So, Saga skill system might be more 'heroic' in nature, enabling *all* characters to be 'jacks-of-all-trades', which becomes rather boring in the long run. As I said, it might fit Star Wars thematically, but in a 'medieval fantasy' role-playing game it feels a bit out of place...
I'm sorry, but I just have to disagree with you here. For the sake of argument, let me throw out a few medieval fantasy characters, and I'll stay away from "the lead character" just to make a point...
Gandalf - (Lord of the Rings) can craft fireworks, ride horses, lead troops in battle, organize a siege, notice things, negotiate with kings, heal injuries, read ancient languages and do all kinds of other wizardly stuff.
Aragorn - (Lord of the Rings) can track, gather herbs, sneak around, lead troops, notice things, climb, jump, swim, lie convincingly, speak elvish, write poetry and songs, sing, play music, negotiate with kings, handle a sailing ship and a canoe, heal injuries, and so on.
al'Lan Mandragoran (The Wheel of Time) can track, sneak, climb, jump, ride, notice things, lead troops, care for animals, make bows, lie convincingly, run for long distances, handle a ship and god knows what else.
Mat Cauthon (The Wheel of Time) can sneak, climb, jump, ride, notice things, lead troops, care for animals, make bows, lie convincingly, gamble, juggle, play the harp and the flute, speak ancient languages, seduce queens, and I forget what else.
I could go on with more examples like Conan, Fafhrd, the Grey Mouser, or characters from Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire, or Williams' Memory, Sorrow and Thorn, or any of dozens of characters in fantasy novels that are multi-talented, but I think the point has been made.
I'm sorry, but I just have to disagree with you here. For the sake of argument, let me throw out a few medieval fantasy characters, and I'll stay away from "the lead character" just to make a point...
Gandalf - (Lord of the Rings) can craft fireworks, ride horses, lead troops in battle, organize a siege, notice things, negotiate with kings, heal injuries, read ancient languages and do all kinds of other wizardly stuff.
Aragorn - (Lord of the Rings) can track, gather herbs, sneak around, lead troops, notice things, climb, jump, swim, lie convincingly, speak elvish, write poetry and songs, sing, play music, negotiate with kings, handle a sailing ship and a canoe, heal injuries, and so on.
al'Lan Mandragoran (The Wheel of Time) can track, sneak, climb, jump, ride, notice things, lead troops, care for animals, make bows, lie convincingly, run for long distances, handle a ship and god knows what else.
Mat Cauthon (The Wheel of Time) can sneak, climb, jump, ride, notice things, lead troops, care for animals, make bows, lie convincingly, gamble, juggle, play the harp and the flute, speak ancient languages, seduce queens, and I forget what else.
I could go on with more examples like Conan, Fafhrd, the Grey Mouser, or characters from Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire, or Williams' Memory, Sorrow and Thorn, or any of dozens of characters in fantasy novels that are multi-talented, but I think the point has been made.
Yes, you're correct - those are fine examples of multi-talented characters is fantasy *fiction* (literature). I'd also like to point out that Mat's skills mostly come from the memories of a thousand dead men. Conan, Fafhrd and Grey Mouser are all 'multi-classed' (rogue) characters (dual-classed in AD&D) and thus have many talents and skills because of that. Gandalf is a Maia (Demipower) and more resourceful than any Epic-level character. Lan might be statted as a fighter/rogue/ranger in almost any combination of the classes .
Besides, it'd not be terribly hard to stat the rest of these characters in 3.X Edition, too, if you spread skill points somewhat evenly among these skills and do not try to 'max-out' every skill (I personally think that +10 total skill modifier means that a character is exceptionally 'skilled'). They also all happen to be more intelligent and crafty than your average Joe Fighter, Joe Barbarian, Joe Paladin or Joe Ranger - thus they'd have much more skill points at their disposal.
Yet I was speaking of *single-classed* D&D (fantasy role-playing game) characters having unrealistic skill modifiers. It is perfectly fine to have these 'all-knowing' mentor/leader-types in a fantasy novel, but I'd hate to see *ALL* PCs turning into such. Can you, for example, imagine that *every* high-level wizard would resemble an 'amalgam' between Aragorn and Gandalf (e.g. good at Riding, Persuasion, Climbing, Survival, Healing, Spellcraft, etc.) - sans melee fighting skills, of course.
First, I want to say that your last point (quoted above) seems to be a prime example of the Stormwind Fallacy. An example where a player WASTES character skills in Craft to justify its role play value is just what the Fallacy is all about.
Uh, I didn't mention anything about "wasting" those skill points to "justify" the role-playing value of Craft skills. I have wanted to create an elven smith (fighter/wizard - think Celebrimbor or Eöl in Middle-Earth) for a long time. I just wanted to have a character that could create masterwork and magical arms and armor in order to *SELL* them for profit, or to *create* specific items to each party member. This would require investing points heavily in Armorsmithing, Weaponsmithing and Bowmaking and taking a few Item Creation feats, but I think it'd be worth it (at least financially).
...I just wanted to have a character that could create masterwork and magical arms and armor in order to *SELL* them for profit, or to *create* specific items to each party member. This would require investing points heavily in Armorsmithing, Weaponsmithing and Bowmaking and taking a few Item Creation feats, but I think it'd be worth it (at least financially).
With a Saga-like system you would still be able to all of that without having to sacrifice basic abilities like Perception (Search, Spot & Listen). I'm sure that the 4e version of the skill list will include Craft slots.
I admire that you want your character to stand out and not be like every other character, but I think the thing I don't understand is why you are against every character having a chance to succeed at most tasks.
The problem the Saga-like skill system solves is one that was mentioned earlier in this thread about how not having a PC in the group with a particular skill can rob the group of a potential for role playing. Having an expert in Decipher Script in the party is great, but when an adventure (or at least elements of an adventure) is lost because no one put ranks in a skill, that's no fun for anyone.
You lost me there. That is simply not true. Have you actually played SWSE?
Alright, let's assume that we have two 10th level rogues statted in SW Saga skill system. Both have Dex 17, so assuming that neither of them are going to 'focus' in a skill, they have +18 modifier in skills that they've invested in ('skilled'), and +8 modifier in all their untrained Dex-based skills. Tell me - where lies the difference between the two? Both are 'skilled' in Stealth, and thus have +18 Skill Modifier in it, while in 3.X Edition one of them might have 'maxed' it out and the other had only 6 ranks in it (depending on what kind of concept their players had in mind). I think 3.X Edition gave you more options in its skill system, so that you could have a rogue that was only marginally talented in picking pockets or hiding, but he was a master locksmith or acrobat. That versatility is lost in SW Saga, although *thematically* this kind of system might fit a heroic space opera better.
I'm hoping they'll do a little tweak on Saga skills. Consolidate the list but include:
Non-class skills: advance at +1/2 per character level. Class skills: advance at +3/4 per character level. Trained skills: advance at +1 per character level.
With a Saga-like system you would still be able to all of that without having to sacrifice basic abilities like Perception (Search, Spot & Listen). I'm sure that the 4e version of the skill list will include Craft slots.
I admire that you want your character to stand out and not be like every other character, but I think the thing I don't understand is why you are against every character having a chance to succeed at most tasks.
The problem the Saga-like skill system solves is one that was mentioned earlier in this thread about how not having a PC in the group with a particular skill can rob the group of a potential for role playing. Having an expert in Decipher Script in the party is great, but when an adventure (or at least elements of an adventure) is lost because no one put ranks in a skill, that's no fun for anyone.
Don't tell me that your DM writes adventures that are practically 'unplayable' unless your PCs have ranks in a certain skill?
Any DM worth his salt knows that all problems, encounters or adventures should have more than one solution or path to complete/solve them. Besides, players often use means or tactics that you haven't even thought about. And I don't think that a DM should ever let the action 'freeze' completely if the PCs do something unpredictable or are unable to solve a situation.
As to why I am against D&D using SW Saga's skill system... as I posted above, I find it a bit boring and even 'unrealistic' if *EVERY* character is talented (even 'marginally) at almost everything and you just keep getting better at them as you're leveling up (even when you have *never* practised or tried a skill in your life).
I don't have too much of a problem with the 3rd edition skill system. The only thing I tend to alter about it in my games are the DCs, some of which are far too low--for example, according to the PHB a Knowledge check of DC 25 can tell you all kinds of deep and dark secrets that have been forgotten by most people in the world, but someone of 4th or 5th level or higher can hit a DC 25 pretty much 50% of the time, which means that it is not actually that rare. I like the idea of making Tumble an opposed check as well, kind of like Grapple vs Escape Artist--I will definitely implement that in my next game.
However, the biggest problem I have with the 3rd edition skill system is how the Craft skills are handled. It is so overly complicated that, at least in my own experience, players pretty much avoid it. I have read everything I could about the upcoming 4th edition, but I am disappointed to see that all the attention has gone to combat, which is something I think 3rd edition could handle quite well. If WoTC is going to insist upon revamping DnD, I really hope they pay some attention to the Craft skills.
Alright, let's assume that we have two 10th level rogues statted in SW Saga skill system. Both have Dex 17, so assuming that neither of them are going to 'focus' in a skill, they have +18 modifier in skills that they've invested in ('skilled'), and +8 modifier in all their untrained Dex-based skills. Tell me - where lies the difference between the two? Both are 'skilled' in Stealth, and thus have +18 Skill Modifier in it, while in 3.X Edition one of them might have 'maxed' it out and the other had only 6 ranks in it (depending on what kind of concept their players had in mind). I think 3.X Edition gave you more options in its skill system, so that you could have a rogue that was only marginally talented in picking pockets or hiding, but he was a master locksmith or acrobat. That versatility is lost in SW Saga, although *thematically* this kind of system might fit a heroic space opera better.
A 10th Level Rogue should be good at the untrained uses of a Stealth skill! If you wanted your Rogue to be really good at any skill including locksmithing or acrobatics you could take a Feat or 2 to represent this and I might decide to take Feats in different Skills, therein lies the customization options without sacrificing the things a party looks to your Class to be good at. If my Rogue spends all of his Skill Points on Crafting, the party is going to be pretty peeved when I can't open a lock.
Asgetrion wrote:
...As to why I am against D&D using SW Saga's skill system... as I posted above, I find it a bit boring and even 'unrealistic' if *EVERY* character is talented (even 'marginally) at almost everything and you just keep getting better at them as you're leveling up (even when you have *never* practised or tried a skill in your life).
So you're okay with fighting Vampires and Dragons as long as the Skill system is "realistic"?!? Either suspend your disbelief or don't. Perhaps that is unfair, do you allow anything fantastic in your campaign world? If so, why must the minutia of the Skill Point System be so important? I know you have answered this question, I am asking rhetorically so that you might rethink your adherance to this system. Would you really enjoy playing your character less under a Saga-like skill system? Would a Saga-like skill system make levelling easier and more accessible to more players?
As far as increasing skills you've practiced goes, I remember the old Sierra games that only allowed your character's skills to increase through use. It was tedious to spend hours attempting to climb a tree just to improve your Climb skill so that you could complete a quest that involved retrieving a ring from a nest. Belive me when I say that a system where skills improve only through use will not increase your fun level.
Besides in the current Skill Point system, players of certain Classes (Rogues in particular) could max out Ranks in a skill in the span of only 1 Level without having ever used the skill before so where's the difference? In the old system I had to spend time allocating points where as in a Saga-like system if I want to be good at a Skill I choose a Feat to reflect it otherwise my hard earned Level and natural ability are all I need to give an untrained use of a skill a go.
Alright, let's assume that we have two 10th level rogues statted in SW Saga skill system. Both have Dex 17, so assuming that neither of them are going to 'focus' in a skill, they have +18 modifier in skills that they've invested in ('skilled'), and +8 modifier in all their untrained Dex-based skills. Tell me - where lies the difference between the two? Both are 'skilled' in Stealth, and thus have +18 Skill Modifier in it, while in 3.X Edition one of them might have 'maxed' it out and the other had only 6 ranks in it (depending on what kind of concept their players had in mind). I think 3.X Edition gave you more options in its skill system, so that you could have a rogue that was only marginally talented in picking pockets or hiding, but he was a master locksmith or acrobat. That versatility is lost in SW Saga, although *thematically* this kind of system might fit a heroic space opera better.
So, you haven't played SWSE.
Your two Dex 17, 10th level scoundrels (aka rogue) in SWSE could have +8 (untrained), +13 (trained), or +18 (focused) in Stealth. Your 3.X maxed out rogue would have +16 and the 6 ranks rogue would have +9. I don't see the SWSE numbers to be that impossible to play with. Even if 4e rules were exactly like SWSE (which they most likely won't be), I'd put the first rogue down as trained and focused, while the second is untrained.
So, even if they both have the same class, level and Dexterity, they can be very different in their Stealth skill. If you want your character even better at Stealth, there are also talents (eg Improved Stealth, Hidden Movement) to choose from.
