Skills

[Silverfang]

I haven't done a whole lot of digging so I apologize if this has been talked about in a thread I missed, but what are your opinions on skills in 4e? After only playing 3.5 once with a DM who could have been better, I originally liked the simplified skill system. After reviewing 3.5 PHB along with my 4e ones, I think the diverse skill system is actually better. It gives more freedom and choices seem to be more meaningful rather than being slightly better than someone who isn't trained in that skill (I play in a paragon-level campaign). I can see the reason, and condensing the skills does have its benefits, but is there any system out there that combines them? Maybe leaving out some of the skills that have become useless (alchemy) or at least fixing them in a way so they work. Rogue is generally my favorite class because I like the versatility, but it seems gone from the skills. I have tried to fix it a while ago, but then the issue of the newer classes came up along with ten more levels, and multi-classing. Hybrid could prove difficult but by taking the average skill points and every other level they get to choose from one class list (e.g. Rogue skills for odd levels and Wizard skills for even). I'm still fairly new to this (about 4 sessions in 4e and only the 1 in 3.5 spread through about a year and a half), so this seemed like the best place to go.

[Zaq]

Overall, I think it fits the game. I wouldn't want it for every game, but it works for the slimmed-down nature of 4e. Coming in from 3.5, the simplified nature of it originally bothered me, but I think it serves a different purpose.

[NecroRebel]

At times, I feel that some of the skills are somewhat ill-defined, but for the most part I like the system. In many cases, I can think of a use for a half-dozen of the skills, all mostly equally valid, for a task, so it's difficult then to figure out which skill should be applied for the task, but mostly that's in skill challenges when there should be multiple valid skills, so that's not much of a problem.

I do greatly like the skill bonus system, however, as I don't feel it should be completely impossible for some tasks to be done by someone who isn't a specialist. I think it's just sort of dumb that, in 3.x, you can have one person whose skill bonus is 20+ points higher than other adventurers, people who probably would have had time, opportunity, and reason to pick up some more basic tricks of a wide variety of talents; they should possibly know a trick that lets them perform a task that is otherwise too complex for them (meaning they have a chance of success even if it's low), but with the major skill discrepancy between specialists and dilettantes in 3.x it's entirely possible, even likely, for this not to be the case.

[the_other_gm]

a huge improvement over 3rd's skill list .

in 3rd ed you were generally unskilled in 90% of the list and the rather specific nature of the individual skills meant that while you could customize, i found for the most part it mattered little in play. a fighter who's trained in swimming & climbing may never use the first, being trained in it "just in case", while the second might be used occasionally.

i generally felt the system tacked on as the only ones we really used with frequency were the knowledge ones.

plus with the overall potency of magic at mid-high levels, i found that even the devs kinda gave up on it. i mean, why put a "climbing" challenge when they'll simply levitate/fly/teleport around it

in 4th ed, i find skills tend to play a much important role in your character's identity. sure you don't have the fine tuning of "my character is a natural athlete: swim 6, climb 4, jump 2" but you could just as easily say "my character is a natural athlete:trained in athletics" and would apply to all the above and more due to the broad nature.

3rd ed's fine tuning allowed for a more granular definition, but IME & IMO was generally less useful then 4th's

it also helps that utility magic was toned down in duration and overall effects, with the more powerful ones that replace skills being longer to cast rituals that still require a skill check to verify it's potency in the first place.

[Reluctance]

There are plenty of skill based systems out there where skills are the heart of the game engine. You might be happier with one of them than with 3.5's version.

As for the difference between 3.5 and 4, it's often pointed out that many of the options in 3.5 aren't actually good options. You can play a monster race, but LA will rape you. You can play a character with one level each in 20 different classes, but you'll be hard pressed to contribute. Skills are the same. You can splash skill points around and have lots of stuff cross-class, but level-appropriate encounters assume full investment in a class skill.

[PallElendro]

I love that the skills have been reduced to 13. I hated having to divide by skill points among others, forgetting the "synergy".

[DragonBaneDM]

Skill points made me want to jump off a bridge. They were good for showing dedication to a Prestige class, but training in a skill for a Paragon Path does it just fine for me.

I just like not having to worry about it when I level a character. Picking powers and feats are fun, because they're new every time. Getting skills is not.

[TheEmerged]

I like it better than 3.x's system, and I'm more satisfied than not... but there are still problems. The campaign I'm running right now is a "superheroic" system based more on Gamma World than D&D, which crunchies them even further (all of the Charisma skills are now a single skill named Interaction).

I like that being trained in a skill is a flat +5 advantage. 3.x's system worked well enough at low levels but by the 7th or 8th level you had gotten to a point where you had little chance at a level-appropriate skill DC you were not fully trained in. It's one of the reasons I believe 3.0 was not truly playtested beyond the 9th level or so (and note that I said 3.0 not 3.x there).

I don't like the way skill bonuses are tied to feats now, however - in particular for languages. I'm not saying you need to go with something like the HERO System's language chart, but 4e's system doesn't really work either. Given that you don't *get* feats in Gamma World, whatever you start with is essential what you've got till the end (and no, I don't consider the "professions" thing added in the 3rd book to be a working feat system).

[Ulysses WkAmil]

I like the customization skill points give. Having +5 in a certain skill means that everyone else who is trained in that skill has the same knowledge and ability as you, rather than having a large range of ability. To me it seems kind of dry, but then again it is basic and easier to handle.

[darkdragoon]

A choice of two stats would be nice, but otherwise I don't worry about it too much. Training is basically competency and there are umpteen items, themes etc. to boost a particular skill as needed.