For example, why even have a skill called forbiden lore, when being a master at a specific skill would allow the character to gain access to lost knowledge, esoteric facts, etc.
I'd Rather not have dozens of knowledge skill like the ancient magics of the little monch hamlet of SE plansbourg. Now if you want to give a specialty to a broad skill like forbiden lore(little monch hamlet of SE plansbourg) that gives some kind of bonus then I'm all for that.
If DDN really wants a way to appeal to 4e fans when it comes to skills, the best thing they can do is give us more than one skill list in the PHB. Let them give us a long list like the current one, and a consolidated list like the 4e one. Skills are an optional subsystem anyway, giving us a choice of skill list allows the broad competence that 4e fans enjoy and the narrow competence that 3e fans enjoy (although it would still fail to provide the granularity of 3e, but that's also easily handled with a variant to the skill die).
I could see this as an advanced rule (acting as a dial). The problem is when you reduce the number of skills you increase the power of each skill. There'd need to be notes on how to handle DCs for a consolidated skill list.
You don't increase the power of the skill by consolidating them. You do increase the range of competency, but that's different from an increase in power in that increasing the range of competence doesn't require adjusting the DCs.
Also, I like your idea in your proposed 4e skills that takes the average of the skill die roll. That would be a nice variant of the skill die to include, and it would be terribly easy to implement (just put it in parentheses next to the die type on the skill die by level chart).
They second they do that it becomes the optimal or suboptimal choice. It'd be better of as an advanced rule.
It's part of the problem with HP. The entire table needs to determine their HP in the same manner or those who roll will be punished over the long run. I've put in place a house rule "when rolling for HP, reroll 1s" to make it up to the player to determine how they calculate their HP.
I don't see "all players need to play by the same rules" as a problem. However, the averages given for HPs are averages and that means that the die rolls for HPs should average out to that as you level. Therefore, barring a streak of very bad luck by players who roll for HPs, it should be fine to have both rolling and taking the average at the same table.
so why even play a fighter if you can play the paladin the exact same way behaviorally and get added power to boot. "Paladin" is about accepting better game-enhancing mechanics at the price of more rigid in game behavior.
Really? So it goes something like this?
Fighter: "I want to be a paladin." NPC: "Really?" Fighter: "Yes." NPC: "Very well." Starts reading from a holy book while still in-character "Do you accept having to choose and stick to the lawful good alignment, eventhough neither of us actually knows that it exists or what it is?" Fighter: "I do." NPC: "Do you reject good game balance because you accidentally rolled a high Charisma?" Fighter: "What?" NPC: "I don't know what it means either." Fighter: "Oh. Umm, ok I do." NPC: "In the name of all that is metagamey and broken, accept these better game enhancing mechanics." Fighter: "These what?" NPC: "Just get out there and try to fulfill a million different people's notion of good while not violating and part of any of them."
So the system is designed such that every single hit needs to be described to avoid confusion? Here's a scenario. The players are nudists, everybody in the world are nudists, it's not weird, it's totally normal in this land. They are naked and they fight drakes taking damage throughout, but healing up with surges. Later they meet the guy who raised the drakes.
Part 1: I didn't describe any of the hits. What does he see?
Part 2: Lets say I described the drakes as biting the players, yet they healed up. What does he see?
I strongly prefer a bigger skill list with narrower skills. Ability checks are for broad applications, skills are supposed to be specific. Actually I think the skill list they have right now is almost perfect, but I might split sneak back into hide and move silently. I love the knowledges.
I have no idea how they're going to reconcile this issue, because it splits the fanbase moreso than a lot of things. Some of us want 3E skills, and some of us want 4E skills. How can they satisfy us all and keep the game balanced?
Probably the only way is two separate skills modules, one that gives you a very small, broad skill list, but a slower growth rate for them, and one that has a large, specific skill list that can be improved and customized a lot more. You can't just increase ot reduce the number of skills and keep the game balanced, because when you only need one point (be it a skill point or a skill die increase) to increase Perception, but three to increase Spot, Listen and Search, the smaller skill list is overpowered.
I strongly prefer a bigger skill list with narrower skills. Ability checks are for broad applications, skills are supposed to be specific. Actually I think the skill list they have right now is almost perfect, but I might split sneak back into hide and move silently. I love the knowledges.
I have no idea how they're going to reconcile this issue, because it splits the fanbase moreso than a lot of things. Some of us want 3E skills, and some of us want 4E skills. How can they satisfy us all and keep the game balanced?
My way to do this was posted in another skil thread. First make a 4e list. Then break every skill into their more narrow subskill parts. Make the skill like perception (spot, listen, search, track). 4e skill players use the main skills while 3e skill users use the subskills and gets to pick more subskills (like x2 skills for subskills and auto skills from class/race give all sub skills.) Seems pretty easy/simple to me.
Probably the only way is two separate skills modules, one that gives you a very small, broad skill list, but a slower growth rate for them, and one that has a large, specific skill list that can be improved and customized a lot more. You can't just increase ot reduce the number of skills and keep the game balanced, because when you only need one point (be it a skill point or a skill die increase) to increase Perception, but three to increase Spot, Listen and Search, the smaller skill list is overpowered.
One combined skill module seem the best to me, that way you could even have both kinds of skills in play in the same group.
I strongly prefer a bigger skill list with narrower skills. Ability checks are for broad applications, skills are supposed to be specific. Actually I think the skill list they have right now is almost perfect, but I might split sneak back into hide and move silently. I love the knowledges.
I have no idea how they're going to reconcile this issue, because it splits the fanbase moreso than a lot of things. Some of us want 3E skills, and some of us want 4E skills. How can they satisfy us all and keep the game balanced?
Simple. Offer two different skill lists. If the DM is allowing skills, the DM chooses which skill list the PCs get to choose their skills from. The skills that are on the list are literally the only change that needs to be made to allow people to have 4e and 3e skills in the same system (although a variant to the skill die needs to be present to give the 3e list the granularity that the 3e system had).
Probably the only way is two separate skills modules, one that gives you a very small, broad skill list, but a slower growth rate for them, and one that has a large, specific skill list that can be improved and customized a lot more. You can't just increase ot reduce the number of skills and keep the game balanced, because when you only need one point (be it a skill point or a skill die increase) to increase Perception, but three to increase Spot, Listen and Search, the smaller skill list is overpowered.
I can't get behind that at all. Slower growth just punishes people who prefer broader competence by making them fall behind the built-in curve. I also can't agree with you that smaller skill lists are overpowered. They're not. They provide a greater range of competence. Just look at the Perception example that you've given. A character that is trained in perception does not have a "more powerful" sense of perception that an otherwise identical character who is trained in Spot, Listen, or Search instead of Perception because they are not able to outclass them on skill checks. They have a broader range of competence, certainly, but they are not more powerful.
I'd also like to point out that the only time this even becomes an issue that needs discussing is if two players try to use different skill lists. Given that choice of skill list is likely going to be a one-time choice by the DM, though perhaps with player input, I don't see that as being anywhere near a common occurrence.
so why even play a fighter if you can play the paladin the exact same way behaviorally and get added power to boot. "Paladin" is about accepting better game-enhancing mechanics at the price of more rigid in game behavior.
Really? So it goes something like this?
Fighter: "I want to be a paladin." NPC: "Really?" Fighter: "Yes." NPC: "Very well." Starts reading from a holy book while still in-character "Do you accept having to choose and stick to the lawful good alignment, eventhough neither of us actually knows that it exists or what it is?" Fighter: "I do." NPC: "Do you reject good game balance because you accidentally rolled a high Charisma?" Fighter: "What?" NPC: "I don't know what it means either." Fighter: "Oh. Umm, ok I do." NPC: "In the name of all that is metagamey and broken, accept these better game enhancing mechanics." Fighter: "These what?" NPC: "Just get out there and try to fulfill a million different people's notion of good while not violating and part of any of them."
So the system is designed such that every single hit needs to be described to avoid confusion? Here's a scenario. The players are nudists, everybody in the world are nudists, it's not weird, it's totally normal in this land. They are naked and they fight drakes taking damage throughout, but healing up with surges. Later they meet the guy who raised the drakes.
Part 1: I didn't describe any of the hits. What does he see?
Part 2: Lets say I described the drakes as biting the players, yet they healed up. What does he see?
Have stat skills (bonus to Str checks) Have a few broad skills (nature, athletics) Have a alot of specific skills (nobels of neverwinter, use rope, oozes).
All can be used together, at the same table. (With the more specific ones getting more points/training).
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way. Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken. Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken. King Fisher Does an excellent job at keeping an enemy disabled in a few ways. Strong. Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading. Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered. Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square. Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong. Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked. Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic. Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation. Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses. Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat. Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent. Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof. Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it. Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways. Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful. The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken. Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken Unnamed Avenger|Runepriest/Hammer of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered. Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5. Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong. Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight, only far more broken. Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken. Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.
It is possible to rank all skills, both broad and narrow, from best to worth, then establish their relative values to assign a specific point cost.
Personally, giving each character a handful of useful skills is interesting and flavorful. It helps set the tone for quirks that the character is good at, and help express themes and tropes, especially for noncombat challenges.
However I dont want characters having too many skills or fiddling with too many skill points. A labyrinth of skill rules makes the character sheet gratuitously complicated and suffocates the ability to do fresh improvisations.
I love how 5e makes ability checks resolve everything. It is elegant, simple and versatile, design. Dont let the cumbersome load of a skill system slow the ability checks down.
It should be possible to write down the essence of a characters abilities on a single card.
I can't get behind that at all. Slower growth just punishes people who prefer broader competence by making them fall behind the built-in curve. I also can't agree with you that smaller skill lists are overpowered. They're not. They provide a greater range of competence. Just look at the Perception example that you've given. A character that is trained in perception does not have a "more powerful" sense of perception that an otherwise identical character who is trained in Spot, Listen, or Search instead of Perception because they are not able to outclass them on skill checks. They have a broader range of competence, certainly, but they are not more powerful.
I'd also like to point out that the only time this even becomes an issue that needs discussing is if two players try to use different skill lists. Given that choice of skill list is likely going to be a one-time choice by the DM, though perhaps with player input, I don't see that as being anywhere near a common occurrence.
No, you misunderstand. I'm not proposing that one player would have higher skill bonuses than another because they chose the smaller skill list. Both would have the same max skill ranks limit.
See, let's compare two skill lists:
List 1: Perception Acrobatics
List 2: Spot Listen Search Jump Balance Tumble
Then give out 10 skill points to distribute, to both characters. They don't have to be in the same game to compare, because the DCs are the same for everyone.
Player 1: 10 skill points Perception +5 Acrobatics +5
Maximum skill ranks would be the same for both lists, as per bounded accuracy.
That is what I meant, this is the only way to balance it that I see. This is something I feel a lot of players overlook when comparing the two preferences on skills.
Alternately, they could lower the DCs for the second option, but that would put more weight on the ability score, changing the game more than intended.
When I first saw the skill die system, I wasn't in favor of it, but over time I've come to like it. I was a bit weirded out by the skill die at first. Rolling an additional die on d20 checks just seemed bizarre to me. But the more I've playtested it, the more I've grown to like it. For some reason, rolling that extra die is just... fun. It clearly sets apart those who have a skill and those who don't at the table, and just makes you feel like you're more skilled at it, in a way that a flat bonus just doesn't.
If you prefer flat bonuses to your skills, it's actually quite easy to substitute. Replace d4 with +3, and add +1 for each die type increase (so +4 instead of d6, +5 instead of d8, +6 instead of d10, and +7 instead of d12), just like JohnLynch's chart. You'll notice that those are the average results of those dice, rounded up. You may also notice that those are the exact same skill bonuses we were dealing with in the previous packets, before skill dice we introduced. So, if you hate the random element of skill dice, just use those flat bonuses instead. Easy.
Originally, I didn't like the randomness of skill dice either. As others have pointed out, it's possible for someone to fail even easy or average tasks no matter how skilled they are. The thing is, this is easily avoided. A DM really shouldn't call for a skilled person to make a DC 5 or 10 roll unless he has a really good reason to. It's easy enough to just not make players roll at all when the DC is that low, thus avoiding that problem entirely.
I can't get behind that at all. Slower growth just punishes people who prefer broader competence by making them fall behind the built-in curve. I also can't agree with you that smaller skill lists are overpowered. They're not. They provide a greater range of competence. Just look at the Perception example that you've given. A character that is trained in perception does not have a "more powerful" sense of perception that an otherwise identical character who is trained in Spot, Listen, or Search instead of Perception because they are not able to outclass them on skill checks. They have a broader range of competence, certainly, but they are not more powerful.
I'd also like to point out that the only time this even becomes an issue that needs discussing is if two players try to use different skill lists. Given that choice of skill list is likely going to be a one-time choice by the DM, though perhaps with player input, I don't see that as being anywhere near a common occurrence.
No, you misunderstand. I'm not proposing that one player would have higher skill bonuses than another because they chose the smaller skill list. Both would have the same max skill ranks limit.
. . . ..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />Then give out 10 skill points to distribute, to both characters. They don't have to be in the same game to compare, because the DCs are the same for everyone.
If you're introducing a skill point variant to the skill die, that's a different question than just a matter of lists. Naturally, you'll need to multiply the points available to users of the narrow skills list as compared to users of the consolidated list. Of course, I also feel that users of the narrow skills list in the current system in the playtest need more trained skills. The number feels right if the characters were choosing from a consolidated list, but for a narrow use list it feels like too few.
so why even play a fighter if you can play the paladin the exact same way behaviorally and get added power to boot. "Paladin" is about accepting better game-enhancing mechanics at the price of more rigid in game behavior.
Really? So it goes something like this?
Fighter: "I want to be a paladin." NPC: "Really?" Fighter: "Yes." NPC: "Very well." Starts reading from a holy book while still in-character "Do you accept having to choose and stick to the lawful good alignment, eventhough neither of us actually knows that it exists or what it is?" Fighter: "I do." NPC: "Do you reject good game balance because you accidentally rolled a high Charisma?" Fighter: "What?" NPC: "I don't know what it means either." Fighter: "Oh. Umm, ok I do." NPC: "In the name of all that is metagamey and broken, accept these better game enhancing mechanics." Fighter: "These what?" NPC: "Just get out there and try to fulfill a million different people's notion of good while not violating and part of any of them."
So the system is designed such that every single hit needs to be described to avoid confusion? Here's a scenario. The players are nudists, everybody in the world are nudists, it's not weird, it's totally normal in this land. They are naked and they fight drakes taking damage throughout, but healing up with surges. Later they meet the guy who raised the drakes.
Part 1: I didn't describe any of the hits. What does he see?
Part 2: Lets say I described the drakes as biting the players, yet they healed up. What does he see?
