| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, i was browsing through forums and came to see the same thing that was bugging me about skills lately.
Some of them are worthless. Although i like roleplaying and i always run games based on in instead of combat oriented ones, i have found out that some skills exist only for rare and specific situations.
I find it ridiculus to see wizards who have points to spare for swim and climb, while fighters "cannot actually swim".
So, i ended up to these:
- Swim + Fly + Climb = Athletics
Why: Swim is really situational and heavily depends on whether the campaign is based on a world with lots of water and adventures near water or not.
Climb i find really situational too. Mostly useful for world of low magic, where you can't have fly as 3rd level spell and feather fall as 1st.
Now Fly, this is a skill i never understood it's existance. Unless you are playing in a really high magic world, where you can be a winged creature or have 30 wands of fly with you i see no purpose for it.
- Handle Animal + Ride = Handling
Why: They are both identical and none is worth if the DM is not adding a lot of animals that are not "for xp". And, seriously, unless you have a special mount, riding a default horse with, like, 10-20 hp is two arrow shots worth and you go flying.
- Also i personally prefer to roleplay how players try to convince pcs and such so i will add:
Intimidate + Sense Motive + Diplomacy + Bluff = Psychology
Why: I primarily use those for their basic non-rp uses (like diplomacy for fast-talk, bluff for feint, etc.).
- How i use them: Putting a rank in one of these is like putting a rank in the whole group, though you use each individual's modifier and wheter it's a class skill, you got a skill forcus on it, etc.
Excuse me for the long post but i would really like some opinions on these.
Do you also plan to cut everyone's skills per levels in half?
Why should i?
Fly must be separate from athletics unless you want to make athletics a class skill for wizards and sorcerers.
(or you want to nerf casters)
I suppose half is a bit extreme. But you just merged 4 of the most popular skills.
Actually the bonus from being a class skill still applies, like for wizards the class skill bonus would apply when they roll Athletics for flying and flying manuevers but not when climbing.
EDIT: Cheapy, yes, i believe so, and that would even more favor wizards. I am trying to find a way for martial classes with fewer skills per level to be able to take skills like climb and not think that they are wasting their skill points.
|
Actually the bonus from being a class skill still applies, like for wizards the class skill bonus would apply when they roll Athletics for flying and flying manuevers but not when climbing.
EDIT: Cheapy, yes, i believe so, and that would even more favor wizards. I am trying to find a way for martial classes with fewer skills per level to be able to take skills like climb and not think that they are wasting their skill points.
Why exactly is it a waste for the Fighter to take ranks in climb over something else? As far as I can see, the physical skills are far and away the most popular ones.
Yes Carbon, but what i am saying is that they are situational. How many times are you really going to use climb?
And, even if you do, it will most likely be to climb mountains to reach far regions. By having a rope and some other equipment you can do it easily without spending any ranks in it, as no DM will ever tell you "you failed your climb, you fall and die".
While I understand your rationale for some of those changes, I feel like you might have gone a bit overboard. I could see Handle Animal and Ride merged, and combining Swim with Climb makes sense to me, but your Psychology skill is too much. Perhaps just Diplomacy and Bluff together? Sense Motive should be separate and Intimidate seems more like STRENGTH of personality while Diplomacy and Bluff seem like FINESSE of personality.
One of my biggest skill beefs is with Linguistics. I am hugely against including forgery with languages. I speak several languages and I can't forge a passport. In my games, Forgery and Linguistics are separate.
Maybe forgery should go into bluff? Shrug.
While I understand your rationale for some of those changes, I feel like you might have gone a bit overboard. I could see Handle Animal and Ride merged, and combining Swim with Climb makes sense to me, but your Psychology skill is too much. Perhaps just Diplomacy and Bluff together? Sense Motive should be separate and Intimidate seems more like STRENGTH of personality while Diplomacy and Bluff seem like FINESSE of personality.
One of my biggest skill beefs is with Linguistics. I am hugely against including forgery with languages. I speak several languages and I can't forge a passport. In my games, Forgery and Linguistics are separate.
Well, in the way i use these skills, they are not worth putting ranks into. As i said i use them only for issues that cannot be roleplayed, like bluff for feinting, but not bluff to convince someone you are a prince in disguise or something. I prefer having my players roleplay this.
Oh lord, I would not enjoy that at all. The reason I play the game is to get away from the limits I have in real life, not to have them thrown at me when I'm trying to have fun.
Oh lord, I would not enjoy that at all. The reason I play the game is to get away from the limits I have in real life, not to have them thrown at me when I'm trying to have fun.
I have heard this arguement many many times, and it can go for hours non-stop with neither side being right.
I will tell you that people will use this out of boredom to RP, you will tell me that you should roleplay a bit what you say and then roll, i will tell you that then you can actually bluff a citizen that he is a chicken from space, you will say that i should put restrictions and grant penalties or bonuses according to what one says, i will tell you players will find this unfair, and goes goes goes on...
Hmm, I take it that you've looked at the skill set up for 4th D&D? Might help.
Hmm, I take it that you've looked at the skill set up for 4th D&D? Might help.
I did and it was where i got the idea of Athletics from. I generally prefer less skills that do more things and that are keeping balance between physical skills for martial classes, mental skills for spellcasting classes, while keeping the rogue/bard jack of trades.
Hey there!
My suggestion (and my house-rule):
1) Give ALL classes with 2+INT skill points 4+INT instead
2) Merge CLIMB, SWIM and JUMP into ATHLETICS (Soften Fall remains in Acrobatics)
3) All classes with Climb & Swim as Class Skills receive ATHLETICS instead
(+ the Paladin. Anyone an idea why the Paladin got left behind on these?)
4) Barbarians lose Acrobatics (they had it only because of Jump I believe) and gain Profession instead (they are the only ones without it and there ARE some professions that do fit the barbarian. Besides, its totally underpowered so who cares...)
That it.
You are welcome to check the rest of my house-rules here.
|
I would want to merge some skills that overlap;
Profession(Engineer) and Knowledge(Engineering)
Craft(Calligraphy) and Profession(Scribe), together with the forgery-aspect of Linguistics.
There's also a case to be made for merging Diplomacy and Bluff, because it's odd that you would be much better at lying than convincing people when you're telling the truth.
Hey there!
My suggestion (and my house-rule):
1) Give ALL classes with 2+INT skill points 4+INT instead
2) Merge CLIMB, SWIM and JUMP into ATHLETICS (Soften Fall remains in Acrobatics)
3) All classes with Climb & Swim as Class Skills receive ATHLETICS instead
(+ the Paladin. Anyone an idea why the Paladin got left behind on these?)4) Barbarians lose Acrobatics (they had it only because of Jump I believe) and gain Profession instead (they are the only ones without it and there ARE some professions that do fit the barbarian. Besides, its totally underpowered so who cares...)
That it.
You are welcome to check the rest of my house-rules here.
Hmm... These rules semm like they are complicating more the matter of skills instead of simplifying it.
1) I kind of like the idea of fighter classes having less skill points per level that, let's say, a monk who in his life as a monk, no matter the path he chooses, will learn a few skills.
2) Actually jump is good to be part of acrobatics. I always think of Olympic games when i think about physical skills so, comparing to them, one who can tumble can also jump high or far.
3) Yes, this is a good idea indeed. I won't dissagree.
4) I already give them the profession as class skill if they want (and if they have a reason to have it from background, or they can just pay a background trait for it) but to me it seems reasonable for barbarians to have acrobatics as a class skill. Acrobatics need not be elegant as we imagine it. Like, tumbling could either be a monk-like roll or a swat-like roll.
EDIT: Hmm, i checked out your link, and i really, and i mean REALLY, like your generic armor and weapons homebrew, though the others about fighter and rogue i did not really like. I am even going to employ the generic rules to my games.
I would want to merge some skills that overlap;
Profession(Engineer) and Knowledge(Engineering)
Craft(Calligraphy) and Profession(Scribe), together with the forgery-aspect of Linguistics.
There's also a case to be made for merging Diplomacy and Bluff, because it's odd that you would be much better at lying than convincing people when you're telling the truth.
Actually i perceive profession and knowledge (or perform or craft) as having different effects:
Knowledge Engineering would be that one know lots of recipes and blueprints, can recognise architecture etc. but can't actually himself craft something, only direct others to do so.
Profession Engineer is the builder guy. He knows little of theory and more of practicallity, like he knows that if you mix these two things is bad, but barely from experience (as such a wisdom skill). He can actually craft what others with knowledge tell him.
Craft and Perform Engineering could really not exist i believe.
|
|
The issue I have with K:Engineering and P:Engineer, is that it's so very marginal. Compared to major skills like Perception or Spellcraft, you're getting very little bang for your skill ranks. I'm not very impressed by the fine differences between knowledges and professions, I'd rather merge overlapping things like these, than different things.
As for giving more skill points: I'd sooner give every class +50% skill points than just give it to the 2 points/level classes only.
Oh lord, I would not enjoy that at all. The reason I play the game is to get away from the limits I have in real life, not to have them thrown at me when I'm trying to have fun.I have heard this arguement many many times, and it can go for hours non-stop with neither side being right.
I will tell you that people will use this out of boredom to RP, you will tell me that you should roleplay a bit what you say and then roll, i will tell you that then you can actually bluff a citizen that he is a chicken from space, you will say that i should put restrictions and grant penalties or bonuses according to what one says, i will tell you players will find this unfair, and goes goes goes on...
So you make the players "role-play" instead of using Bluff, Diplomacy, Sense Motive etc. How exactly is that fair? Unless you also...
Do you also expect the Fighter or Barbarian to actually fight or "role-play" breaking down doors etc?
How about the player with Knowledge(Planes),(Religion), (Arcana), do you force them to memorize facts and info for those skills?
I could go on.
Why do you think its a good idea to force players into roles that they might not be good at in real life? Perhaps that shy person always wanted to be a cool secret agent type of person, this game allows them to do so. He could take rogue and focus upon all those skills. But wait you make him role-play it and try to convince "YOU" not the npc of his bluff, diplomacy etc.
Your terrible.
Oh lord, I would not enjoy that at all. The reason I play the game is to get away from the limits I have in real life, not to have them thrown at me when I'm trying to have fun.I have heard this arguement many many times, and it can go for hours non-stop with neither side being right.
I will tell you that people will use this out of boredom to RP, you will tell me that you should roleplay a bit what you say and then roll, i will tell you that then you can actually bluff a citizen that he is a chicken from space, you will say that i should put restrictions and grant penalties or bonuses according to what one says, i will tell you players will find this unfair, and goes goes goes on...
So you make the players "role-play" instead of using Bluff, Diplomacy, Sense Motive etc. How exactly is that fair? Unless you also...
Do you also expect the Fighter or Barbarian to actually fight or "role-play" breaking down doors etc?
How about the player with Knowledge(Planes),(Religion), (Arcana), do you force them to memorize facts and info for those skills?
I could go on.
Why do you think its a good idea to force players into roles that they might not be good at in real life? Perhaps that shy person always wanted to be a cool secret agent type of person, this game allows them to do so. He could take rogue and focus upon all those skills. But wait you make him role-play it and try to convince "YOU" not the npc of his bluff, diplomacy etc.
Your terrible.
Thank you.
Actually, having played some time, i have only seen the "i roll bluff to convince him he is a chicken, look i got a 80 (easily)" and "i told him this elegant lie but i have to roll for bluff and i am a barbarian".
You will answer: Yes, but barbarians are not supposed to be able to bluff as good as rogues.
And i will tell you that this means that the social characters you can only play are bards and sorcerers.
All players can speak and shy players will either not play or roleplay, if you go to a game just to stand at the corner and roll dice, then there are nice wargames for you.
To mention what a friend of mine said:
"You roll diplomacy to convince him to get a 10% raise at selling prices? He is a master trader, i am rolling his +50 bonus to diplomacy for you to give him all your belongings for this stonish stone which will aid you once in your adventures and will deal 1d3 damage. It's really a good trade he says."
Since then my perceptives changes a lot.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think that Diplomacy and Bluff can actually be combined quite well with RP, and may make things easier for shy-ish players who aren't terribly glib. I it like this:
* You want want to adjust an NPC's attitude. So you tell the DM: I'm going to try to improve his attitude by saying some nice things about the medals he's wearing and how he must be a true patriot, and that our party are on the same side as him, using those orc skulls as graphic evidence. DM: "okay, roll Diplomacy, with a +2 bonus for props."
* You want to go into the ball without an invitation. "I want to Bluff the guard, explaining that we're on the guest list attached to the delegation from so-and-so, but that bad weather soaked our invitations. I'm showing some rain-sodden stuff with the official letterhead." DM: "okay, roll Bluff."
The RP part is when the player describes roughly how they're gonna get what they want, what arguments/props they're using. The dice decide if it works, not whether the player is a really smooth talker.
To mention what a friend of mine said:
"You roll diplomacy to convince him to get a 10% raise at selling prices? He is a master trader, i am rolling his +50 bonus to diplomacy for you to give him all your belongings for this stonish stone which will aid you once in your adventures and will deal 1d3 damage. It's really a good trade he says."
Since then my perceptives changes a lot.
This is why Diplomacy is specifically mentioned as not working on PCs.
You can change the initial attitudes of nonplayer characters with a successful check.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think that Diplomacy and Bluff can actually be combined quite well with RP, and may make things easier for shy-ish players who aren't terribly glib. I it like this:
* You want want to adjust an NPC's attitude. So you tell the DM: I'm going to try to improve his attitude by saying some nice things about the medals he's wearing and how he must be a true patriot, and that our party are on the same side as him, using those orc skulls as graphic evidence. DM: "okay, roll Diplomacy, with a +2 bonus for props."
* You want to go into the ball without an invitation. "I want to Bluff the guard, explaining that we're on the guest list attached to the delegation from so-and-so, but that bad weather soaked our invitations. I'm showing some rain-sodden stuff with the official letterhead." DM: "okay, roll Bluff."
The RP part is when the player describes roughly how they're gonna get what they want, what arguments/props they're using. The dice decide if it works, not whether the player is a really smooth talker.
Exactly. This way its more about the in-game character and not about the person in real life.
Oh lord, I would not enjoy that at all. The reason I play the game is to get away from the limits I have in real life, not to have them thrown at me when I'm trying to have fun.I have heard this arguement many many times, and it can go for hours non-stop with neither side being right.
I will tell you that people will use this out of boredom to RP, you will tell me that you should roleplay a bit what you say and then roll, i will tell you that then you can actually bluff a citizen that he is a chicken from space, you will say that i should put restrictions and grant penalties or bonuses according to what one says, i will tell you players will find this unfair, and goes goes goes on...
So you make the players "role-play" instead of using Bluff, Diplomacy, Sense Motive etc. How exactly is that fair? Unless you also...
Do you also expect the Fighter or Barbarian to actually fight or "role-play" breaking down doors etc?
How about the player with Knowledge(Planes),(Religion), (Arcana), do you force them to memorize facts and info for those skills?
I could go on.
Why do you think its a good idea to force players into roles that they might not be good at in real life? Perhaps that shy person always wanted to be a cool secret agent type of person, this game allows them to do so. He could take rogue and focus upon all those skills. But wait you make him role-play it and try to convince "YOU" not the npc of his bluff, diplomacy etc.
Your terrible.
Thank you.
Actually, having played some time, i have only seen the "i roll bluff to convince him he is a chicken, look i got a 80 (easily)" and "i told him this elegant lie but i have to roll for bluff and i am a barbarian".
You will answer: Yes, but barbarians are not supposed to be able to bluff as good as rogues.
And i will tell you that this means that the social characters you can only play are bards and sorcerers.
All players can speak and...
So you didn't answer my question. If that is how you run Bluff and Diplomacy then do you also do the same for every other skill?
If not you're not being fair. You're just punishing people in really life for not being good at talking.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So by merging Diplomacy, Bluff, and Intimidate, I could say, in Common, that I don't speak Common...and make it sound both polite and threatening with an utterly minmaxed score.
Oh this would be a wonderful time to introduce door to door salesmen.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you're a character that can beat a DC 80 roll "easily" you're already essentially a god. By the time you can fool the hell out of people, other characters are creating dimensions of existence at a whim.
Still, I don't see how you can even roll 80 on a bluff check by core itself, unless allow a specific homemade item for it.
I can see 23 (base) +16 (cha) +8 (feats) +2 (mw item) = +49. Granted, that's just eying it, so even if we count a bit higher at +60 it's still going to take a natural 20. And that's for a character that has maxed it, has it as a class skill, AND has skill focus and persuasive (plus something else granting +11).
And at level 20, if you're specialized in bluffing, you SHOULD be able to do that. You should be able to tell an adult dragon that it's just a polymorphed flask of Jaegermeister and have it try to drink itself.
You should be able to tell an adult dragon that it's just a polymorphed flask of Jaegermeister and have it try to drink itself.
So THAT'S where we came up with the Ouroboros.
You should be able to tell an adult dragon that it's just a polymorphed flask of Jaegermeister and have it try to drink itself.So THAT'S where we came up with the Ouroboros.
Nope. Said it was a collie and watched it chase its tail quite successfully.
The issue with "I make my guys Rp it and to heck with those skills" is that not everyone is as good at it as someone else.
But our characters may be.
I may have a stutter and not be terribly witty and lack the ability to effect a quick thinking wit, nor do I know the intricasies of the ettiquette of talking to the nobility.
My character though may be an int 14 charisma 27 bard with maxed ranks in all the relevant social skills who by all accounts should be able to talk his way out of an attempted assassination attempt on the king. (well ok not really- skills don't solve everything).
Now should the bard RP social interactions? Abso-freaking-lutely. Dice rolling is no excuse to not Rp. But while I stutter my tongue into a knot and can't remember the name of the King's second cousin's best friend's room mate- my character is a smooth talking, silver tongued, intelligent guy who should have no issue *at all* in that conversation.
So yeah- RP it. But when the Rp is done, roll the dice, and move on.
I, myself, can't possibly effectively Rp being the Crown Prince. Why? Because there are a million things people could ask me that I can't possibly answer.
("well if yuo are really the prince you'll know where my scar is and where I got it. No? It hought not!? GUARDS!" because *I* don't know that he got it on his 3rd boar hunt when he tripped and got a deep gash across his left arse cheek or something). My character though does- assuming I've built him with the appropriate knowledges and social skills and abilities.
Using skills is no excuse to not RP the stuff out. But RP is no excuse to not have the skills either.
If wanted to just be myself I'd save a ton of money and skip D&D and just go hang out with my friends. I don't need to go to a D&D game and Rp "What does Selgard know". I'd much rather go there and play Manias the 14th level witch.
-S