|
9 months ago ::
Aug 29, 2012 - 3:54PM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Jan 28, 2010
|
Unnecessary:
We don't need "Undead lore" as long as we have "Religion" or "Arcane Lore"
(we also don't need a specific "Dragon Lore", "Giant Lore" etc.)
We don't need "Societal Lore" /"Heraldic Lore" as long as we have "Local Lore" for each region.
Missing:
Where are the "Acrobatics", "Athletics" and "Endurance" skills though?
I know that most of the checks are supposed to be handled with regular ability checks. But a lot of players simply want to be better in these skills than others.
Also: Every rogue (not only the ones with the "Thief" background) should get training in "Find and Remove Traps" and "Stealth" with their class.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Aug 29, 2012 - 4:06PM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Nov 13, 2001
|
Only skills mentioned in backgrounds are covered in the playtest so far. It's assumed we will see all those missing skills return soon.
It's also been mentioned that classes should have a minimum of required skills much like you've mentioned. Still Rogues are doing well for the skills so far.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Aug 29, 2012 - 6:13PM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Sep 21, 2007
|
Accrobatics, Athletics and Endurance are simply the "skilled" version of Dexterity, strength and constitution, respectively. I would like to see people being better than others in those 3 activities, but does adding skills to cover exactly the same thing as attributes add anything to the game ? Does the added layer of complexity make for a more enjoyable game ?
I do agree that thiefs skills should be made differently.
the design team seem to want everyone to have the same number of skills (3) but strict adherence to this rule leads to more complicated results when they want to circumvey that rule.
For example: I don't see a reason why the way they get their extra skills is so contrived: ("Ok, you pick a background, and the skills that go with it, plus, you get to pick a second background among these 2, but you can't pick the same twice. You gain the bonus associated with it, and another ability described in the thief section that you don't get WITH the background, because other classes picking that background don't get it: you get it as part of this rogue-only-second-background-choice... So it's a rogue-only-background-related benefit")
... Instead of just saying "you get 3 more skills from the following list"
And giving flavor-related bonus would also be simpler if the player simply got to chose one from a short list
Try radiance RPG. A complete D20 game that supports fantasy and steampunk. Download the FREE PDF here:
http://www.radiancerpg.com
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Aug 29, 2012 - 9:55PM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Mar 24, 2010
|
I must admit, there seems to be an over abundance of Lores - especially with only Three Skills (sometimes Four) for a character - unless you are a Rogue. Magical, Religion, Society all make sense, but Undead - that is should be linked to Magic or Religion. Same with Planar or Forbidden Lore.
One change that I made immediately is let players choose their skills. Have the ones in the Backgrounds be suggestions. I have also made other Rogue builds. A Con-Man build might not have Find / Remove Traps. Almost all Rogues should have Stealth, but making it an option is not a problem. It makes much more interesting characters and game play.
There should be some sort of Physical Skill or Skills. The Athletes at the Olympics where not making base Dexterity Rolls. I like the concept of having skills not be locked a single stat, so having a single Athletics skills that effects any practices physical action would probably be enough. I have added an Athletics skill and it seems to be working very well.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Aug 29, 2012 - 11:53PM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Apr 29, 2010
|
I'd prefer the option of gaining training in specific skills (Climb, Jump, Swim) rather than 'group' skills like Athletics. First, it would avoid the feeling that you've just trained all Str ability checks, and secondly, the skill training bonuses should be rare in a game based around ability checks. (Also, I feel like the 'thief' skills get short shrift; why not group Open Locks & Trapfinding under 'Thievery' ?)
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Aug 30, 2012 - 1:59AM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Jan 23, 2012
|
I'd prefer the option of gaining training in specific skills (Climb, Jump, Swim) rather than 'group' skills like Athletics. First, it would avoid the feeling that you've just trained all Str ability checks, and secondly, the skill training bonuses should be rare in a game based around ability checks. (Also, I feel like the 'thief' skills get short shrift; why not group Open Locks & Trapfinding under 'Thievery' ?)
This, I'd rather have the specific skills. The broad system was too... well, broad, for my taste. A LOT of things encompass an area like Atheletics or Acrobatics, doesn't make a lot of sense to me to group things up in such a general way.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Aug 30, 2012 - 6:47AM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Oct 11, 2011
|
I don't see a reason why the way they get their extra skills is so contrived: ("Ok, you pick a background, and the skills that go with it, plus, you get to pick a second background among these 2, but you can't pick the same twice. You gain the bonus associated with it, and another ability described in the thief section that you don't get WITH the background, because other classes picking that background don't get it: you get it as part of this rogue-only-second-background-choice... So it's a rogue-only-background-related benefit")
... Instead of just saying "you get 3 more skills from the following list"
I think that picking 2 backgrounds adds a nice quality to the rogue as some sort of a versatile adventurer, someone who has more aptitudes and connections than your typical warrior or spellcaster.
It also allows you to be someone who leads a double life (a Noble/Thief, for example).
It also reinforces the idea that not all rogues are thiefs/burglars by allowing them to be something other than thiefs and still be usefull.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Aug 30, 2012 - 6:58AM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Oct 11, 2011
|
I'd prefer the option of gaining training in specific skills (Climb, Jump, Swim) rather than 'group' skills like Athletics. First, it would avoid the feeling that you've just trained all Str ability checks, and secondly, the skill training bonuses should be rare in a game based around ability checks. (Also, I feel like the 'thief' skills get short shrift; why not group Open Locks & Trapfinding under 'Thievery' ?)
So... break down athletic skills in subsets, but group thievery skills in a single group...
I think it's okay to group all or most Strength checks in a skill, because an adventurer who trains in that general area ends up being good in various physical tasks.
Athletes train a single specific subset of physical prowess to an amazing degree, but soldiers have to be good in various physical tasks and still learn other important skills, like survival, weapon maintenance, etc.
If a Fighter who wants to be good at physical tasks has to blow his 3 skills in Climb, Jump & Swim, he won't pick other interesting skills, and you're back to the guy who is only good in combat.
Maybe that's why they haven't included Athletics yet: as long as the DCs are acceptable, you don't need to train it, your natural Strength is enough to get you by, and you have the opportunity to invest in more interesting skills.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Aug 30, 2012 - 8:44AM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Apr 29, 2010
|
I'd prefer the option of gaining training in specific skills (Climb, Jump, Swim) rather than 'group' skills like Athletics. First, it would avoid the feeling that you've just trained all Str ability checks, and secondly, the skill training bonuses should be rare in a game based around ability checks. (Also, I feel like the 'thief' skills get short shrift; why not group Open Locks & Trapfinding under 'Thievery' ?)
So... break down athletic skills in subsets, but group thievery skills in a single group...
Sorry, I wasn't too clear there.. My implication was that IF we add 'group' skills (Athletics, Acrobatics) back in, we should also group Thievery. My preference is to keep them all specific.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Aug 30, 2012 - 9:27AM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Oct 11, 2011
|
Sorry, I wasn't too clear there.. My implication was that IF we add 'group' skills (Athletics, Acrobatics) back in, we should also group Thievery. My preference is to keep them all specific.
Ok, now I get it. That does make sense.
I personally prefer the other way around: I love 3.x, but the specificity of the skills was a limitation:
a non-human cleric with 10 Intelligence had to make the difficult choice between Concentration, Diplomacy, Heal, Knowledge Religion and Spellcraft.
A fighter could be good at jumping and climbing, but then he couldn't have a horse (he would need an Handle Animal and Riding).
Besides, to have more specific skills, they would need to give more than 3 skills to each character.
Isn't it cleaner and easier to have a few broad skills?
But that's just my preference.
The ideal approach would be to make it modular, but I think it would be hard to balance.
|
|
|
