|
6 years ago ::
Sep 12, 2007 - 9:09AM
#41
|
Date Joined:
Aug 22, 2007
|
One of the biggest problems with skills in 3.x was they were too many and not enough skill points, as well as having waaaay too many modifiers tacked on (syngergy, racial bonus, feat bonus, circumstance bonus, enhancement bonus, etc.). Designing an adventure with any kind of skill-based challenge had to be tailored to the party in question - having the group make a balance check at high levels would produce strange results; the monk with balance would succeed on a 1, while the fullplate wearing dwarf could not succeed at all. Thus, you couldn't make the skill-based challenge too terribly detrimental. Most of the time that balance check would be replaced with a reflex save to maintain some parity.
The Saga system reduces the number of skills overall, and allows for an adventure designer to assume that all parties of a given level have a base-level of competency with a certain skill.
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Sep 12, 2007 - 10:04AM
#42
|
Date Joined:
Nov 19, 2006
|
The Saga system reduces the number of skills overall, and allows for an adventure designer to assume that all parties of a given level have a base-level of competency with a certain skill.
And that is a great strength of the SAGA system, one I think the designers of D&D 4E would be remiss to leave behind.
I can tell though the community is pretty split on this issue though. It will be interesting to see what the WOTC folks eventually decide upon. Only time will tell.
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Sep 12, 2007 - 2:02PM
#43
|
Date Joined:
Aug 17, 2007
|
I’m a sucker for the skill points system, but I must confess I look forward to a simpler system for skills. The reason is that the group I’m playing in is divided in two groups. Those who care about skill points, and the ones who don’t care. As a DM it’s frustrating too see characters sheets that filled with obvious mistakes, like the 10th level wizard with 13 ranks in listen and spot (its cross-classed?), or the druid with 6 skill points less than the character is supposed to have. Making the rules faster and easier is a good thing, even if it means that I can’t spend hours figuring out how to place the last and final point. Simply because off the fact that not all players enjoy the skill point system as much as me. These guys are nerds all the way, but not rule hawk nerds (we made a setting together). There should be room for all players in D&D. The new talent three systems seems a good way to customise your character in a new and more substantial way.
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Sep 12, 2007 - 2:18PM
#44
|
Date Joined:
Jun 23, 2005
|
And that is a great strength of the SAGA system, one I think the designers of D&D 4E would be remiss to leave behind.
I can tell though the community is pretty split on this issue though. It will be interesting to see what the WOTC folks eventually decide upon. Only time will tell.
SW Saga may certainly 'speed' things up and make PC/NPC creation a lot easier, but its skills system is a lot more restricted than skills in 3.X Edition. I feel that the three 'ranks' or 'steps' lack depth and there is really not enough difference between two characters of the same level and class.
I am also a bit leery of 4E (possibly) dividing skills into 'non-heroic' (defined freely by yourself) and 'heroic' (defined by ranks, feats and attributes) categories. One option would be to categorize skills into 'Martial' (Climb, Jump, Ride, Stealth, Persuasion, etc.) and 'Trained' (Craft, Spellcraft, Knowledge, Profession, Decipher Script, etc.) skills. 'Martial' skills would work like 'untrained' checks in 3.X edition (i.e. you can try them even if you don't have ranks in the skill) and 'Trained' skills could only be used if you had ranks in it.
All the skills would be measured in 'steps' -- Unskilled (0 + Attribute Modifier), Novice (1/4 of your level + Attribute Modifier), Skilled (Half your level + Attribute Modifier) and Focused (Your level + Attribute Modifier). You could become 'Focused' in your Class Skills only. I would also like to keep the Synergy Bonuses in the system, since they made a lot of sense (e.g. your high Bluff skill gives you bonuses in Sense Motive) and were not *that* complex to keep track of.
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Sep 12, 2007 - 2:53PM
#45
|
Date Joined:
Jun 13, 2007
|
I would love to see something similar to SW:Saga.
—fo diggity
Twitter: www.twitter.com/fodigg
Comic Books You Should Have Read: http://tinyurl.com/ycxe9l7
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Sep 12, 2007 - 4:54PM
#46
|
Date Joined:
Oct 30, 2006
|
I agree that this new system will take it lighter on the shoulders of DM, and make leveling up faster and easier. But am sure going to miss my skill points  , I loved to carefully distribute my skill points among skills. But... Since we're on the subject, a question to those who (have) play(ed) SWSE: How does skill purchasing work? Do you choose at first level in which skills you want to be trained and that's it, or can you aquire training in other skills along the way? If you can, is that a feat, or a natural option depending or character level or something?
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Sep 12, 2007 - 7:42PM
#47
|
Date Joined:
Jun 19, 2005
|
Consider this: rewards and sacrifices are *both* important aspects in any system. If you eliminate all the *mechanical* sacrifices, you end up with a poorly balanced system. So far we've read about 'feats at every level', 'no XP costs or feats to create magic items', 'more skills', 'more powerful multi-classing'... all these are good examples of in-game sacrifices that you had to think about - do I *really* want to lose a level to complete my staff? Do I *really* want my cleric to have that Specialization? Do I *really* want to max-out my Hide and Move Silently, but leave no ranks for Spot?
Your not getting rid of rewards and sacrifices with the new system, your just getting different decisions. Feats at every level = you now have to pick from a pool of awsome feats since they are trying to make them all useful. If they are all attractive then there will be more that you will actually feel bad about not taking. No XP costs or feats to create magic items = theyve mentioned that they are still working on this but they are considering alternate resources that PCs would need to expend to craft. More skills = you still have to pick which ones your trained in. More powerful multi-classing = This is the big one. Since multiclassing works better, you know actually have a hard decision as to whether you want to multiclass or stay with the same class. The decisions are just as tough as they have been, they are just different.
But... Since we're on the subject, a question to those who (have) play(ed) SWSE:
How does skill purchasing work? Do you choose at first level in which skills you want to be trained and that's it, or can you aquire training in other skills along the way?
If you can, is that a feat, or a natural option depending or character level or something?
You have to spend a feat to pick up extra skills after 1st level, but its not a big sacrifice if you choose to do so since you get bonus feats every other level.
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Sep 13, 2007 - 4:42AM
#48
|
Date Joined:
Aug 17, 2007
|
I agree that this new system will take it lighter on the shoulders of DM, and make leveling up faster and easier. But am sure going to miss my skill points , I loved to carefully distribute my skill points among skills.
I don't see why would it make easier on the DM and I see no demand for easy level up. Leveling up is not something that is done 2-5 times per session, so it needs to be quick. It can be as slow as you want as it will only happen every so often.
Combat needs to be quick because that is supposed to happen a lot. But I do not see any indication that combat will be simpler, as in AD&D times.
How does skill purchasing work? Do you choose at first level in which skills you want to be trained and that's it, or can you aquire training in other skills along the way?
If you can, is that a feat, or a natural option depending or character level or something?
select at 1st level, and then you can acquire more with feats.
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Sep 13, 2007 - 5:01AM
#49
|
Date Joined:
Nov 19, 2006
|
But I do not see any indication that combat will be simpler, as in AD&D times.
Simpler? Guess you didn't play the same game that I did. Sorry, didn't mean to derail but I had to say that.
What I am seeing is some people enjoy the customization levels of the 3E system. That is fine. The core problem I have with the current system is that is does not matter to all characters. Something that "at a glance" looks like it should be central to all characters has ended up being arbitrary and inconsequential to some.
With the SAGA system you can still specialize in skills if you wish. No, it is not as detailed as placing each point but you can still do it. And it ensures skills are important to everyone which just isn't the case in D&D atm.
It's almost like the skill system was built to cater to those classes/players who want to fine tune this part of the character but remains unimportant to others. Reminds me of the old Player's Options and not something that is core to the game. And I am of the firm belief that skills need to be core to the game and something should be done to make them so.
The SAGA skill system is the best system imho.
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Sep 13, 2007 - 5:59AM
#50
|
|
|
My wishlist for skills:
- Rewrite spells to work with skills rather than trump them.
- Allow people with skills to do amazing things with skills. No more DC100 to climb a ceiling when a 2nd level spell does the same thing.
- Broader skills.
- A class should not be dependent on a single skill, yet allow a player to not have that skill.
- Think about how skills are used in the game, and why they are used. Use that to rewrite skills. Verisimilitude does not guarantee a playable game mechanic.
|
|
|
