is just "detected" or "not detected" either way.

With a single "perception" skill, you can flavor it however you wish.  You can be Master Po: blind, but his hearing allows him to detect enemies, or the grasshopper at your feet.  The only potential loss of meaningful gameplay comes from differentiating between silent and invisible foes for detection purposes.  But Master Po could probably still find magically silent foes, via scent or by detecting the sheer wrongness of that depth of silence and estimating the epicenter of the phenomenon.  Or, with the same perception skill, you can be eagle-eyed, with the ability to see a gnat from 1000 paces, and you detect the invisible foe by tiny puffs of dust or drips of water or whatever from his feet.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Sep 3, 2007)

Canis said:
			
		

> The difference between spot and listen in-game is entirely semantic, you know.   The outcome is just "detected" or "not detected" either way.
> 
> With a single "perception" skill, you can flavor it however you wish.  You can be Master Po: blind, but his hearing allows him to detect enemies, or the grasshopper at your feet.  The only potential loss of meaningful gameplay comes from differentiating between silent and invisible foes for detection purposes.  But Master Po could probably still find magically silent foes, via scent or by detecting the sheer wrongness of that depth of silence and estimating the epicenter of the phenomenon.  Or, with the same perception skill, you can be eagle-eyed, with the ability to see a gnat from 1000 paces, and you detect the invisible foe by tiny puffs of dust or drips of water or whatever from his feet.



 But what about the reverse?  Why in the world does Master Po have any sort of penalty to detect creatures that are Invisible but otherwise unconcealed to the senses.  And if the answer is that he doesn't, then why (mechanically, not from a RP perspective) would anybody not be Master Po?


----------



## Li Shenron (Sep 3, 2007)

Canis said:
			
		

> The difference between spot and listen in-game is entirely semantic, you know.   The outcome is just "detected" or "not detected" either way.




For me it's not only that. IMHO the perception skill and the stealth skill are simply more valuable than most other skills, hence double cost for spot+listen and movesilently+hide has always felt quite appropriate to me, but YMMV.


----------



## Li Shenron (Sep 3, 2007)

szilard said:
			
		

> You can never be trained in a cross class skill. Want a fighter who is a good lute player? Tough. You can't have it.




Maybe the "extra trained skill" feat can be taken for a cross-class skill?

Anyway since you mention perform... for some things I just don't like the fact that an untrained PC is still only -5 from a trained one. This way, everyone becomes a decent lute player just by killing monsters in dungeons (but let's see if perform becomes trained-only...).

I don't dislike the idea of James Bond being a jack-of-all-trades. I dislike the idea that everyone automatically is like James Bond.


----------



## Li Shenron (Sep 3, 2007)

IanArgent said:
			
		

> Pure min/maxing.




Not at all. I'm talking about spreading skill points around, min-maxing is exactly doing the opposite: maxing what you can, and keeping the rest at 0. SW skills are automatically min-maxed (save for the Skill Focus). Which is an option I don't dislike, but I would prefer it to be just an option.



			
				IanArgent said:
			
		

> Plus, it mucks up adventure design - being able to figure out what is an appropriate DC becomes that much harder if you have to target both the person who full-maxed the skill, and the one who half-maxed it.




I don't know how you design adventures, but if I setup a challenge I either set it up compared to _my _ players' PCs (which means I know who's going to disable the device or climb the wall), or I just don't target anyone and see if they make it. With the new system of skills you're  pretty much doing the same as before, because if you used to target both the maxed and the half-maxed, now you will still target both: the maxed and the half-maxed. Or if you only targetted one, you will now still target one.


----------



## Sun Knight (Sep 3, 2007)

A DC 15 skill check is a DC 15 skill check regardless if the character has 2 ranks in the skill or 20.


----------



## IanArgent (Sep 3, 2007)

Li Shenron said:
			
		

> For me it's not only that. IMHO the perception skill and the stealth skill are simply more valuable than most other skills, hence double cost for spot+listen and movesilently+hide has always felt quite appropriate to me, but YMMV.




Maybe it's just my shadowrun grognard talking, but I've never had a problem with Stealth and Perception, rather that separate values for Move Silent/Hide and Spot/Listen. For one, unless you are absolutely not moving, you have to both hide and move silent to sneak, and spot and listen to oppose. I don't think they're important enough to merit being charged twice for the same skill.



			
				szilard said:
			
		

> My biggest concern about 4e having SWSE roles for skills?
> 
> You can never be trained in a cross class skill. Want a fighter who is a good lute player? Tough. You can't have it.
> -Stuart




You can't be a good lute player _now_, what with the cross-class mechanics. If SWSE had a Perform skill (it doesn't, but there's an argument to be made that 4E might), an "unskilled" character could still about as good as the 3.x character who maxed Perform as a cross-class skill (10th level, the SWSE character has a 5+stat perform check, while the 3.x character has a 6+stat perform check) without blowing a valuable character resource on it. And if the fighter dips a class that does have perform on their class list, he can pick it up with a feat (or with a stat increase), and not suck because he didn't spend resources from first level on it. Less realistic? Sure. Fun > Realism here. That having been said, it is one of the reasons I don't think the SWSE skill system is perfect; merely that it is _overall_ better than what we have now.



			
				Li Shenron said:
			
		

> Anyway since you mention perform... for some things I just don't like the fact that an untrained PC is still only -5 from a trained one. This way, everyone becomes a decent lute player just by killing monsters in dungeons (but let's see if perform becomes trained-only...).
> 
> I don't dislike the idea of James Bond being a jack-of-all-trades. I dislike the idea that everyone automatically is like James Bond.




+5 is enough to differentiate between trained and untrained. It's certainly enough in BAB right now (at 20th level, the wizard is +5 behind the rogue/cleric who are +5 behind the fighter as far as BAB goes). Plus, you're forgetting the whole "trained-only" use of skills - you just can't attempt certain actions if you're not trained; actions that generally had a huge DC modifier in previous D20 games.


----------



## Sun Knight (Sep 3, 2007)

I find less realism is less fun.  The SWSE is just too cinematic for what I want in DnD.  It may be good for Star Wars given it is based on the movies but the less the DnD game is like its movie the better.


----------



## IanArgent (Sep 3, 2007)

Li Shenron said:
			
		

> Not at all. I'm talking about spreading skill points around, min-maxing is exactly doing the opposite: maxing what you can, and keeping the rest at 0. SW skills are automatically min-maxed (save for the Skill Focus). Which is an option I don't dislike, but I would prefer it to be just an option.




Spreading skill points around takes advantage of the fact that most skill checks _aren't_ going to require max ranks if the entire party hast o pass them; that's the min-max aspect (you can get 2+ skills for the price of 1 depending on the skill, because you know (in the metagame) that you will never need max ranks in it. That's why it's min-maxing. In 3.x, you need 1 rank (for skills you need to be skilled in), 5 ranks (for synergy bonuses), half-max (for skills that all the party has to use so the checks will be lower) or max (for skills that are targeted at your character). SWSE gets rid of the first 2, and explicitly defines the second categories.



			
				Li Shenron said:
			
		

> I don't know how you design adventures, but if I setup a challenge I either set it up compared to _my _ players' PCs (which means I know who's going to disable the device or climb the wall), or I just don't target anyone and see if they make it. With the new system of skills you're  pretty much doing the same as before, because if you used to target both the maxed and the half-maxed, now you will still target both: the maxed and the half-maxed. Or if you only targetted one, you will now still target one.





I _don't_ design adventures right now, I buy them off the shelf, read them through once, and run them, _because that's all I have time for_. The author of the modules I buy has to both target my party, which has no rogue with maxed diplomacy, bluff, or forgery _and_ the rogue who has focused on one of those three. Plus, he has to target the party where everyone has taken climb, and no-one has taken climb. Read some of my previous posts carefully - I've changed my position based on some arguments here. It's not that individual DMs can't makee the system work for their parties, it's that the system doesn't work if the adventure designer doesn't know the exact capabilities of the party. There's too much chance of missing the "correct" DC to challenge a party when you know nothing about the party that's going through the adventure. This also applies to inexperienced DMs running inexperienced players. D&D, for better or for worse, has to make it easy for 5 guys to pick up the core rules and run with it from the first. Otherwise, you run out of D&D players.



			
				Sun Knight said:
			
		

> I find less realism is less fun.  The SWSE is just too cinematic for what I want in DnD.  It may be good for Star Wars given it is based on the movies but the less the DnD game is like its movie the better.




It's a lot easier to tone down _from_ cinematic to make agritty game out of a cinematic game than to do the reverse. And it's not like D&D3 is particularly less cinematic right now that SWSE, except in the skill system (where it's much too gritty).


----------



## Sun Knight (Sep 3, 2007)

The skill system is one of the things they got right in 3.5e.


----------



## IanArgent (Sep 3, 2007)

Sun Knight said:
			
		

> The skill system is one of the things they got right in 3.5e.




Then you and I will have to agree to disagree. It was better than the predecessor, and OK for it's time, but the SWSE system is better. It's not the best; and individual DMs can probably get decent performance out of it, but for general use, it's not as good as it could be.

I am rather hoping we will get something better than the SWSE skill system; its answers to some of the game design questions are not the best, and even some of the answers I agree with aren't ones I'd choose. I'd like _some_ variability between trained and untrained, and trained and focused. But not at the cost of keeping the current system. But mindlessly claiming the 3.x skill system is the best ever isn't going to get me to change my mind. I am trying to use examples from the mechanics of adventure design to show _why_ the current system is broken for general-purpose use. Tell me why the current system works from the system and adventure-design point-of-view. I have already conceded it's better for micro-level character differentiation. Yippee, your character can be different from others in 5% (more or less) increments. Why is this a good thing from the macro-design POV, when it enormously complicates adventure and world design?


----------



## AllisterH (Sep 3, 2007)

Li Shenron said:
			
		

> I don't know how you design adventures, but if I setup a challenge I either set it up compared to _my _ players' PCs (which means I know who's going to disable the device or climb the wall), or I just don't target anyone and see if they make it. With the new system of skills you're  pretty much doing the same as before, because if you used to target both the maxed and the half-maxed, now you will still target both: the maxed and the half-maxed. Or if you only targetted one, you will now still target one.




This though is the point people are trying to design for the "sweet spot".

How do I set up a skill check that isn't automatic for the rogue yet at the same time, isn't impossible for the non-skilled character. If you look at the AC and its relation to BAB, you can easily create a monster that has an AC where all melee classes have to roll and be uncertain (beyong the automatic miss and hit of the 1 & 20 respectively) to different extents.

Similarly, you can throw a spell or poison at the party and everyone is sweating a little but to different extents. True, in both cases at around 18 and above, this is no longer the case (by this pt in time, you can no longer have a creature which isn't an automatic hit for say a half-orc barbarian who pumped everything into STR yet the halfling paladin is out of luck) but in the vast majority of the levels, YOU CAN.

Not so with the skill system as currently used which for many of us, is a problem.

Ex: At level 10, design a skill challenge that isn't an automatic success for a skillmonkey yet won't be an impossible challenge for a guy who has it as a cross-class skill or a dabbler (only puts 1 sp/2 levels into the skill) or the guy who didn't sink ANY sp into the skill. Assume all have te same ability modifier.

The range is simply too huge (at level 10, a skill monkey could have a +18 to a skill BEFORE ability modifiers....)

Contrast this with making for a level 10 challenge a creature with an AC that you don't want to make automatic for a half-orc barbarian and yet the halfling has a fair/decent chance of hitting.


----------



## Sun Knight (Sep 3, 2007)

On the DM side of the screen I usually divide the total skill points by the number of class skills the NPC has and that is how many ranks he has in each class skill.  Quick, and easy, and takes less than minute per character.

On the player side of the screen I like it because it allows me to pick and choose how much I want to specialize in a skill, or if I want to spread out the points.  It gives the player the choice in his or her character idevelopment, and more choices one has in that regard the better.


----------



## Veril (Sep 3, 2007)

F4NBOY said:
			
		

> I don't think Dorkis, the 20th level wizard should get 10 free ranks in Intimidate, and be as much or even more intimidating than Destructor, the 10th level Barbarian.




Really?  A 20th level wizard is *much* more intimidating than a 10th level barbarian.  Put both up against say a 10th level party, and see which really is the scarey of the two encoutners.


----------



## IanArgent (Sep 3, 2007)

Sun Knight said:
			
		

> On the DM side of the screen I usually divide the total skill points by the number of class skills the NPC has and that is how many ranks he has in each class skill.  Quick, and easy, and takes less than minute per character.




Oh, then the rogue sucks - rogues HAVE to specialize right now. The Bard and Ranger have similar issues.



			
				Sun Knight said:
			
		

> On the player side of the screen I like it because it allows me to pick and choose how much I want to specialize in a skill, or if I want to spread out the points.  It gives the player the choice in his or her character idevelopment, and more choices one has in that regard the better.




No, actually, more choices in character development is _not_ better from a macro point of view; in fact, it makes introduction to new players harder, and it makes adventure design for unknown parties MUCH harder. There's enough choices already in feat and talent choice, skill choice doesn't need to be that granular (especially since _nothing_ else in the game is that granular). Plus, in most cases, the level of choice you get is a false choice anyway. All you're doing by palying with single skill ranks is make the DMs job harder.


----------



## Sun Knight (Sep 3, 2007)

Why do they have to specialize?

I have introduced new players to the game with little problems.  I mean the people I tend to game with can do basic math and are capable of reading the PHB.  Also when I DM I tend to mkae the adventure regardless of what the party can or cannot do.  I focus on what the NPCs can and cannot do, and why a location is built the way it is with the general idea of the PC power level.

If the party is lacking in a skill or ability then sucks to be them.  They just need to be inventive.


----------



## IanArgent (Sep 3, 2007)

Sun Knight said:
			
		

> Why do they have to specialize?




? Why does who have to specialize?



			
				Sun Knight said:
			
		

> I have introduced new players to the game with little problems.  I mean the people I tend to game with can do basic math and are capable of reading the PHB.  Also when I DM I tend to mkae the adventure regardless of what the party can or cannot do.  I focus on what the NPCs can and cannot do, and why a location is built the way it is with the general idea of the PC power level.




You've gotten lucky, then. Especially with your scheme earlier of having NPCs divide all their skill ranks across all their class skills. Do none of your PCs max skills?



			
				Sun Knight said:
			
		

> If the party is lacking in a skill or ability then sucks to be them.  They just need to be inventive.




Exactly - it sucks to be them when the adventure designer assumes that the rogue maxed bluff or diplomacy, and it turns out that the rogue half-maxed both. It sucks to be the party where nobody has maxed climb at 3rd level and the sorcerer didn't get levitate on his known spell list. All of these examples can be dealt with by a DM that has time to modify the adventure, or generate his own.

The devs have stated that there's a reason that 7-12th level play is the "sweet spot" (I'd have said 5th to 12th, myself) of D&D play; that's where the math works out. What they're doing with 4E is making sure the math works across the board for 1st - 30th level play. Right now, the skill system math does not work well in most circumstances above about 5th level, and goes completely off the rails above 12th level. It can be made to work, I'm not denying that. But it takes more work, work that would be better spent elsewhere.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 3, 2007)

Sun Knight said:
			
		

> Why do they have to specialize?
> 
> I have introduced new players to the game with little problems.  I mean the people I tend to game with can do basic math and are capable of reading the PHB.  Also when I DM I tend to mkae the adventure regardless of what the party can or cannot do.



And here is the important point: When _you_ make the adventure for _your_ group. 
But I know that most of the people in my group don't have the time to make adventures, and therefore they buy modules. It's not them that have to set the skill checks and DCs, it's the adventure and module designers that have to do it. And they don't know how your party looks like. 
And since one of the complaints I heard is that there aren't enough (good) adventures and modules, I think a lot of DMs have the same problem - not enough time to plan a whole adventure, just reading an existing one and then playing it with the group.
Sometimes, that's a bit sad, because these DMs can make good adventures (if they had the time), sometimes, it's for the better, because they aren't really that creative or inventive. But either way, in the end, I think it is better if the system acknowledges this and helps the writers of adventures to write adventures that can be played by everyone. As a side effect, even non-professional adventure writers (DMs like you maybe) can put out their adventures online, so that the whole D&D community gets a lot of adventure material to use.


----------



## IanArgent (Sep 3, 2007)

http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=13496433&postcount=7 - James Wyatt's blog entry where he talks about the math behind the system.



			
				James Wyatt said:
			
		

> The reason there's a "sweet spot" in the current game is that it's the approximate range of levels where, purely by coincidence, the math of the system actually works. In those levels, PCs don't drop after one hit, and they don't take a dozen hits to wear down. In those levels, characters miss monsters occasionally, but less than half the time, and monsters miss characters only slightly more often. It's pure chance, really, but it means the game is fun. Outside of those levels, the math doesn't work that way, and the game stops being fun.
> 
> In Fourth Edition, we've totally revamped the math behind the system, and that's a big part of the way that we've extended the sweet spot across the whole level range. When PCs fight monsters of their level, they'll find that the math of the system is more or less the same at level 30 as it is at level 1. There will always be variation with different PCs and different monsters, but that variation won't be so great that monsters are either too deadly or too weak.




I whole-heartedly hope they start with the math as the foundation, and build out from there. 3E tried to do that, but then they compromised by keeping some "sacred cows". Once a solid foundation is built, it's a lot easier to modify without throwing off balance elsewhere.


----------



## BryonD (Sep 3, 2007)

Veril said:
			
		

> Really?  A 20th level wizard is *much* more intimidating than a 10th level barbarian.  Put both up against say a 10th level party, and see which really is the scarey of the two encoutners.



This is a tangent really, but it is one of my little hang-ups that people constantly confuse being "scary" and being able to use that fear to get what you want.
A 20th level wizard could easily be much more scary than a 10th level barbarian.  But if the barbarian knows what he is doing he can use that fear to persuade his subject.  Whereas if the wizard doesn't know what he is doing then he may simply create a "stiff back-ed" "Then I'll die first" response, or a subject that faints dead away, or a million other options.  Being afraid does not equate to being compliant.

I don't mind if wizards get intimidate as a class skill. (or the 4e version thereof)

If all PCs get some automatic degree of competency in intimidate then the system will be stupid, boring, and counter-heroic.


----------



## BryonD (Sep 3, 2007)

IanArgent said:
			
		

> http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=13496433&postcount=7 - James Wyatt's blog entry where he talks about the math behind the system.
> 
> I whole-heartedly hope they start with the math as the foundation, and build out from there. 3E tried to do that, but then they compromised by keeping some "sacred cows". Once a solid foundation is built, it's a lot easier to modify without throwing off balance elsewhere.



Funny, way upthread several of us were taken to task for taking a Mearls quote and stretching it, even though we didn't go nearly as far as the idea that this Wyatt quote about combat means that all character will gets ranks in all skills goes.


----------



## IanArgent (Sep 4, 2007)

BryonD said:
			
		

> This is a tangent really, but it is one of my little hang-ups that people constantly confuse being "scary" and being able to use that fear to get what you want.
> A 20th level wizard could easily be much more scary than a 10th level barbarian.  But if the barbarian knows what he is doing he can use that fear to persuade his subject.  Whereas if the wizard doesn't know what he is doing then he may simply create a "stiff back-ed" "Then I'll die first" response, or a subject that faints dead away, or a million other options.  Being afraid does not equate to being compliant.
> 
> I don't mind if wizards get intimidate as a class skill. (or the 4e version thereof)
> ...




Assuming that neither is "trained" and both have the same stat modifier, the 20th level wizard _is_ more intimidating than the 10th level barbarian, as he should be. If the Barbarian is "trained" he is _as intimidating_ as a character 10 levels higher than him! If the barbarian "focused" on the skill, he is _significantly_ more intimidating than the 20th level wizard. Being focused at 10th level means he can perform acts of intimidation with ease (pass on a take-10/roll 10+) that the 20th level character with no training can only hope to do with much effort (take 20/roll 20). (As an aside, I wouldn't expect intimidate to be a "class skill" for wizard).

But both the 10th level barbarian and the 20th level wizard intimidate the heck out of the 2nd level non-heroic punk who threatened both of them before they left town on their adventures that made them what they are today.



			
				ByronD said:
			
		

> Funny, way upthread several of us were taken to task for taking a Mearls quote and stretching it, even though we didn't go nearly as far as the idea that this Wyatt quote about combat means that all character will gets ranks in all skills goes.




I didn't say that. I said that James Wyatt is talking about making sure the math is solid for all levels of play, not just 7th-12th level. And as long as the d20 is used to generate successes and failures, I would expect the math to mean that at any given level, the difficulty of a level-appropriate challenge will fall somewhere within APL+5 to APL +15. That's all I'm trying to get out of Mr. Wyatt's post. 

IOW 


			
				James Wyatt said:
			
		

> In Fourth Edition, we've totally revamped the math behind the system, and that's a big part of the way that we've extended the sweet spot across the whole level range. When PCs fight monsters of their level, they'll find that the math of the system is more or less the same at level 30 as it is at level 1.






			
				IanArgent said:
			
		

> _If_ they are making sure the math works the same from level 1 to level 30, _and_ they are still using a d20 as a resolution mechanic - a level-appropriate challenge will either have a DC ranging from 1/2level+5 to 1/2level+15 or so (probably more like +3 to +18 to take into account stat/gear mods) or a DC of around 10+heroic level+0 to +10 or so (again with the stat/gear mods).




Quoting James directly and summarizing my argument in quoteblock to show what James Wyatt is saying, and what I am taking away from that statement, and turning around and saying myself.

_How_ they achieve this we do not yet know. But we can guess.

SWSE has already been stated as a "look at the design philosophy" of 4th ed, a snapshot if you will of the state of 4e game design as of about a year ago (given the timeline of development). And shockingly enough, those 2 formulae encompass most of how to figure out a level-appropriate challenge (they're very close to one another, incidentally, and converge at and around 10th level).

 I'm including "level-appropriate" for a reason - the wall doesn't get magically easier to climb, the adventurers climb harder walls, because the stuff behind the easier walls isn't worth their time. At first level, it's hard to bamboozle Sgt Colon and Cpl Nobbs. At 20th level you've got a (small) chance at talking CMOT Dibbler into letting you have a discounted meat pie (why you would want to I don't know), but Nobby and Colon are no match for your fast talk. But, hey, you might have to talk them into something - it just isn't a challenge to you any more.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 4, 2007)

Sun Knight said:
			
		

> I find less realism is less fun.  The SWSE is just too cinematic for what I want in DnD.  It may be good for Star Wars given it is based on the movies but the less the DnD game is like its movie the better.




Except that D&D combat _is_ cinematic at mid to high levels, what with fighters who can beat lions barehanded, and wizards who can outfight the typical professional soldier.

There is a mismatch between the cinematic combat of D&D and its grim & gritty skill rules (there is also the maths problem Ian Argent has described, but that is a separate issue). My understanding is that 4e will try and fix this - and the reconciliation will be in the direction of cinema, not grit. If you want grit in both combat and skills, in a level-based points-buy system, try RM or HARP.


----------



## Li Shenron (Sep 4, 2007)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> How do I set up a skill check that isn't automatic for the rogue yet at the same time, isn't impossible for the non-skilled character.




You set it so that it is not automatic for the rogue, and ignore the non-skilled character.

The rogue will use the skill, the other character sits and watch.   

Anyway I have the feeling that they are trying to make many things (skills, ST... maybe even BAB) work like the 3edition Epic rules, where basically the rate of advancement per level is fixed and the difference between classes is in a flat bonus... Funny since I've heard most people despising 3ed Epic rules, and now many like this idea, but perhaps the Epic rules were hated for something else.

However it feels like the switch to such an idea (one rate, different bonus) doesn't seem to me that it is really based on the fact that it works better, but rather on the fact that now they _have_ to stretch the game to 30 levels. Previous system was perfect until 20th, but would create too much difference beyond; for some reason I don't know, they want 30 levels, so what used to work doesn't work anymore...


----------



## D.Shaffer (Sep 4, 2007)

Sun Knight said:
			
		

> On the DM side of the screen I usually divide the total skill points by the number of class skills the NPC has and that is how many ranks he has in each class skill.  Quick, and easy, and takes less than minute per character.



...Isnt this essentially what the SWSE does now? The mechanics might be a little different but the overall effect is just the same.


----------



## IanArgent (Sep 4, 2007)

Li Shenron said:
			
		

> You set it so that it is not automatic for the rogue, and ignore the non-skilled character.
> 
> The rogue will use the skill, the other character sits and watch.




2 problems - if it's automatic for the rogue, it's not a challenge, particularly. And you don't even know what to set it at to _be_ automatic for the rogue.



			
				Li Shenron said:
			
		

> However it feels like the switch to such an idea (one rate, different bonus) doesn't seem to me that it is really based on the fact that it works better, but rather on the fact that now they _have_ to stretch the game to 30 levels. Previous system was perfect until 20th, but would create too much difference beyond; for some reason I don't know, they want 30 levels, so what used to work doesn't work anymore...




Uh, SWSE doesn't have 30 levels and also doesn't have Epic rules, the 20-level-cap is a hard-cap as far as rules go. It's been pretty much assumed that the 30-level soft-cap for 4E is an attempt to make Epic level play core - what with 1-10 being called heroic, 11-20 being called paragon, and 21-30 being called Epic by the designers.

You don't need more than a 10-point delta between the focused character and the untrained character in a d20 system - so in the name of fun that's what the SWSE system does - it ensures there's only that much difference between focused and unskilled characters of the same level doing checks that can be done untrained.


----------



## Cadfan (Sep 4, 2007)

I'll be happy if they fix the Swim problem.  This is the problem that often comes up where you have a skill that is very rarely useful, but when it is useful, is _incredibly important._  As a result, half your players don't invest in it at all, and the other half over invests and regrets it if or when the skill never comes up in that campaign.

Its not just Swim that does this.  Climb does it.  So does Ride.  Jump can do it on occasion.  So can Hide and Move Silently.  Also Balance.

Chances are for each of these skills you'll have one character in the party who succeeds with ease, while everyone else flounders hopelessly, drowns, falls to their doom, alerts the guards, etc, etc.  Giving half ranks to everyone's untrained skills will finally fix this a bit.

I will miss the non combat skills though, like Craft, Knowledge, and Profession.  I hope something is implemented to replace them.


----------



## D.Shaffer (Sep 4, 2007)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> not just Swim that does this.  Climb does it.  So does Ride.  Jump can do it on occasion.  So can Hide and Move Silently.  Also Balance.
> 
> Chances are for each of these skills you'll have one character in the party who succeeds with ease, while everyone else flounders hopelessly, drowns, falls to their doom, alerts the guards, etc, etc.  Giving half ranks to everyone's untrained skills will finally fix this a bit



That or the DM just glosses over when those skills would be useful anyways.

"Roll for initiative as the orcs spring from ambush!"
"...So I'm guessing that +15 Hide and Move silent I have does nothing, huh? And what about that +12 Listen? I get a spot roll but not listen?"  :\


----------



## Sun Knight (Sep 4, 2007)

D.Shaffer said:
			
		

> ...Isnt this essentially what the SWSE does now? The mechanics might be a little different but the overall effect is just the same.



The difference is that it also forces the players to do this and doesn't leave room for flexibility nor creating unique characters.

As for premades, you simply modify them to fit your group.  It doesn't take that long to prep changes like that.


----------



## D.Shaffer (Sep 4, 2007)

I'm not the biggest fan of the SW system, but how does it limit flexibility or keep you from creating unique characters?  As much as I like tailoring my skills to get everything down to EXACTLY the right ratio of skills, a +1 difference in rank in Swim doesnt make me a unique character, that's part of your personality and background.


----------



## AllisterH (Sep 4, 2007)

Li Shenron said:
			
		

> You set it so that it is not automatic for the rogue, and ignore the non-skilled character.
> 
> The rogue will use the skill, the other character sits and watch.




But how come in combat, we don't tell the rogue, "Sit by the sideline and watch"? In fact, the system itself is designed so that even without trying, at 15th level and below, a rogue doesn't have to do anything special (other than taking Weapon Finesse) to be useful in combat.

That is all I ask for the skill system. If WOTC wants the skill system to see more use than it has to be designed in such a way that irrespective of what you do, you AT LEAST have a chance of using a skill successfully.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 4, 2007)

Li Shenron said:
			
		

> You set it so that it is not automatic for the rogue, and ignore the non-skilled character.
> 
> The rogue will use the skill, the other character sits and watch.
> 
> Anyway I have the feeling that they are trying to make many things (skills, ST... maybe even BAB) work like the 3edition Epic rules, where basically the rate of advancement per level is fixed and the difference between classes is in a flat bonus... Funny since I've heard most people despising 3ed Epic rules, and now many like this idea, but perhaps the Epic rules were hated for something else.



At first i had trouble understanding the changed rate of advancement, but I quickly understood why it is needed. Personally, what I didn't like was the epic spell system. Admittedly, I didn't really ever use it, but it didn't look like anything that would actually work within the frame and the balancing of the game. If you keep the epic game between non-spellcasters, it would probably work out ok.


----------



## IanArgent (Sep 4, 2007)

Sun Knight said:
			
		

> The difference is that it also forces the players to do this and doesn't leave room for flexibility nor creating unique characters.



There is enough flexibility to make the system work. Too much "flexibility" and we have what we have now, where every adventure _has_ to be tailored to the particular group because the adventure author cannot write a general purpose adventure without simultaenously being too easy for one style of character/party and too hard for another, equally valid, style of character/party. It's not liek they are saying "everyone MUST have the EXACT same skillset"; there's plenty of room for variance in the SWSE skill system, and therefore unique characters. Plus, unique characters aren't unique because their character sheet has different numbers on it, they are unique because they are played differently. I'm really rather hoping that 4E goes farther along the lines of uniqueness by play, not by mechanics.


			
				Sun Knight said:
			
		

> As for premades, you simply modify them to fit your group.  It doesn't take that long to prep changes like that.



I don't have _any_ time during the week to prep for a game. So when I can find time on the weekend to run a game (which is much less often than I'd like), I want to be able to use all the time to run it; IE I don't want to have ot spend any time rewriting an adventure. At any rate, it can be quite difficult to "adjust" higher-level encounters to match the range of skills my party has, without throwing off the balance of the adventure. This goes back to the lack of fundamentals in the math of 3.x - without having a good grasp of why the numbers are the way they are, it is much harder to adjust them properly.


----------



## szilard (Sep 4, 2007)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> You'll probably be able to burn a talent or feat to gain a skill, right?




Not if they follow the the SWSE model - you can spend a feat to become trained in one of your class skills, but you can't add something to your class skill list without multiclassing... and you can't become trained in a non-class skill.

-Stuart


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Sep 4, 2007)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> But what about the reverse?  Why in the world does Master Po have any sort of penalty to detect creatures that are Invisible but otherwise unconcealed to the senses.  And if the answer is that he doesn't, then why (mechanically, not from a RP perspective) would anybody not be Master Po?



The result in-game is that he has the same penalty as everyone else, but since we're rolling half as often and moving the game forward at every opportunity, no one is nitpicking at why Invisibility improved that NPCs stealth skill vs Master Po and why Silence improved it against Hawkeye.

If you ONLY have Perception, it doesn't matter what you call it.  Maybe you're detecting them by scent.  Or, realistically, via intersensory redundancy, since real people are only reliable in threshold situations when they use multiple senses anyway.

And, incidentally, people don't play Master Po because there's still that combat penalty associated with blindness.


----------



## IanArgent (Sep 4, 2007)

szilard said:
			
		

> Not if they follow the the SWSE model - you can spend a feat to become trained in one of your class skills, but you can't add something to your class skill list without multiclassing... and you can't become trained in a non-class skill.
> 
> -Stuart




It is a minor problem; but at the same time, you can't get very good on a cross-class skill _now_. At least this way you don't have to waste skill points to be barely competent. I wonder if they will loosen up on the outside-of-class skill thing, as SWSE practically encourages multiclassing to a certain extent. OTOH, dipping a level of a class shouldn't be a big deal, based on what the devs have been saying.

If multiclassing isn't encouraged, I'd hope to see a feat that allows you to add a skill/talent to your skill list.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Sep 4, 2007)

Sun Knight said:
			
		

> The difference is that it also forces the players to do this and doesn't leave room for flexibility nor creating unique characters.




Bushwah!

SWSE merely takes the flexibility and creation of unique characters out of the skill point system, and puts it into the Feat and Talent systems.  In 3.XE, you're a better swimmer than I am because you have a 4 skill ranks and I have 3.  Woohoo! :roll:  In SW, you're a better swimmer than I am because you can Take 10 at will, or roll twice and take the better result, or gain a +5 bonus when you make a single Swim check as a full-round action, or ...

Anyone who says that SWSE doesn't allow the creation of unique characters has no clue what they're talking about.


----------



## med stud (Sep 4, 2007)

I really like the saga- skill system and implemented it in my game as soon as I read the preview of it. I already had narrowed the skill list down, but I did that back in the early 2000; I come from a very Runequest- like RPG from Sweden were there were lots of skills and not many skill points. That made the characters very incompetent at lots of things and it restrained certain character concepts; if you wanted to play a knight with a sophisticated background there wasn't a chance that you could pay for all your skills. 3.x has some of these problems, especially with fighters and clerics.

I'm also curious, am I the only one who don't think that skills for Craft, Perform and Profession are needed? They have never been needed in any of my games and have only been used for role playing reasons. In that case I think they can be moved to the backstory; if you want your fighter to play the lute well, just write down that he is a good lute player and the next time the PCs hit a tavern, let him play. If he wants to do something concrete with it, let him use Persuasion with the the performance.


----------

