Limiting extreme skills


Homebrew and House Rules


So... I am considering a system to limit extreme skills.

The game gets a bit... rediculous when a character achieves a skill level that pretty much negates cirtain aspects of the game.

beyond the simple difficulty of building an adventure around a character with +30 or +40 to a skill comes the issues of group balance.

even more difficult comes the issues related to players knowing they have tweeked their character to some ungodly level demanding an ungodly results.

How do you think about this. Do you think that having characters that legally can see an invisible pixy from 100 feet away adds to the game or breaks it.

do you think that anything a player can tweek the rules to do should be acomodated by the GM or is there a mutual responsibility to a balanced game?

should the GM, fased with unreasonably focused characters simply bend the story to mitigate those insane skills or should the players basically get to cake walk where ever their special skills are concerned as a reward for focus?

I am considering a home rule that limits ultra high skills without taking away all incentive to level up a skill.

something relativly simple like at some point skills increase at a rate of 2 for 1 and later 3 for one...

or maybe some kind of RP penalty for excessiov skills (some one with a super high perception gets a penalty to sudden light or sonic attacks as an example.

just exploring the thoughts and ideas.


I likely will draw some hate for this but ohh well. Seeing that skills can pretty much all be made obsolete by spells I have no issue with high skills. At least it takes investment to do so. Feats, traits, items, and so on. Where a full caster just well has to be a full caster.


I say no, if the character has built himself so well towards a certain aspect, then up your game. I say utilize tricks to use their strengths against them, for instance an invisible illusion (if that's possible) to trick the guy with a high perception. For disable device, perhaps a fake lock that automatically purges the contents of treasure chests or immediately hides the contents unless a real lock is opened first, or perhaps a safe word is used. Consider for tracking (survival), creatures levitate or move via trees, perhaps polymorph or transform other creatures into their own type and send them running while they utilize a different method of travel.

Personally? I say use their strengths against them but don't take it away.


blue_the_wolf wrote:


How do you think about this. Do you think that having characters that legally can see an invisible pixy from 100 feet away adds to the game or breaks it.

Adds to it.

Quote:
should the GM, fased with unreasonably focused characters simply bend the story to mitigate those insane skills or should the players basically get to cake walk where ever their special skills are concerned as a reward for focus?

cakewalk

Quote:
I am considering a home rule that limits ultra high skills without taking away all incentive to level up a skill.

please don't do that.

Quote:
something relativly simple like at some point skills increase at a rate of 2 for 1 and later 3 for one...

I'm begging you, please don't do that.

Quote:
or maybe some kind of RP penalty for excessiov skills (some one with a super high perception gets a penalty to sudden light or sonic attacks as an example.

I could kind of see this one, but not with the limited benefit skills currently provide. MAYBE a -1 penalty per +20 to checks?

Kyrt's theoretical skill benefits wrote:


Balancing on wires/tips of tree branches < Balancing on clouds/fog/smoke < balancing on nitrogen

Leaping small buildings < Leaping skyscrapers < leaping mountains

etc etc etc

yes please

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, Contributor

I'm with Kyrt on this one.

If someone wants to build a character that is amazing at skills, let them. They are clearly sacrificing combat ability to be god-like at skills, play it up rather than try and stomp it out.

Give them impossible challenges to perform and play it up when they succeed.

FWIW, the DC to spot an invisible Pixie at 100 feet is pretty darned high. If the pixie is a going to be a hellacious check, its Stealth check is going to be monstrous (+20 for invis, +10 for distance, +16 Stealth).

The DC to jump ridiculous heights is also likely greater than you think. To jump 20 feet vertical, it's DC 80 and double that without a running start. Long jumps can be pretty amazing though, I've seen hasted monks nail 40-50 foot gaps, IMO that's awesome.

Considering by the time these insano skill checks are possible wizards are able to cast spells that make you fly, that make those invisible pixies plain as day, etc etc.

If skill checks are threatening to break your game, how can you deal with spellcasters?

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Yeah, we gotta limit the skill system, it's so overpowered compared to what level 1 spells can do.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
blue_the_wolf wrote:

So... I am considering a system to limit extreme skills.

The game gets a bit... rediculous when a character achieves a skill level that pretty much negates cirtain aspects of the game.

Spider Climb, Fly, Invisibility, Water Walking/Breathing, Charm Person, Zone of Truth, etc.

Effectively means Climb, Stealth, Swim, Diplomacy, Sense Motive, etc. are already useless and still negates certain aspects of the game.

What nerfing the skills does is make mundanes worse, and casters better. Because this game needs that.

blue_the_wolf wrote:
beyond the simple difficulty of building an adventure around a character with +30 or +40 to a skill comes the issues of group balance.

One wonders how you deal with casters who can cast level 2 spells.

blue_the_wolf wrote:
even more difficult comes the issues related to players knowing they have tweeked their character to some ungodly level demanding an ungodly results.

Oh no the players know they're good at something they tried to make themselves good at.

Oh the humanity.

Please stop it they're feeling too good about their accomplishments.

Quit.

Please oh god why.

blue_the_wolf wrote:
How do you think about this. Do you think that having characters that legally can see an invisible pixy from 100 feet away adds to the game or breaks it.

Adds to it. The Ranger that can sense the presence of an invisible pixie farting downwind is so much cooler than the Wizard who casts See Invisibility.

blue_the_wolf wrote:
should the GM, fased with unreasonably focused characters simply bend the story to mitigate those insane skills or should the players basically get to cake walk where ever their special skills are concerned as a reward for focus?

They should not be stopped from being good at something just because you don't like them being good at stuff, no.

blue_the_wolf wrote:
I am considering a home rule that limits ultra high skills without taking away all incentive to level up a skill.

Not possible, considering there's already so little incentive to level up so many skills to begin with.

blue_the_wolf wrote:
something relativly simple like at some point skills increase at a rate of 2 for 1 and later 3 for one...

Please don't.

blue_the_wolf wrote:
or maybe some kind of RP penalty for excessiov skills (some one with a super high perception gets a penalty to sudden light or sonic attacks as an example.

So basically you've taken it to its logical extreme by not only lowering the PCs effectiveness even further below spells, you're actively PUNISHING THEM FOR BEING GOOD AT SOMETHING.

That sounds like a great idea that all of your players will love.

Be sure to let them know that having a Perception score high enough to reliably notice the DC 31 Perception check to find trap is bad and wrong and ruins the game for you so you felt the need to penalize them for it.


blue_the_wolf wrote:

So... I am considering a system to limit extreme skills.

The game gets a bit... rediculous when a character achieves a skill level that pretty much negates cirtain aspects of the game.

beyond the simple difficulty of building an adventure around a character with +30 or +40 to a skill comes the issues of group balance.

even more difficult comes the issues related to players knowing they have tweeked their character to some ungodly level demanding an ungodly results.

How do you think about this. Do you think that having characters that legally can see an invisible pixy from 100 feet away adds to the game or breaks it.

You can not legally see an invisible creature with high perception, you can just pinpoint their location and hope to hit it with a mischance, a see invisibility is still required to reliably attack, but at least you have the tools to be able to counter it. A +40 to the skill will not enable them to pinpoint a stealthing pixie at 100 feet by the way.

Pixies have stealth +16, they get +20 from invisibility, +10 for distance, comes down to +46, taking 10 = DC 56, he "might" be able to succeed, if the pixie does not move it is a DC of 76.

That hardly seems to be a problem, are there any more skill troubles that bother you ?

EDIT: the worst thing I 'might' do is to make skills supernatural at some point, maybe beyond +40, unless I really come to the conclusion it breaks the game, at which point I might adjust or ban things, but I do not see that happening with skills.. keep in mind that to have extremely high skills the players already likely need magical means to achieve that if the problem is that it stops making sense to you.


No no no...

Whenever a char goes far on skills, its resources traded away from other things...

Roll with it instead... Have npc's that are tailored to do skills... If players like skills, use them, don't fight them...

Have skill appropiate items in the loot
Have enough skill rolls that casters will run out of spellsif they try to be better skill monkeys than the skill monkeys...
Let the skill monkey shine (anti magic zones...)
And once in a while... Hit them hard where they haven't spent their resources...


Having super high skills sometimes can be fun, and there should be certain mechanical benefits if you invest heavvily in it imo.

The Exchange

If you want to do that just assume that PC has 1 rank per level in class skills, eliminate the whole skill building aspect of the game, and make the DCs of all skill-checks rise in accordance to level.
In short it would suck.
The whole point of the skill subset is to allow PCs to be great at certain skills, suck at other skills and have a decent ability at some other skills. If you want to swing a nerf-bat at that part of the game you may as well just eliminate most of the customization aspects of the skills subset.
If a PC wants to devote the time and resources into maxing out a skill they should be able to do amazing things with it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Sounds like your basic issue is that you don't like the feel of the game at higher levels, when it basically becomes a superhero game in which all characters, even those without magical powers, become capable of physics and reality-defying stunts. My suggestion, rather than go through the trouble of developing cumbersome house rules to deal with these "superpowers", just limit the games you play to certain levels. For example, cap them at 10. That way, you stay in your comfort zone.

For those who forcefully claim that such superhero skills are necessary to balance the reality-bending nature of casters, I would say that you need to respect the wishes of someone who doesn't want to play a superheroes game.

Certain ridiculous results possible through the skill system simply break all immersion for some people, myself included, and make the game not fun. So we will continue to say characters in full plate cannot swim, no matter what their Strength is and what the rules say, and that noone (human) can jump 20 feet vertically without artificial (magical or mechanical) assistance. Makes the game more fun for us, and we've never had a serious problem with caster/mundane imbalance due to our play style.


The NPC bad guys can also max out skills. I'd imagine that an NPC who maxes out Stealth should have a chance to avoid notice by even the most perceptive PCs. When the guy who always sees everything gets stabbed by the thing he didn't see the surprise will be even sweeter. There will also be situations where the bad guys can take 20.

Other than Perception ruining some ambushes can you give us any specific examples of how high skill modifiers are ruining your game? Some players do try to take things too farm and such attempts should simply be denied.

Here's some nutty stuff I've seen players attempt in the past:
- claiming that their high Bluff skill can cause an NPC to kill, castrate, or blind himself because he believes he'll be instantly healed and gain a Wish (since the PC said so and rolled 50+ Bluff)
- insisting that they can cast Reduce Person and maybe Shrink Item, use Escape Artist to go up an enemy's butt (or put the item there with Sleight of Hand), and then dismiss the spells so that the enemy bursts open (a player attempting this in 3.5 claimed that due to a feat which allowed him to impress people with high skill rolls this would also make any onlookers friendly towards him)
- boosting a 9th level mount's AC to 37 with Mounted Combat so that a dragon misses it (wait, that was me, and actually I think this skill use was ok though the DM wasn't very happy!)

Sovereign Court

blue_the_wolf wrote:

So... I am considering a system to limit extreme skills.

The game gets a bit... rediculous when a character achieves a skill level that pretty much negates cirtain aspects of the game.

beyond the simple difficulty of building an adventure around a character with +30 or +40 to a skill comes the issues of group balance.

even more difficult comes the issues related to players knowing they have tweeked their character to some ungodly level demanding an ungodly results.

Disagree. By the time you get absurdly high skills, ALL the PCs will have gained absurd abilities. Is Perception +30 really more absurd than the ability to teleport, shapeshift into plants with 60ft reach, raise the dead, wade through an army without getting hit, or kill bears with a single blow?

That's simply the nature of higher levels. You think a level 10 character is supposed to be a moderately tough guy? No, a level 10 character is a superhero that can terrify nations. I recommend this article, which shows that level 5 is actually what we'd consider "world class".

blue_the_wolf wrote:


How do you think about this. Do you think that having characters that legally can see an invisible pixy from 100 feet away adds to the game or breaks it.

Adds to it. The player wanted to play someone who's really amazingly good at something. To be that good, he had to give up the opportunity to be something else.

Last session we were fighting in some room with a big altar that altered magic - if you weren't touching it, you couldn't use magic. If you were touching it, you could boost some spells if you succeeded at a DC 20 spellcraft check. It was quite a tough fight, but we'd known for a while that it was coming, IC. My wizard hates the idea of having his magic hindered, so he'd been investing in Spellcraft. I had a +17 Spellcraft, which meant that I was the only reliable spellcaster in that combat. It meant a lot, I was able to really help the party because I'd invested in being able to do precisely that.

So yeah, it adds to it.

blue_the_wolf wrote:


do you think that anything a player can tweek the rules to do should be acomodated by the GM or is there a mutual responsibility to a balanced game?

It's not unbalanced. The player spent resources on this instead of something else. Unbalanced would be if he got that good at it for free.

blue_the_wolf wrote:


should the GM, fased with unreasonably focused characters simply bend the story to mitigate those insane skills or should the players basically get to cake walk where ever their special skills are concerned as a reward for focus?

Cakewalk. The story shouldn't depend on only those skills; it's just one of the challenges. The player decided to be good at that part, so that's easier for that party than for a normal party; but the other parts are still challenging.

blue_the_wolf wrote:


I am considering a home rule that limits ultra high skills without taking away all incentive to level up a skill.

something relativly simple like at some point skills increase at a rate of 2 for 1 and later 3 for one...

or maybe some kind of RP penalty for excessiov skills (some one with a super high perception gets a penalty to sudden light or sonic attacks as an example.

just exploring the thoughts and ideas.

I think that's not a good idea, for the reasons I've given above.


Just remember that reality ends about level 5. Thats why E6 exists. If you are worried about rediculous skills you probably should play something like E6, because it isnt fair to just limit skills. At higher levels, fighters can fall off cliffs into lava and survive, wizards can literally warp time and space, clerics can bring people back from the dead. Why on earth would you then not allow the rogue to bluff a nobleman out of his pants, or walk on water or whatever.

I am definately with kyrt, dont restrict skills, if you need to restrict, restrict everything, or leave it be.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I once had a GM who complained a lot about the skills of my DEX and CHA ninja who focused on social skills because he thought i should not be able to just befriend and diplomacy or bluff most other beings in minutes to my will. He then crippled the way some skills worked, made me play out unrealistic situations or didn´t let it work at all.

We then agreed that i redo the character, because i could not contribute to the game anymore. That was on level 9. Soon after we we made a few levels in no time due to higher CR enemies.

That was when he began regretting what he did, because now i focused on combat and knocked out his critters in no time.
Still i could do a lot iwth my skills, especially stealth and acrobatics.
Ninja´s get a nice acrobatics buff on level 10 and make Yoda jealous on their jumps.

Sovereign Court

I think the GM getting upset because high-level PCs are powerful at something, is just a losing proposition. There's so many ways to be powerful that are entirely, obviously and clearly within the intent of the rules, that you just have to look reality in the face and admit that level 10 characters are already ridiculously powerful.


A character with maximum points in a class skill with a good ability score to go with it SHOULD be great at the skill. The character hyper focused on a half dozen skills will be lacking in other areas. A character who spreads around skill points will be good at a bunch of things but not world class. I'm am OK with the game operating this way.

What specifically is the player doing with the skills that is wrecking the game, and what are some things he is not so good at?


I kind of wish I was there for the game that inspired this idea. What happened? Who completely ruined your plans?

This reminds me of a player completely destroying my long Star Wars campaign idea, within the first game. It was gone after he was done, there was no going back.

To this day, I'll sometimes laugh for hours about it.


If you're having problems with your players twinking out their skills, just tell them to tone it down. Actively limiting the usefulness of skills essentially just tells players that they should be playing spellcasters, who can do most of these high-DC skill checks without rolls in the first place because of their spells.

I can understand to a point; in 3.5 I had a friend in another game who pumped his Jump checks to obscene degrees and then cherry-picked abilities that let him do everything with Jump. It was disruptive and abusive!

...But the problem is the disruptive build, not the idea that skills can matter.


Really, what level are we talking about here that someone is spotting an invisible Pixie from 100 feet away? That's +46 to stealth by my reckoning; without some sort of magic enhancing your perception score, spotting that Pixie only becomes possible around level 15 or so.

If someone has a magic item/spell/consumable powering their skill check, then it's magic. No different than flaming swords or flying boots or statues that turn into monsters to fight at your command. It's a fantasy setting, the characters should be able to do cool and amazing things if they work at being good at them.

Anything can be abused by a player who optimizes for it. You can have people who do obscene things with spells, attacks, combat maneuvers, and even skills. I don't see why that merits any special attention over anything else.


I appreciate all of the responses even the angry/sarcastic ones.

I sometime have these crisis because i want to ensure that the game remains fun for every one and I run into these situations where one player over whelms or "breaks" the game for others.

to be honest if every character had a +40 perception that does not bother me as much as one guy with +25 due to hyper focusing and the others with something more reasonable.

im not really angry or unhappy with the game simply looking for ideas to A) encourage more rounded characters and B) discourage hyper focused min/maxing that is often fun in theory but not fun in practice.

Many people mentioned the abilities of spells.

the difference between spells and skills is that spells have to be used to be effective. they require a resource (spell per day or something) and more player interaction.

having said that dont get me wrong i hate spells that limit interaction also.

as an example... I am playing with 2 groups of players.... for one group they have a super high skill monkey hyper focused in perception. so when they enter a room and say "i do a search" he rolls and expects to have seen everything, traps, secrets, loots, clues, etc.

in the other group they just walk in the room and go "I cast detect magic" and walk out if nothing pings.

both of them are somewhat annoying and ultimately take away from player involvement (in my mind)

I think the idea of E6 is true. thats my favorite level, when players are remarkably strong and heroic but not gods and super heroes.

Ultimately if i am not having fun GMing I will simply not GM. if my players are not having fun playing they will simply not play... my goal is to satisfy both.

Liberty's Edge

blue_the_wolf wrote:

I appreciate all of the responses even the angry/sarcastic ones.

I sometime have these crisis because i want to ensure that the game remains fun for every one and I run into these situations where one player over whelms or "breaks" the game for others.

to be honest if every character had a +40 perception that does not bother me as much as one guy with +25 due to hyper focusing and the others with something more reasonable.

im not really angry or unhappy with the game simply looking for ideas to A) encourage more rounded characters and B) discourage hyper focused min/maxing that is often fun in theory but not fun in practice.

Many people mentioned the abilities of spells.

the difference between spells and skills is that spells have to be used to be effective. they require a resource (spell per day or something) and more player interaction.

having said that dont get me wrong i hate spells that limit interaction also.

as an example... I am playing with 2 groups of players.... for one group they have a super high skill monkey hyper focused in perception. so when they enter a room and say "i do a search" he rolls and expects to have seen everything, traps, secrets, loots, clues, etc.

in the other group they just walk in the room and go "I cast detect magic" and walk out if nothing pings.

both of them are somewhat annoying and ultimately take away from player involvement (in my mind)

I think the idea of E6 is true. thats my favorite level, when players are remarkably strong and heroic but not gods and super heroes.

Ultimately if i am not having fun GMing I will simply not GM. if my players are not having fun playing they will simply not play... my goal is to satisfy both.

Well, I think Brian said it well...if high level gaming...which will mean high level skills...doesn't work for you, start a new game every time the party gets around level 10...just give them a big finish, and move on.

I'd also consider slow advancement...it'll give them more time to play the characters, rather than each adventure path seeming too artificially short.


blue_the_wolf wrote:


I sometime have these crisis because i want to ensure that the game remains fun for every one and I run into these situations where one player over whelms or "breaks" the game for others.

Been there done that, Have the scars of my DM physically beating me...

All joking aside, you ARE the DM.
If your entire story arch, or everything you have planned depends on that invisible pixie remaining unseen, then F*** it, the DC for Perception just increased by 9001

Don't abuse your power to say "NO" as a GM. But don't forget that you have that ability in the first place. Do it subtly, and rarely:
Don't even tell them to make a check.
If they get a vibe and want to make a check anyhow, tell them "You detect Nothing" regardless of the result.
When it comes to social skills like Diplomacy and Intimidation, you SHOULD require them to say something to match their roll, If you don't deem it fitting to convince the person, then it fails.

MIND YOU! This is only for the case of Skills potentially interrupting what has already had heavy story planning behind. OFTEN give your characters the chance to use their skills. If they were SO hyped about Diplomacy to get +10 at level 1, then let them have the rolls, they obviously want it.


Oh yes because skills need to be less useful...

To answer OP question: No

If anything you should make up house rules to buff skill usage.

Players who are good at something are not nails for the GM to hammer down. Let people be good at things.


blue_the_wolf wrote:
to be honest if every character had a +40 perception that does not bother me as much as one guy with +25 due to hyper focusing and the others with something more reasonable.

Have your players mentioned that this is a problem? Because they might really really like the fact that they have a really good lookout to help keep them from being surprised by hidden traps and find secret doors that would have otherwise gone unnoticed so that the rest of them can focus on other skills.

It is a team game, after all.


Had a Barbarian with a +48 Intimidate at level 12. GM didn't count him as scary until after he made an intimidate check for some reason though. lol he's fun.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Homebrew and House Rules / Limiting extreme skills All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Homebrew and House Rules