Director of Narrative
|
Something to note in this discussion of skills is that the Thief (2nd ed) was the only character, besides bard to a lesser extent, who had true skills as we know them now. One of the things I was bummed about when making my first 3.5 ed character, a Rogue of course, was that anyone could take the skills that I had grown to love such as Open Lock, Remove Trap, Hide, Move Silently and such. Of course a fighter knowing how to open a lock might cut down on his swimming and climbing prowess I think it's a fair trade. No character is supposed to be able to do everything. That's why there's classes. The party should get themselves together and have characters that can work together to make up for each other's shortcomings. I've never been the kind of player to demand that we keep the fighter/arcanist/priest/rogue format, but for every campaign we determine what we need and who will fill that role.
|
Many of these have much more to do with character creation rather than giving out bonus skill points at each level. Many of them -- the Barbarian, Monk and maybe even the Fighter -- can be easily solved by modifying the DC. Because the Monk is well traveled (and as long as it fits into his background), his DC is 10 instead of 15. I do this kind of thing all the time. If an elf grew up in a forest environment, then they would most likely have some bonuses to identify certain plants found in a forest. If you have a noble person who has grown up in that kind of environment their whole life, then they would probably have an easier time talking to the king than many others would. This is far different than giving out bonus skill points just because "I like it".
There is no mechanical difference between giving extra skill points and reducing the DC selectively, except that if you give extra skill points, the player knows when the difficulty will change instead of waiting for an arbitrary call on the part of the DM.
Don't misunderstand this as a general attack on arbitrary calls by the DM; they're part of the job description. But I prefer to minimize them when possible.
|
Director of Narrative
|
Many of these have much more to do with character creation rather than giving out bonus skill points at each level. Many of them -- the Barbarian, Monk and maybe even the Fighter -- can be easily solved by modifying the DC. Because the Monk is well traveled (and as long as it fits into his background), his DC is 10 instead of 15. I do this kind of thing all the time. If an elf grew up in a forest environment, then they would most likely have some bonuses to identify certain plants found in a forest. If you have a noble person who has grown up in that kind of environment their whole life, then they would probably have an easier time talking to the king than many others would. This is far different than giving out bonus skill points just because "I like it".I love's me the circumstantial modifiers! Perfect example of how the rules support winging it to make the game fun for everyone without having four know-it-alls as PCs.
|
There is no mechanical difference between giving extra skill points and reducing the DC selectively, except that if you give extra skill points, the player knows when the difficulty will change instead of waiting for an arbitrary call on the part of the DM.
That is also assuming that the player is putting all the extra skill points into the background character concept. And it is different. If I give a +5 "circumstance" bonus on the Monk's Knowledge: Geography rolls it is the same all the time. If the Monk gets an additional +1 point every level that they can put into Knowledge: Geography every level, it will quickly get past the +5 point.
If you prefer to put it into the player's court, then let them know that they have a +5 circumstance bonus on these 5 areas of the world when making a Knowledge: Geography roll. Again, much different than making cross-class skills cost 1 point, giving bonus skill points every level, AND combining skills. I would much prefer to give the player bonus circumstance bonuses based on a written up background than "just because".
|
|
Why Not?
Kind of a Middle School answer, but ok.
Moff, I nearly died laughing when I read that one. One of my law professors loves to respond to his students with "why not?" Apparently he's used it to stun irate state legislators before. Thanks, friend, you just made my day.
Believe it or not, we're thinking along the same path. In general I stick with the normal rules. I don't incorporate every single idea I come across or allow every single class/feat/spell my PC's introduce me to, but I try to provide what I hope is logical, consistent, but fun game.
But I do make changes in the rules. I do so however, only when I felt there was need for them. In this case: 1st simplicity for me as the DM, 2nd equity for my players since I was using those changes on my NPC's first. I'm sure alot of out roleplaying brethen do the same. Whether we all agree that the change is necessary or even wise is a different story, but thats what makes these boards so much fun.
Also, I'll grant you that "heroic" was not the best way to describe the effects of granting extra skill points. Regularly beating the odds is certainly a "heroic" trait, but the point I was trying to make (admittedly, ineptly) is that if increasing your party's skill points make the game more fun for every one at your table, go for it. If you're happy with the rules as is, then have fun. Remember, the rules themselves say you can change them.
Finally, I understand your point on "powerful characters" v. "balanced system". But when a DM and his players want to run a campaign where most of the skills are used, without having the DC lowered a bit, what's wrong with making the PC's a little more "powerful" to balance the type of game they want to play?
One thing that really hasn't been answered is "Why?"
I have heard many times in this thread that none of the classes have enough skill points -- Why?
I have to commend Moff Rimmer on his stalwart defense of his position which I largely agree with. The reason I checked this thread out was an interest in this issue.
The reason I am considering an adjustment, is I am preparing to run STAP (my first 3e DMing) and noted that some characters were lacking basic needed skills (Climb, Swim, etc) when I ran 4 characters I created through the 1st installment. The only adjustment I was thinking about making was to allow you to use the extra skill points you acquire at 1st level to be used in untrained cross class skills at a cost of 1 per point rather than 2, however with the crossclass limit in place. However, the character background would be required to address these extra skill points.
So, that is my "why?". A couple of other whys that don't really involve powergaming are that some DMs like to have players check on a lot of things. Such as, you are walking up the stairs to the city council and the stairs are covered with ice, everyone make a DC 5 balance check, etc. I think this tends to be overkill, but I have slipped on regular polished stairs at school (no ice, perhaps a bit of fatigue). It has the advantage of making players find skills more useful and I would enjoy as a player as I have played with some DMs that only have you make a few checks per session.
The other issue I have with this and am not worrying a lot about it, is the learning of skills through time investment. If a wizard were to spend a few years in a library studying local information, he should be able to get to add to Knowledge (local). Or if a rogue, were to spend 6 months working for a jeweler, he should increase skill in Appraise. However, game mechanics does not allow these increases. As a person ages, even if they do not gain levels, they will still gain some skill points.
Skill selection is part of a player's decision making process in regards to creating the particular character they want (okay, everyone can say *DUH* now). As such, they'll have to make some choices. You can't be good at them all...unless you're prepared to make some sacrifices. Make INT your highest stat and use your feats towards that end...somehow I don't see many lining up to do that ;)
IMHO I like the stat system where it is, but this thread brought to mind a couple ideas. If you feel like stats need a bit of a kick in your campaign, consider the following:
1) Only drop the cross-class designation for the initial, 1st level skill selection phase. This represents some individual choice by the player in how their character chose to spend their formative years. Perhaps a mage puts some of those points into sleight of hand to reflect being a street urchin before being taken on as an apprentice by some kindly mage. The other apprentices are better at him in Knowledge: Arcana due to their different backgrounds, but such is life. Any further skill points gained at each new level however would be subject to the cross-class/class designations, reflecting their chosen profession path. Before you say "That's not fair!" as rogues get more points than mages, consider this; the mage is also spending time learning to cast spells, scribe scrolls, etc. which can be argued to take up more time than say, learning to sneak attack. The idea is that characters could've spent some time initially learning other skills while starting into their class.
2) Don't forget about multi-classing. If you want to roleplay a fighter who's quite diplomatic, take a level in bard...it's the perfect reason to. (Again the peanut gallery moans *DUH*, but the tools are there...use them!).
3) Set up a skills list for each race...perhaps working off those that already receive bonuses at character creation. Even just a couple per race would add a little more selection. For instance, if Diplomacy was a class skill for Humans then a Human Cleric could use Diplomacy as a class skill.
Just some ideas. When you're tooling skills to fit your campaign, you'll find your own balance you're happy with. I myself don't think the answer would be to add skill points, but instead using other options such as multi-classing, feats, and INT...in other words, the existing system has ways of catering to the skill fiend!
J-
The acquisition of skill points should be based on the style of campaign the DM is running. In a game where there is a lot of political intrigue, infiltration style play, haggling with merchants, or other roleplaying intensive scenarios then more skill points might be a viable option (but methinks better allocation of skill points and choice in classes would do the same trick). In a dungeon crawl style campaign then a lot of skill points are a waste of time (as are taking certain skills).
The actual power level of a game is probably changed in the first style of campaign by the number of skill points the DM dishes out, but may not make a difference in a hack and slash campaign. Of course, judicious allocation of skill check DCs by the DM should abrogate the need for more skill points. At least the people who give their players more skill points haven't raised the max ranks per level (I hope).
Really, changing the rules should be about game balance more than anything else. If a DM's campaign is exceedingly difficult then maybe more skill points are needed. If the DM's campaign is a cakewalk and it can be contributed to characters who are too skillful, then maybe DMs need to rethink his group's position.
I do get sick of people saying that the current system is lacking because there are too few skill points in the game (or whatever), and then backing up their arguments with "evidence" that their system is "da bomb" because their players are now happy. This is hypocritical in one sense, because by saying that the current system is lacking they are taking a shot at every group that is happy playing with the skill point system as it currently stands. Their group may indeed be very happy with the change to the skill point system, but does that make their choice necessarily game balanced or right? I think not.
The acquisition of skill points should be based on the style of campaign the DM is running.
I do get sick of people saying that the current system is lacking because there are too few skill points in the game (or whatever), and then backing up their arguments with "evidence" that their system is "da bomb" because their players are now happy. This is hypocritical in one sense, because by saying that the current system is lacking they are taking a shot at every group that is happy playing with the skill point system as it currently stands. Their group may indeed be very happy with the change to the skill point system, but does that make their choice necessarily game balanced or right? I think not.
Happy players don't always make contented players. I remember a MERP game I played about 20 years ago where the DM made us all happy (at least at the time, but now I feel cheated) where a friend who played an elf and I, who played a dwarf, had hide skills so high that we could literally hide behind each other in an open field and noone could see us. I also wound up with the ability to walk across the Mississippi River (or a body of water as large) carrying an anvil (OK it was a magic anvil, but that just makes it worse).
The games I remember fondly now were the ones I almost (or did) die in. I talk about the fights where I needed (and did) roll a 20 to survive. The only other thing I remember about that MERP game is that for awhile we used to go into forests and spook deer until the elf decided that might not be the type of thing an elf would do.
I've actually played D&D using Victory Games' 007 (skill-based) rules. In 3.5E I've tried eliminating x-class skills, and also combining similar skills (Hide + Move Silently = Stealth, etc.), as previously posted. All these options worked extremely well for one reason only: becuase there were no dungeon crawls. Characters without Diplomacy had no chance; I designed urban (and often espionage- or investigation-based) adventures where a broad skill base was a prerequisite for survival. Sorcerers in those situations are so much worse than wizards that I cringe at the comparison.
If your players love James Bond movies, try one of these options, and develop the adventures accordingly (the NPC police chief is inclined to let you go, because you beat him at baccarat at the casino the night before; the ethnic kobalds opt to tell you useful info because your Appraise check recognized the bizarre spices in their cuisine, and you passed the Fort save to avoid becoming sick eating it; etc.). Tell me if it isn't more fun than the usual power-gaming, for a change.
One thing that really hasn't been answered is "Why?"
I have heard many times in this thread that none of the classes have enough skill points -- Why?
I have heard many times that people have gotten rid of the class skill/cross class skill issues all together -- Why?
More skill points give characters more opportunity to buy skills outside of those required to use their class abilities and fulfill their niche. Bards need Perform. Wizards need Concentration to reliably cast spells in combat. Most rogues need Search (to find traps), Disable Device (to turn off the traps), and Open Lock (to get the juicy treasure the trap was protecting). And so on. More points gives them flexibility outside of rigid archetypes.
Class skills, on the other hand, eliminate character options.
You cannot play a barbarian whose shaman brother taught him much about magic before he went into the world.
You cannot play a fighter who is also a skilled diplomat.
You cannot play a wizard who isn't brilliant but who has managed to learn by rote a lot of what other wizards know.
You cannot play a monk who has wandered so far and wide that he is a master of geographical lore.
And so on and so on and so on.D&D class skills enforce a stereotypical view of characters. I want PCs to be free to make whatever character they want. I want them to do this without adding a pile of new rules from other books to a system which is already drowning in crunch.
Can bonus skills create unbalanced, screw characters?
Alright, I lost my original long winded post, so if it seems too long, its because it is.
Class skills don't eliminate character options, defeatist attitudes eliminate options.Class skills don't enforce stereotypical views of characters, uncreative players do.
You want an interesting character with a versatile skill bank? pay for it.
If you want a Fighter who can pick locks, pay for it, earn it, become a rogue and master it. If you want a master diplomat that is a fighter, give him competence bonuses with diplomacy with other fighters- buy into diplomacy like it is worth what it is ACTUALLY worth to a fighter- MORE.
Also, despite Moff's negative response. You CAN be a Barbarian who'll dabble in shamanism, hell one of my players is a Barbarian/Druid who yes, took Druid- I barely allowed it, but he earned it, it was actually pretty much in his background, but to gain wild shape as an ability, I’m making him actually sit down and train with a druid at some point, though he can gain an animal companion as soon as he leaves the city he’s in.
A wizard who learned by what other wizards know? Who isn’t brilliant? Well, if he isn’t intelligent, he suffers in other aspects than skills, but it is perfectly possible. For one, buy into Knowledge Arcana, just because he isn’t brilliant, doesn’t mean he can’t be a good student. Knowledge skills for the most part are STILL wizard skills. Oh, and up his wisdom so that when he wants to remember what he knows he has to roll to remember what the other wizard’s did to do what he wants to do. Parroting is perfectly possible, increase his diplomacy so he can glean information from other wizards, up his spot and listen skills- yes, you might have to pay more, but if he’s an Elf, Wizard and mimicking comes fairly naturally. Hell, if you want him learning by ear, make him a sorcerer and be done with it. Up his charisma and you’ve got the diplomacy of learning from more experience spell casters under your belt.
The monk was an easy one for Moff, slide in knowledge geography or local by paying for it and give him competence bonuses for the skill if you’re the dm.
Are we forgetting competence bonuses (I know at least one has been mentioned already) AND Circumstance bonuses? DMs you have the power to REWARD character resourcefulness, stubbornness, creativity and backgrounds.
What about the races? Humans get bonus skill points already, while other races get nifty abilities and bonuses to skills like Elves do to the otherwise undervalued skills of spot, search, and listen. Dwarves get a bonus to Appraise, though it is conditional, at least the Barbarian/Druid knew the worth of the Black Onyx gem that soon turned his dead brother into a zombie…(complicated methods to do that, but bending the rules is possible)
And it is a small step to make something a class skill for a certain race or character of a certain background- as has been mentioned before.
And what about the interesting nature of having low skill points in something or hell being denied something all together? A barbarian can’t read without spending skill points, illiteracy is INTERESTING it is a realistic and Humanizing quality, it can also be humorous…my player has a dwarven barbarian/druid (so he’s not exactly the tree hugging type) carries around a scroll case with paper in it, pretending he can read. I had a half orc barbarian that was DETERMINED to learn how to read, but never got to spend the skill points. Mud may eternally wander, fighting orcs, wondering if he’ll ever be able to READ.
Again, competence bonuses and circumstance bonuses are a way to award characters who try to diversify their characters or overcome challenges no matter how stupid it might seem…I earned a competence/circumstance bonus to swimming in armor while trying to save a prisoner/trying to catch the fish he got turned into…stubbornly refusing, even while getting out of the water only to dive back in, to take off my chainmail, because the chaotic good/neutral good/lawful good shifting elf wouldn’t do that. In this I felt justified when I reached 4th level and added a point in strength to his stats.
Give your fighter who wants to pick locks a masterwork lock and a thieves tool kit, let the monkey figure out how to use the tools and eventually he’ll either earn a competence bonus, give up the task, or become a rogue…which is the BEST way to solve the skill point problem short of a more across the board solution, which yes, I have an idea that has been offered before…once a class skill, always a class skill. So multiclassing really does help. Though I’d still encourage upping ranks in skills that have been used, developed or lusted after first, especially the new skills the character supposedly knows if he’s multiclassing.
If multiclassing just isn’t good enough for you, convince your fellow players and DM to run a Gestalk campaign and just power game until your heart’s content.
I’m using Unearthed Arcana Traits for my campaign, this adds several elements, bonuses to skill values a player wants to be higher, minuses to skill values that make sense, and incentive to roleplay a “uncivilized” character in the barbarian/druid’s case or an “absent-minded” character in the case of the sorcerer, which yes these conform to stereotypes I suppose, but I’ll be damned if it doesn’t make for a more interesting character both on paper and in play. A sorcerer isn’t a wizard I might add…but absentminded does at a +1! To all knowledge skills, this is of course at the cost of spot and listen checks. (but only a –1) The designation of qualities encourages roleplaying, my dwarf plays uncivilized, my sorcerer plays absentminded very well.
But options from sourcebooks do add depth…if you have trouble with a class’s class skills, consider the variant classes from Unearthed Arcana…I did, and I even trumped that and went with a 3rd party Revised Urban Ranger, and I couldn’t be happier, because I STILL had to overcome limitations to become what I would call, with tongue-in-cheek, a “Suburban Ranger” I simply multiclassed a fighter as the Revised Urban Ranger and gave him Track as his first ranger feat, we kept survival as a class skill and with Urban Skill, bluff was a class skill. I’d advise looking up the revised urban ranger if you want to play a character more effective at fighting than a rogue, but still about as sneaky and useful in urban encounters. And good luck finding anyone in a city without Urban Tracking…
But I digress.
Character BUILDS are tasks for the devoted player, one who is willing to pay out for cross-class skills and feats, one who is devoted to role-playing their character well, it is up to the player to best as they can follow the rules laid out in the PHB and by the DM and his Sourcebooks. If the DM says “More skill points for all!” or a bonus feat, such as I’ve done, but based on region and presuming they meet the prerequisites…then so be it.
But I say let the players earn extra abilities in skills, reward them for developing a character IN character, not just on paper.
For instance, back to the example of the barbarian/druid…how would you react to him doning the head of a Fiendish Dire Weasel as a cap? You assume he’s an intimidating, if not crazy, character- or more precisely as we did- that and call him Muestelo (latin/part of the trade tongue in my campaign- for Weasel) and give him a circumstance bonus to his intimidation score as long as he wears that cap, and hell his wyrvenskin spiked armor.
And yes, he had to kill a wyvern at no more than 3rd level (with help) to get “dragon-skin” armor, and yes at this point he was on his way to becoming a druid, but wasn’t yet.
Anyway, it is your world, you and the players create it, reward your players and they’ll reward you, penalize them and they’ll gripe, but if you always reward them then it’ll turn monte haul, give them something for nothing and they’ll take a mile. And this is mostly an observance I’ve made as a PLAYER of other players and myself…you start handing out magic weaponry, people are going to grab it up. You hand out skill points at first and every level, then they’ll probably still just buff their winning stats rather than really pay for their cross-class skills. Or if you eliminate class skills entirely, where’s the balance or flair for playing a certain class? What about party niches? What’s wrong with fulfilling a niche, things do it in nature all the time. Adaptability is key, but that’s more to do with character RESOURCEFULLNESS than character PREPAREDNESS or rather I should say Initial Fitness…since we’re talking about upping skill points outside of earning more preparation and so forth.
And to the comment of more skill points allowing greater flexibility, at what cost? None. Flexibility is best defined as Adaptability, and that area is best left to the player, not the skill points, knowing when to use skills has more to do with the game than dice rolls.
Sure, up skill points across the board, that’ll balance things…so maybe that minotaur fighter (or hell, cleric even since we want to break stereotypes) now has knowledge the planes, and whoops class skills are no more, so maybe he has use magic device and can now use this magical item in his dungeon to summon a freakin demon to slay your party. I don’t think that’s necessarily fair, do you?
Regardless, it is up to you as a DM, and then your players, to decide what is right for you. My tirade was mostly in defense of the way I’d like to pay 3.5 Dungeons and Dragons, and partly in defense of how I think others would like to “Follow the Rules and Not Muck with the Skill System,” but I can’t talk for everyone, so I talked for me. I think my ideas work. And I’ll end on emphasizing FEAT selection to make characters more versatile, interesting and to break the mold…for my last example, an NPC who isn’t just cut and dry:
How about a Cleric who has improved unarmed strike and grapple, he’s a pinnacle of the Strength domain at 18 strength- his best score AFTER he upped it from 16 via getting to 8th level, and give him the appropriate magic items for his level, setting and access to resources for his position as bodyguard to a nobleman, a monk’s belt, a ring of mage armor, and quick don/quick release armor from his homeland? He might be a nice sparring partner for the monk in the party, not necessarily a deadly foe, but he certainly breaks the mold. He’ll actually be an equal to the 5th-6th level monk with his potentially better AC.
Skill selection is part of a player's decision making process in regards to creating the particular character they want (okay, everyone can say *DUH* now). As such, they'll have to make some choices. You can't be good at them all...unless you're prepared to make some sacrifices. Make INT your highest stat and use your feats towards that end...somehow I don't see many lining up to do that ;)
IMHO I like the stat system where it is, but this thread brought to mind a couple ideas. If you feel like stats need a bit of a kick in your campaign, consider the following:
1) Only drop the cross-class designation for the initial, 1st level skill selection phase. This represents some individual choice by the player in how their character chose to spend their formative years. Perhaps a mage puts some of those points into sleight of hand to reflect being a street urchin before being taken on as an apprentice by some kindly mage. The other apprentices are better at him in Knowledge: Arcana due to their different backgrounds, but such is life. Any further skill points gained at each new level however would be subject to the cross-class/class designations, reflecting their chosen profession path. Before you say "That's not fair!" as rogues get more points than mages, consider this; the mage is also spending time learning to cast spells, scribe scrolls, etc. which can be argued to take up more time than say, learning to sneak attack. The idea is that characters could've spent some time initially learning other skills while starting into their class.
2) Don't forget about multi-classing. If you want to roleplay a fighter who's quite diplomatic, take a level in bard...it's the perfect reason to. (Again the peanut gallery moans *DUH*, but the tools are there...use them!).
3) Set up a skills list for each race...perhaps working off those that already receive bonuses at character creation. Even just a couple per race would add a little more selection. For instance, if Diplomacy was a class skill for Humans...
After my ESSAY, I have to say that I generally agree with Jimmy, though diplomacy should be a class skill for Half-elves perhaps more than humans, as mentioned before.
I'm all for Multiclassing, if it wasn't advantageous, then it wouldn't garner a 20% XP penalty if you neglected one of your classes.I more so like the formative No Class Skills at 1st level, though arguably you could force players to take a level in an NPC class (I have an excellent Javascript Character Generator for that- it's on google as the first Character Generator on the list), warrior, adept, aristocrat, etc...this will explain away the nobles, the studious and the raised to fight. But then that's an idea that doesn't work for most campaigns, why take an NPC class when you can just take a PC class? - you were trained to be a RANGER from birth, not a warrior or adept...but I kinda like where it is going and will at least implement such a manner of character creation with my NPCS, such as I did with a king, aristocrat to start, then he became a paladin less than halfway during his life. He's a defender of the faith and a good king.
Multiclassing just for the hell of it isn't that bad, 20% XP drain, none if you're human, is not that bad in the long run, especially if you roleplay that build well. Ranger1/Cleric3 isn't inconvenient for a Human, and it even stays in line with divine spellcasting should Ranger be pursued instead (And I might add that he'd get cure light wounds a hell of a lot earlier).
|
|
Thank you all for the recent supportive posts. I was starting to feel like the only one...
The main point(s) that I was really trying to make (and probably failed in my eloquence or lack thereof) was that people/DMs should play the best way that works for them and their group -- but if they change the RAW then they should back it up with a reason that is a bit more in depth than "I don't feel that it changes the balance" or "I like that change".
I was really hoping for more of "I am running STAP and really want the players to feel that they are much more accustomed to being around water than the classes largely represent -- therefore, I will be giving all my characters a +2 circumstance bonus to Profession: Sailing, a +2 circumstance bonus to a Craft skill representative of the area and all the characters will be allowed to take swim as a class skill." This is a resonable bonus that the characters should appreciate, it will most likely change very little in the play of the campaign and there is a logical reason attached to it.
More than anything else though --
Get together, Roll some dice, have some fun.
I think part of the issue is "heroic breadth". In stories, snot nosed kids tend to both get better at what they're good at (increased skill ranks in initial skills), but also tend to learn new tricks (distinguishing them from the narrow sterotype they start in). With a constant allotment of skill points and DCs that increase in line with level (encouraging further investment in skills you already have, instead of picking new skills), your character can feel "stagnant", or like a one trick pony.
In combat, new tricks come along every three levels, via the feat system. (And more rapidly for fighters, etc.) The current skill system doesn't add the same "cool new trick" feel-- and when a PC does attempt it (by dumping all their skill points for a level in a new skill), they're often accused of being "unrealistic".
Is there a way, using the existing system, to allocate your skill points to (at least) tread water vs. the increasing difficulties as you level, while also developing cool new tricks, to make your character seem more broadly experienced in the world? How would you allocate your points to do so?
|
|
Is there a way, using the existing system, to allocate your skill points to (at least) tread water vs. the increasing difficulties as you level, while also developing cool new tricks, to make your character seem more broadly experienced in the world? How would you allocate your points to do so?
This is what I would do --
Give one or two additional discretionary points for each character that can only be allocated by the DM and placed depending on how the player played their character. If the fighter did his best and stumbled through a negotiation with a tribe leader give them a bonus point or two. If the monk was doing some additional research in the library, give him a point or two in the appropriate Knowledge skill. If the party is spending a lot of time on a ship and trying to learn the ropes of sailing, give them a point or two in appropriate skills.
This puts the control in the hands of the DM. It gives them "bonus" skill points in skills that they may not use a lot. It allows for players to emphasize some more role-playing aspects. It is flexible enough to encompass any character class. It is flexible enough to allow for no additional skill points, +1 skill point, +2 skill point, etc. It makes sense "in game". And the players (if done right) should still be "Cool -- Thanks."
|
|
Moff, I like your latest suggestion for a two reasons: It allows the DM to give points where he/she feels they're needed and it encourages the players to try to "beat the odds" in areas they don't have ranks or actually roleplay their characters' expansion into other skill areas.
Also, don't ever feel bad for sticking with your guns man. People having differing views is what makes boards like this interesting. Kudos to you for staying the course
Finally:
Get together, Roll some dice, have some fun.
Couldn't have said better if I tried.
|
A lot of skill deficiencies can be mitigated by spells. No one with Hide? Invisibility! Move Silently? Silence! Open Locks? Knock! Diplomacy? Charm Person!
There is virtually no skill that can't be compensated for in some way. So I don't think there is any reason for concern if your party can't cover every skill with the skill points they've got.
Don't forget, if you want to up skill points, it ought to apply to NPC's too. More ranks in Concentration for enemy spellcasters, higher Spot and Listen for guards, etc, isn't a big deal, I suppose, but it can make your own skills less valuable. Your extra skill points may have gotten you a high Bluff, but that tower guard's extra points gave him a high Sense Motive, so you haven't gained a whole lot.
Maybe we should differentiate between interactive skills (those made as an opposed roll) and straight try-to-beat-the-DC type skills. Boosting a character's ranks in the former seems less dangerous, if you will, than the latter. A couple of extra ranks in a social skill is useful, and the discretionary points suggested elsewhere on this thread would seem to work well for that. On the other hand, boosting a burglar-type's already maxed-out Open Locks skill is just asking for trouble. The DM has to set DCs astronomically high, or just assume that the PCs will just be able to open practically any lock. Either way, it moves from fun into the realm of mathematics. Then again, what do I know? I failed calculus the first time I took it...
Actually, if you look at it, most of the checks listed in the PHB are pretty easy to overcome by mid-levels. The vast majority of them are in the 10-15 range, which makes it challenging, but far from impossible, for the untrained, and easy as pie for most trained people. High ability scores can also go a long way to giving characters more options in the realm of everyday experience. As was mentioned before, your Cha of 16 with no ranks in Diplomacy means you won't be stopping any wars, but you can still do a pretty good job at making friends in a nice tavern or even just on the street.
Even the DC 20 checks become cake, typically around or a little less than halfway through an adventuring career, presuming a run from 1st level to 20th. Some remain up around DC 25 or so, but again, by the verge of the mid and high levels, those are pretty routine for a trained person, too.
You've got a few here and there that are astronomically high, and those remain out of reach by and large until the high levels, and there is a pretty big gap in there between when you can easily hit the previous task's DC, when ranking tasks by that criterion.
The end result of all this? Players quickly become almost superhuman in their ability to beat straight DC tasks. Quite frankly, I try to go with the DCs set out in the core rules, rather than just adjudicating that the DC is typically your skill modifier +10. Why would the rest of the world be changing around you, specifically, and why bother raising the skill at all if the percent chance of success is going to be the same? No, that seems cheap to me. The DCs are still plenty challenging for untrained characters, let the ones who put the ranks in a given skill hit it easily. That's actually what is typically shown in movies and books, anyway- the person who is good at something can do it easily, while everyone else struggles. Nothing to sweat about.
Pulling myself away from the growing ramble (wow, since when did I have so much to say about skills?), the point is that it's perfectly okay to split skill points through the existing rules. Straight check DCs get so trivial by the high levels that I know I've wondered before, "Why am I still putting skill points here? I always succeed." Only opposed roles remain a challenge, and that's presuming interaction with NPCs of about the same HD as you and with a corresponding, opposing skill to roll yours against.
So, players shouldn't feel so afraid about putting their existing skill points into "background" skills. Come from a small town farm? Put ranks in Profession: Farmer to start with. Start out as a street urchin? Put ranks in Sleight (sp?) of Hand and Bluff at 1st level. It gives you a little ability in those skills that are unusual for your class, but mostly, it's just good roleplaying. And trust me, you'll make up the difference in your "power skills" fast enough.
Once you find yourself doing just that, capable of hitting the DCs of you initial skill set with ease, branch out. Use either roleplaying to guide you, or just go with what's mechanically sound or simply interesting to your character. Start buying ranks in a few other skills, either "dumping" each level to represent intensive training, or spreading out and actually picking up a much wider array of skills. Again, assuming a level 1-20 game, you'll actually be able to get that secondary list of skills pretty high by the end of the game, and it will add a lot more depth and versatility to your character, possibly even pulling him in a new direction and keeping you from getting bored or burnt out with him.
That said, I really like the thought of those circumstantial, DM-awarded skill boosts. I remember reading in a short adventure hear and there about books on certain topics, and reading them gave the any character a +2 competence bonus on associated checks for a period of a month or so. If you felt like adding it to your list of book keeping tasks, you could do a similar implementation with the adjudicated bonuses. So, if your players didn't go sailing for half a year, they loose their bonus to Profession: Sailor.
However, that IS just one more thing to add to the list of book keeping tasks, and is fairly minor, and might even undermine the entire point of giving out the bonuses in the eyes of your players. It's just as easy to say they're rusty if they roll bad, or that the knowledge all comes back to them, even after so long, if they roll high.
I'm amazed I had this much to say on the issue!
As I tpked my party of players we have to create new and for the first we have no idea where to take the skill pints from to cover all the needed skills. Ok there have been times when a bard or something had to go without some skills simply reflecting his background or something, but it was almost always at the cost of roleplaying. There are simply some skills a party should have like Gather Information for example. It is not necessary to survive most of the encounters but it is an important tool to mediate background information to the pcs. Same or at least similiar thing with knowledge skills. Can a party make it without Diplomacy? Ok there is Intimidate or even bluff, but if the party doesn't want to play the kick-in-the-door style too heavily they have to use at least one of them sometime.
So I was thinking about to increase the skill points of every character class by 2. Is this totally unbalanced or just fine? Any comments? Thanks in advance. :)
As both player & GM in 3.0 / 3.5 D&D, it has proven consistently perplexing as to the precise rhyme and reasons behind the skills system. It does the trick, make no mistake about that, and in and of itself doesn't particularly need to change.
The problem IS in the fact that skill points are insufficient to permit the "standard" party of 4 (with 3 characters each basing on 2 skills per character level and ONE with a base of 8 skills per character level) to see anything past 10 ft, hear anything past 10 ft or otherwise function outside of the core skills pertaining to thier class. Clerics, realistically, HAVE to take Concentration, Heal and Knowledge (religion) - especially at 1st level. Mages HAVE to take Concentration, Knowledge (arcana) and Spellcraft to function beyond thier spells in any meaningful fashion. Fighters are not as restricted. Rogues are the only ones with freedom of selection ... until you recognize the skills set necessary for the "party rogue" to have in most "standard" game play. This set is : Spot, Listen, Hide, Move Silently, Search, Disable Device, Open Locks and Use Magic Device.
Notice that - exempting the fighter - the bare minimum skills presumed necessary in published modules [from what I've seen thus far] are those I've just described. There is very little room for most character concepts to select outside of those choices and remain capable of performing those functions in the game at the anticipated level of capability. Arcane spell casters generally get a few extra skills per level from thier INT score. Clerics and Fighters generally won't get more than 1 extra skill per level from INT however - especially if they're not human.
When you start factoring in the many additional useful skills available, let alone the need to burn skill points into cross-class skills for many classes to not get bushwacked every time they turn a corner (Listen and Spot come readily to mind), there are not enough skill points to field a well-rounded adventuring party. You depend on ONE character to do everything but smoosh monsters, and even that character contributes to that effort routinely. If that one character just isn't fortunate enough to roll higher than whatever the party is getting bushwhacked by, or whatever ... point is, " game balance " doesn't strike me as hinging on one character in four being the one to make all the critical spot and listen and so on checks.
As to the original point, 2 additional skill points (skills per level) won't do any damage to game balance whatsoever IMO. I've played in games using it to good effect, and the extra skill points were never a contributor to imbalancing a game. (Other house rules of the GMs were responsible for that mess.)
Although I admit, it is mystifying as to why "wise" classes don't get Sense Motive as a class skill ...
Although I admit, it is mystifying as to why "wise" classes don't get Sense Motive as a class skill ...
I've tossed around the idea of giving spellcasting classes all the skills that use their primary ability score. E.g., clerics and druids get Spot, Listen, Sense Motive, etc. Sorcerors get Diplomacy, Handle Animal, etc. I like the concept of the idea, it just seems a bit of a stretch. As Saern pointed out in an earlier post, these characters will be better-than-average at these skills regardless of whether they are class skills. A high ability modifier goes a long way toward ameliorating unskilled use. Thoughts?
Why a straight +2? As it is, the rogue's main attraction (and it is a VERY alluring one) is the number of skill points (I admit I had gotten to the point where almost all my non-spellcasting characters were human, and almost always took their 1st level in rogue). On the other hand, if you add +2/level to everyone, fighters (et al) get double their usual allotment but rogues receive little additional benefit, proportionately speaking (+1/4). I'm not downing the idea so much as reminding everyone that D&D, for better or worse, is a class-based system; any messing with the advancement mechanics has big effects on balance between classes. Elimininating cross-class skills (as my group did) goes a long way towards helping this issue, without making Rogue into "the NPC class of PC classes."
|
|
Here is an example of what I am talking about --
Last night we were playing AoW -- Blackwall Keep. The party got to the keep and found the lizardfolk attacking the keep. They did a few prep spells, got right into battle and overall were doing fairly well -- but were still really outnumbered. The artificer managed to get into the keep and were helping the people inside. After a good number of rounds and roughly half the opposition were taken care of the artificer shouts out to the lizardfolk -- "Most of you have been destroyed and we are doing better than ever -- prepare for the Fog of Death" and he blows on his Horn of Fog (which doesn't do anything more than fog). He has a whole 1 rank in Bluff. Even if he totally botched the roll, I would have most likely made it rather effective and given him bonuses to the roll because of the quick speach he made. As it was he rolled well, the lizardfolk didn't roll as well and the vast majority of the remaining lizardfolk ran away.
My point is that the character didn't need extra points -- the player just needed to use his brain (and the DM -- me -- had to be flexible enough to allow it).
I like what everyone has said, and I just want to continue to throw options out to confuse the situation.
*Look at UA's generic classes. It has a thing where you choose your skills.
That being said, you could open up the classes skill selecitons a little. It doesn't take a change in points. You can dump 2 of the fighters skills, and let them pick any 2 to be in class. This would give you more flexibility without altering the number of skill points.
*Castles and Crusades has a Prime ability, which allows you to have a lower DC on favored skills.
You can take this, and fix the Monk thing. If his favored stat/skills encompass geography, then he would be able to use that skill better.
BTW, Molf is teh best!!!111oneone
The issue of game balance seems to be the recurring one, as well as the most obvious one of " play the game the way that you and your group finds the most enjoyable ". Generally, of course, as has always been the case since tabletop gaming came into being, house rules are often hammered into being the hard way - through play, and lots of it. What seems like a good idea at low level sometimes turns into an untter nightmare at higher level, other times it proves true and the game goes on.
Too few skill points is my perspective and agreement. While it seems disproportionally unfair to the skill-heavy classes, it does not strike me as such simply because it permits those classes to actually develope a real skills envelope outside the ones essential to game survival.
Granted, this " discussion " could easily cycle from its point of inception to the end of the universe and a general agreement or consensus will probably never be achieved. That's what the "official" rules are for ...
I have come across the problem with too few skill points with many character classes...there are number of interesting character ideas which become hard to realize in any effective way because those skill points were missing (or if they had been realized, the characters as adventurers whould have been severely crippled).
One example was one group I have mentioned sometimes before, a traveling circus troupe who have fallen to bad luck. I ended up handing out couple of ranks of perform for everyone because except for rogue nobody could have afforded those ranks, as much as they made sense (and as fun as the idea was). The monk did flashy dancing and acrobatics. The cleric sang beautifully. The fighter (the half-minotaur-half-dwarf murder machine discussed elsewhere) had somewhat bizarre clown act. Fun group but with Rules As Written, really problematic to create.
Offbeat knowledge, craft and profession skills are also such things few people ever take but which bring interesting flavor to characters.
If I were a D&D character I also hadn't put all my skill points in Knowledge(nature) and Craft(alchemy) skills even though they are my profession. I do have bit of Swim, and Climb, and Knowledge(history), and Profession(farmer), and Diplomacy, and Survival, and Knowledge(pop culture reference) among others because that's who I am, not what I do.
I work with the RAW presently, but skill points is one of my stumbling blocks when thinking about the game as well.
I think what some people try to create is a certain feeling for their character, judging from the arguments and examples. Wanting more skill points can be seen as an excuse for power gaming, but I will give the benefit of a doubt.
A character probably has some other training/knowledge/skills than only his professional training (like a cleric with heal, knowledge:religion and concentration), but with only a few skill points, you can´t reflect these odd bits adequately. Just noting down one or two skill ranks in, say profession:fisherman because his father was one, makes the character "feel" more real to the player than having only the the class skills.
(as an aside, I think there is a psychological difference between giving the character a circumstance mod vs. skill ranks - circumstance mods work as well, game-mechanics wise, but just noting down the skill points has a different "feel" to me. I can´t describe it more exactly, as feelings most of the time defy description to me.)
Now you could easily argue that the player should then use his skill ranks for profession:fisherman if that is so central to his character. Right, he could do so. But in doing so, he has less skill points in skills needed game mechanics wise - I have the impression that you very much need some crucial skills as high as you can get them, at least in the start.
As an example: Using the heal skill gives you a DC 15 for first aid. As it might be the only thing standing between the life and death, I would rather see my 1st level cleric having it as high as he possibly, if he runs out of healing spells.
If you have a 1st level cleric with an 16 WIS and max skill ranks in Heal, he has +7 on this check, so he needs to roll an 8 average to make it. Now, in this case, a 35% chance of failure is bad enough, but using skill ranks for other things and taking them away from healing makes things even worse.
(And have a look at Open Locks, where an average lock has a 25 DC)
So, what it comes down to (as I see it) that there is the necessity to have your class skills as high as possible due to game mechanical effects, and this keeps you from using these skill points for character backgrounds and some diversity.
(BTW, I don´t think that maxing out the skills equals powergaming automatically - with some skills, it is necessary for the character to function properly within the RAW.)
Come to think about this topic, I would probably give new PCs a number of skill ranks depending on their background story in skills they "should" have, for free - between two and four, probably.
Stefan
This has indeed been a fascinating thread to read / peruse / post on.
On one side of the fence, we have some who seem to basically say " suck it up and deal with the skill points as is ". On the other side of the fence are those who seem to basically say " I'm not gonna suck it up, because we do not find the game enjoyable to play it that way. "
I can, with hindsight and skimming over the posts thus far in the thread, agree with both sides as presented above.
The " deal with it " side seems to be forgetting that the nastier of the " book " beasties and BBEG's are almost universally built in a min-max fashion on thier skill ranks, leaving other facets out of this particular thread. Dragons are especially virulent examples of this, virtual paragons of statistical scariness, even if thier hit points are statistical average and attributes are " only " built with the so-called " standard" or " elite " ability score arrays (all as described in the MM and its subsequent incarnations). The CR of such creatures spectacularly demonstrate that only characters who have the pertinent skills absolutely maximized stand any real chance of contesting with those creatures. If you peruse the adventure paths, it strikes me (personally as well as what I've seen thusfar in AoW) that such min-maxxing is indeed expected by the designers/writers/et al.
In fairness, however, the " I'm not gonna " side also seems to be wriggling away from the most bluntly phrased question of " why are you doing this ? ". If done so across the spectrum, for PCs, NPCs and critterbeasties alike, then by definition it is balanced. If done soley for the benefit of the PCs then, by definition, it is unbalanced, albiet fun for the players.
As previously stated by other posts on this thread, certain skills *could* easily be justified for compression, as was done with the 3.0 to 3.5 compression of Wilderness Lore into the Survival skill. That was done with no change in terms of the reduction of character skill points from 3.0 to 3.5 - if anything, the # of skill points was increased. (I believe, although I'm certainly not going to spend the time to reference the older PHB at this time, that two or three of the core PHB classes were granted additional skill points.) Specifically, the NPCs and monsters got a big heaping helping of additional skill points and - more importantly - feats by every 3 HD instead of every 4 HD in that changeover.
I suppose that it could be argued that, if anything, the idea is to minimize the workload on the DM/GM by way of making the core / official rules as user-friendly as possible without skewing things too far in favor of the players. If - as previous posters on this thread have repeatedly stated - adding in additional skill points across the board permits thier particular group to have a much more enjoyable game, it is certainly not within our right to harshly condemn them for doing so. It is certainly possible, if not likely, that virtually all campaigns have thier own house rules. The excerpts and notes in the RHoD - let alone the PHB 2 - are vital proof that even the game's gurus themselves are not wholly satisfied with the " official " material to convey the feel of game play that they wish to communicate to thier particular player group.
I cast... Animate Thread!
...
Or is it Ressurect? It doesn't have a Con score, so I guess it's Animate? An undead thread? Eww...
Way off topic.
I just remembered this thread for apparently no reason today, and I'd like to post and comment, for what it's worth, that I think I'm seriously considering removing the purchase of cross class skills at half ranks, laregely because of the headache it imposes for creating multiclassed (and even some single classed) characters above 1st level. I can't even begin to describe the anuristic pain I've gone through trying to design such characters and work out their skill points (all while Sexi Golem laughed at me, to boot!).
In addition, even though I know you don't have to have max ranks in something to be good at it, I think the penalty and rigamarole involved in cross class skills as is deters a lot of people from taking them, which is something I hate to see, because it really helps flesh out and differentiate characters. I know that something doesn't have to be optimal for it to be enjoyable, but it just seems that the penalty is a bit too severe in this case.
I will still impose the limitation that cross class skills can only be raised to a number of ranks equal to half of your class skills (as per the RAW), but will remove the additional burden of having to pay two skill points for a single skill. It's simpler and makes it easier for characters to handle and utilize cross class skills. I also know that this effectively gives the character two skills where they previously bought one, but I don't think it's too big of an issue. The level of proficiency in each of them remains low, relative to their character level, and there are already dozens of posts about DMs who feel their characters are more or less forced to take stereotypical skill selections just to perform within the expectations of the game as written. This way, the fighter can more easily afford to put some training in Diplomacy or Profession: Sailor, or what have you. And it saves sooooo many headaches when having to craft the aforementioned higher-than-first-level character.
Just my belated thoughts. Probably not even worth 2 coppers. I know I wouldn't bother trying to sell them....
People...changing...rules...when...im going to stop typing now.=)
I consider that as a working change though you might want to boost up couple of domain powers then...with that for example power of Trickery domain becomes rather pointless (since clerics still don't have much skill points to boost up those extra class skills to max level).
|
|
For STAP, I did it !!!!
I gave each player their normal skill points +8 points (at 1st level). I'll give them 2 additional points at each level...
It made things possible :
- mage with a few points among several less used [by mages] knowledges (local, history,...),
- cleric with points outside heal / concentration / knowledge religion (having a sailing story in its background, and being a cleric of Farlhanghn, he took a few points in profession : sailor & knowledge : geography ; it could become useful !),
- fighter with a few points in profession : gambler and profession : soldier ...
All in all, it permitted my players to personnalize their PCs without unbalancing the game.
And so far, I have enjoyed the results, and so have my players...
I consider that as a working change though you might want to boost up couple of domain powers then...with that for example power of Trickery domain becomes rather pointless (since clerics still don't have much skill points to boost up those extra class skills to max level).
Yes. When first coming to the game, I was annoyed by the relative "weakness" of those domain powers, although I've come to appreciate them more now. Would you have any suggestions off the top of your head that you'd like to throw out? Perhaps for trickery, a 1/day ability to create some type of distraction, potentially allowing for sneak attacks from mutliclassed cleric/rogues or a cleric's rogue allies?
|
Director of Narrative
|
Saern, I think a better fix would be to keep the cross-class cost and drop the half-level cap. Although I don't intend on doing any of this in one of my campaigns I would love to haer more of how other people's house rules have affected their games.
As far as crunching the skill points on multiclassed characters are you talking about building multiclassed characters from scratch or just the adding of skill points at each new level? The latter is pretty easy to keep up with, but the former can certainly be a pain in the neck. I've gotten heaps better with it from making so many characters in preparation for a game, that never happened, where we were going to start at 10th level. Also most of my enemies in my current campaign are humans or leveled critters, so the crunching the skill point thing has been something I've gotten good at. I completely think it is the way I rollup characters. I start with a fresh sheet of paper and make what ends up looking like a rough sketch/notes of a homemade character sheet. When I tally up skill points I have initials of what skills are available or that I want to focus on for each class next to the tally of how many points they get for the levels of the class. I also keep a separate line for 1st level.
It's weird that you ressurected this thread because me and one of my friends that I'm starting a new game with, outside of my current group I DM for, was talking about skill points and some of his gripes about them and I remembered this thread and used some of the examples posted here in my conversation. When I went back and read one of my earlier posts it was spot on with what I had said to him. Weird.
Yes. When first coming to the game, I was annoyed by the relative "weakness" of those domain powers, although I've come to appreciate them more now. Would you have any suggestions off the top of your head that you'd like to throw out? Perhaps for trickery, a 1/day ability to create some type of distraction, potentially allowing for sneak attacks from mutliclassed cleric/rogues or a cleric's rogue allies?
The Waking Lands had a cleric tweak that I quite liked. In essence (as I understand it), for every two class skills added to a Cleric's list by his domains, he gains an extra skill point each level (4 at first, obviously) which must be spent on one of his domain skills. This makes the Knowledge Domain significantly nicer, obviously, but it also works nicely to make the Trickery Domain (and others like it) more attractive.
I always liked the Trickery Domain, though. Then, one of my favorite NPCs for a long time was a Cleric of Iuz with the domains of Trickery and Pain. Invisibility is a very good thing to have access to.
The Waking Lands had a cleric tweak that I quite liked. In essence (as I understand it), for every two class skills added to a Cleric's list by his domains, he gains an extra skill point each level (4 at first, obviously) which must be spent on one of his domain skills. This makes the Knowledge Domain significantly nicer, obviously, but it also works nicely to make the Trickery Domain (and others like it) more attractive.
I always liked the Trickery Domain, though. Then, one of my favorite NPCs for a long time was a Cleric of Iuz with the domains of Trickery and Pain. Invisibility is a very good thing to have access to.
Oh, I like that suggestion. For spells I do like those Trickery and Knowledge domains, they bring interesting flavor to the character, but domain powers were rather weak.
Other idea, at least for Trickery, would be giving a +X to a skill n times/day. For knowledge skills that wouldn't work that well though since you need a rank in the skill to use it...