|
So, I like the idea of having skill ranks; but I'm somewhat concerned about the implementation. I'll test it out at a few different levels as-is before I muck with it, but some things pop out at me as immediate concerns:
1. At low levels, training seems to make very little difference.
2. The number of 'good skills' you have is very limited, and generally seems to have little relation to the number of class skills you get. Particularly where you're relying on a combination of skill increases and skill feats to make the skills any good. So, 'Training' seems to be the new "I put 1 rank in each of my class skills", and the number of actually good skills you get goes down for nearly everyone except for fighters, and everybody *really* only gets like 2.33 skills they're actually good at (4.66 for rogues), and the rest are going to be nearly the same for everyone.
3. At high levels, except for gated task types on your two skills, there seems to be little difference between legendary and untrained. Even less difference for everything else you do except for your 2 legendary skills, since everything else will basically be stuck at 'trained' dabbler levels the whole game.
4. Locking skill uses behind feats drastically depowers skills, as now, if a skill use isn't specifically spelled out, the assumption is now that the skill doesn't cover that, rather than the inverse. Which, I mean, great, clarity on what exactly skills are capable of is a good thing, but I feel like we'll need more uses designed to cover what you're allowed to attempt with your skills to fill in gaps that will be unfilled, and then they need to decide what rank skill is allowed to attempt them, and if it's beyond trained, you need fancy skill feats for it, too.
So, a few concerns.