PDA

View Full Version : Input desired - increasing Skill Points per level



Helgraf
2007-02-24, 01:53 AM
One thing I've just about always noticed in D&D is that there's never enough skill points.

I'm curious, oh game tuners (both 'expert' and 'hobbyist' and 'novice'), do you think increasing all the classes skill points per level by 2 points across the board would unhinge general game balance?

If so, why? Also, what other system twinks might you recommend in place or in addition?

Dhavaer
2007-02-24, 01:58 AM
So long as it's done evenly, I can't see any major problem.

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-02-24, 02:09 AM
Well, outside of how you just effectively made the small difference that attributes added to skills even more useless then it already was, I don't see much wrong.

And I guess that an intelligence-based rogue then becomes a little more redundant then usual.

Swordguy
2007-02-24, 02:10 AM
It shouldn't.

I do it universally, and it's never caused any problems (and is only helped by the fact that I roll Move Silently and Hide into a single "Stealth" skill, and roll Listen and Spot into "Perception").

I would also recommend increasing the number of Knowledge skills that are considered class skills for different classes. Basically, what I''ve done is allow my PCs to chose a number of knowledge skills equal to thier INT mod (minimum 1) that should be related in some way to thier class or background. Therefore, Fighters can get Knowledge(Tactics) as a class skill, and any charcter with contact with nobility in thier background may take Knowledge (Heraldry) or Knowledge(Nobility/Royalty) as a class skill.

The players LOVE it.

cupkeyk
2007-02-24, 02:27 AM
I think that's what makes Sorcs and Fighters unplayable for me. They have no skill points. But wizzies are fine at their current level and druids and clerks too. They will be pushing rogues and bards and rangers out of the game too if they had any more skill points.

Amiria
2007-02-24, 03:34 AM
Our house rules are:

1) Retroactive skill points.

2) Skill points aren't based on intelligence alone, but on the average of intelligence and your best ability score, rounded down. So if you are a fighter with Int 13 (i.e for Combat Expertise and Improved Trip) and Str 20, you get skill points as if your Int was 16.

Miles Invictus
2007-02-24, 03:38 AM
Sorcerers and Fighters are doubly hurt by their lack of useful class skills. More skill points won't help, if Bluff and Climb are the best skills you've got.

Saph
2007-02-24, 05:08 AM
Bear in mind that class balance is relative. Adding 2 skill points per level makes Fighters and Sorc's a little bit better, but makes Rogues and Rangers a little bit worse, because their niche has been cut into.

- Saph

cupkeyk
2007-02-24, 05:22 AM
If fighters and sorcs had more class skills in their repertoire then they would border on Ranger/Rogue/Bard territory. think forcing them to take cross class ranks in Tumble(for fighter) or whatever is an okay limitation.

Pocket lint
2007-02-24, 10:31 AM
One house rule I think is worth trying is to let cross-class skills cost 1 point per rank, but keep the max ranks as normal. That way you don't run out of points if you want to add a little flavour to your char that isn't in the standard template.

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-02-24, 11:04 AM
Bear in mind that class balance is relative. Adding 2 skill points per level makes Fighters and Sorc's a little bit better, but makes Rogues and Rangers a little bit worse, because their niche has been cut into.
Not really.

Skill Monkey classes have niches that aren't just defined by the number of class skills, but also by what they get for class skills. No amount of extra skill points is going to give Sorcerers or Fighters Disable Device as a class skill. They'll never cut into that aspect of the Rogue's niche. They'll never be more than half as good as the rogue in its actual niche areas.

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-02-24, 11:39 AM
But the only two specialties a rogue has at that point is open lock and disable device. Everything else can be covered by someone else and their shiny new skillpoints. And I'm sure this game will get old really quick for the guy who's only saving grace is opening trapped doors. You've effectively made rogues so niche that any party can do without one.

Yakk
2007-02-24, 12:27 PM
Skillmonkeys are already pretty gimped by "I cast a L 2 spell and do your high skill ability better than you can".

To take something out of Iron Heros, what if:
1> You gain +1/2 bonus in every class skill every class level.
2> All skills cost 1 point for +1/2.
3> If you have a skill as a class skill under any class, you gain +1 in it.
4> The most points you can spend in any skill is equal to your level+2.

The result is people are competent at their class skills (at about 1/2 of their level), and their skill points can be used to master their class skills or pick up non-class skills.

Arceliar
2007-02-24, 12:50 PM
Two obvious solutions come to mind:

1) Let characters pick a number of skills equal to their Int mod to be class skills. That way a fighter/warrior of above average intelligence might actually make a competent guard for a change. It's always seemed for me not how many skills a character has, but what skills a character has, that really matters in the end.

2) See this (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/buildingCharacters/alternativeSkillSystems.htm#levelBasedSkills). It may oversimplify some things, but if you do the same thing to NPCs then suddenly players actually have to start using skills other than spot checks and hide.

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-02-24, 12:56 PM
But the only two specialties a rogue has at that point is open lock and disable device. Everything else can be covered by someone else and their shiny new skillpoints.
:smallconfused:

The only people with new skill points that can compete with the rogue on a given rogue class skill are those people that already had those skills as class skills as their own. Giving a Ranger an extra skill point or two isn't gonna make the competition over Spot, Listen, Hide, and Move Silently any worse. Rangers already invest in those skills and already have a fair number of skill points to support that competition to boot. There's really no new competition over "niche" skills that didn't exist before.

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-02-24, 01:40 PM
But there's still a skill cap per level. Rogues are typically the only ones that can hit that cap with plenty of skills while still keeping other skills pretty decent, around 6-7 at a time. You've certainly made it so rogues can now effectively max out all their skills, but so what? So can everyone else now. Mix a ranger, a monk, and a wizard together with the extra skill points and you've now completely made the rogue redundant and worthless. All he has going for him is, what? Trap sense? Sneak attack?!

Helgraf
2007-02-24, 04:19 PM
:eyebrow: Nothing about my suggestion changes what skills are class skills for classes.

As for sneak attack, uncanny dodge, evasion, trap sense ... yeah, none of that is useful stuff. So this variant just made rogues undesirable. Somehow I'm not seeing your argument there.

Hell, given 10+Int SP/level, I can still easily max out a bunch of skills and want more. If I pimp out with a 20 Int (Say, elf, or 18 Int + human), I can - using the variant - max out 15 skills - but to do that I have, in just about any point buy system to screw over my other stats, having a bunch of 10s and such. If I don't pimp out, then I have to decide what assets I'm ignoring and make sure my party knows good and well I can't do it for them.

Just for the record, here's the skill list of stuff rogues tend to end up having to do.

Surveillance/Scouting : Spot, Listen, Hide, Move Silently (4 skills)
Locks, Traps and Puzzles : Search, Disable Device, Open Lock, Use Magic Device (4 skills)
Getting Places Safely : Balance, Climb, Jump, Tumble. (4 skills)
People Skills: Appraise, Bluff, Diplomacy, Gather Information, Knowledge (local) (5 skills)

That's 17 skills right there. So even your most twinked out Rogue isn't covering all the bases he's often expected to - and that's _with_ the +2 SP variant in debate here until he gets to 16th level, since enhancement bonuses don't give extra SP (unless your DM has changed things). And of course, by that point, one of the skills is halfway behind (started taking ranks at 8th level), and the other is only just starting to get ranks (start taking ranks at 16th level).

And if, lord forfend, your character concept requires you to dip into the tiny pool of cross-class skills for some ranks (or for synergies), thats other skills you have to short-sheet to do it.

And a ranger or bard going from 6 to 8 isn't really going to make up that difference; it gives them (and everyone else) a little more flexibility, but they're still not going to have all the neccesary skillsets, especially with the harsh cross-class limits. Bards come close, admittedly, but then, they're the _other_ skill-focused class - and they have to plunk at least one well of skill points into a Perform skill if they want to use one of their primary class features (bardic music).

PnP Fan
2007-02-24, 04:37 PM
I tend to belong to the camp that adds skill points to the game, and while I agree that it cuts down on the advantage in terms of number of sp that rogues have, it hardly makes the rogue unplayable. However, my group tend to do skill heavy games (lots of knowledges that aren't in the books, for example, that cover niche information in greater detail that the standard knowledge skills).
What I have done in the past is award extra skill points based on INT and WIS. The end effect of this is that Cleric and Druidy types get skill points more representative of what a well-educated medieval priestly type ought to have. Additionally, since arcane spellcasters often pump their mental stats as well, they get points also more representative of what a well-studied wizardly type ought to have. Additionally, anyone who wants to play a wise/intelligent fighter, instead of just a damage sponge, can do so by placing their attributes appropriately. I play, typically, with a group of 6 or 7 people, and hardly ever do we have folks who can't contribute at some point. Rarely do our rogues sit there and complain about how useless they are. Truth of it is, we don't even do much dungeoneering, and most of our DM's (myself excluded) don't even use traps much, but somehow, the folks who play rogues always seem to find something fun to do. They still wind up being better scouts than rangers, because of character focus. We actually have more play conflict between the bards and the clerics for Diplomacy rolls! ;-)
Having said all that, we still have issues with Fighters being able to do almost none of their class skills well. I'm only pointing this out as a fact, please don't let this thread turn into another "wizards pwn fighter" thread.
One thing I do like is Pocket Lint's suggestion regarding cross class skills. I can see where that would open up a great deal of freedom for character creation, while still keeping folks within their assigned roles. Especially useful if you play in small groups and don't have all of the roles covered.

Desaril
2007-02-24, 05:50 PM
I used to be in the "More Skill Points" group, but I've recently changed my mind.

I somehow came to the conclusion that if you DON'T have skill points, you aren't good at a skill. Now I think differently; that if you DO have skill points, you are GREAT!!! Why the switch you ask? I'll tell you.

Most skills can be attempted untrained except for very specialized skills. Anyone can bluff, appraise, listen, climb, etc. For the most part, the entire world is equally good at all of them (i.e. no skill points). So how do we ever do anything? Taking 10! The game allows you to take 10 on a roll (and add any bonuses). That means you can always accomplish an task with an average DC (see chart on PHB 64). Further, if we use the right tools (the various kits in the equipment section) we can get a +2. In many situations, we can take 20 and accomplish Challenging tasks by putting in some time and hard work. So a person with no skill points can still accomplish challenging tasks with NO chance of failure.

A person with skill points can do GREAT things. Also, they can do the easier tasks under adverse conditions, such as combat (when you can't take 10) or under time pressure (when you can't take 20). That's what makes it GREAT!!! Anyone can climb a cliffside, but the rogue can do it barehanded while being shot at by goblins. Anyone can bluff their way past a guard, but the beguiler can do it when the guard finds the stolen gems in his pouch.

If you put every character at that level of effectiveness, you should also improve the wizard's chance to hit and the sorcerors AC. Skill effectiveness is one of the balances of the game.

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-02-24, 06:14 PM
It opens up a whole can of cheese, too. You'd either have to recalculate monsters skills or just deal with the fact that the PC's will beat them at it extremely often. Then you add more cheese involving specific races, classes, and feats (and at the same time you've made skill feats entirely worthless instead of mostly-worthless). For instance- I play human, take the Able Learner feat, and take my first level in rogue. I'll max out my intelligence at 18 so that, at level 1, I get 60 skill points. I'm within 8 points of maxing every single class skill at level 1, which is ridiculous. Now, for my next level, I drop rogue altogether and take the wizard class and prestige classes from now on. I've dropped to, under your blanket skill increase, 9 skillpoints a level, I can take rogue skills freely without any penalty (cheese was already there, but you've just made it cheesier), and I've only lost one level in arguably the most broken class there is. I have made the party specialty rogue pretty much worthless, since I can do what he can do only slightly worse before buffs, and way better after buffs. Casters in particular should never be given MORE power in D&D.

What you really want to do is make the non-caster guys stronger, right? Increase their skillpoints, and only their skillpoints. Possibly half-casters as well (at least the paladin), but take heed- the only reason this doesn't seem game breaking to you right now is because you're only considering combat viability. There's more to D&D then dungeon crawling, and giving everyone too many skillpoints will either make that stuff so easy that a character will never need to touch a weapon or so hard due to rebalancing that only a dedicated skill specialist will ever be able to deal with the monsters and NPC's that also have overly high skills now.

Saithis Bladewing
2007-02-24, 06:18 PM
As long as you make sure that it is a balanced and equal increase across all classes (percentages work well, as it ensures that higher skill point classes still have a distinct advantage in the skills department over the lower skill point classes).

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-02-24, 06:34 PM
I've dropped to, under your blanket skill increase, 9 skillpoints a level, I can take rogue skills freely without any penalty (cheese was already there, but you've just made it cheesier)...
Uh, you still have to pay 2 skill points per rank. That's pretty steep.

Tobrian
2007-02-24, 07:10 PM
Personally, I like the suggestion from the Unearthed Arcana that every character should pick a certain number (depending on class and INT) of primary skills at creation and make these his "class" skills, instead of having some cookie-cutter table dictate what your character should or should not be able to learn. Look at the Dragonlance novels: most wizards there had Healing and some herbalism skill, in a world with few or no clerics, and Raistlin Majere had Sleight-of-hand skill (and probably Intimidate and Perform (illusions)) without multiclassing with rogue or warrior levels. On the other hand, Dragonlance wizards never showed much inclination to study alchemy.

I like the Expert class from Unearthed Arcana, too, and use it a lot for NPCs. It makes it possible to create a character that's basically similar to the rogue or bard, centered on skills, but allows you more flexibility. You can throw out bardic music or sneak attacks if they don't fit the character concept, but specialise on social or sneaky skills, and you get bonus feats to boost skills. In previous edition, gamemasters and players had to try and simulate such characters by using the rogue and muddling through, and then the character was saddled with a lot of abilities he didn't want or need.

WotC has by now published so many official ways to customize classes and races via substitution levels (i.e. paladins and rangers without spellcasting, paladins as PrC, variant monks), I don't see why we should be bound by the core rules in regard to class skills. Currently, I'm seriously thinking about completely overhauling the PHB classes for my house rules, adding more skill points, and especially rewriting the wizard and sorcerer class to add better education and customization. Let the player choose between either having knowledge skill foci or metamagic/crafting feats or boosting his familiar, and give them more wizard-specific options than the meagre one bonus feat every five levels they get now. What good are all the new extra feats and options WotC throws at us if characters have to get insanely high levels to get anywhere on those feat trees, or does not have enough skill points to use those skill tricks from PHBII?

I don't want +ber-characters that can do everything, but it's frustrating for a player if all the roleplaying in the world to find a teacher and learn something new does not give you any skill points until you've gone out and bashed a few goblins to get a new level. Personally I'd wish 3rd edition D&D had done away with classes and levels entirely. Prestice classes are nice, but it means you the player have to plan ahead several levels and build up the character towards that goal regardless of what the character actually goes through in the interim... changing a character's focus around at mid-level can ruin a whole level progression. This enforces metagaming over roleplaying.

I "grew up" as a roleplayer with RP systems like GURPS, Warhammer, and World of Darkness... systems that place a much bigger role on skills that AD&D used to do, allowing characters to actually spend points on "fluff" skills like professions, knowledges, hobbies and the like without sacrificing their primary competence, and allow players to spend points dynamically and directly, whenever the character actually learns something without having to wait ages for a level-up. Don't get me wrong, the d20 skill system is great, mechanically, but D&D still woefully undervalues skills.


Well, outside of how you just effectively made the small difference that attributes added to skills even more useless then it already was, I don't see much wrong.

What's your point? Once characters go up in levels, the significance of attribute boni to skills compared to skill ranks spent decreases anyway.

I can't follow the argument "But if you give everyone more skill points, the rogue/bard/whatever would suddenly become irrelevant, because skill points is their holy "niche"!" :smallannoyed:

By that logic, shall we forbid any class or prestige class but rogues to have Tumble skill? Or Open Lock? Or sneak attacks? By now, tons of classes and PrC have sneak attacks or something similar. Perhaps we should forbid rogues to take any sort of Perform skills, because this cuts intothe bard's territory? And we should forbid Experts (from Unearthed Arcana) completely.

Oh hey, Wiz/Sorc/Cleric/Druid/Bard all have spellcasting powers, and in the case of Wiz/Sorc/Cleric the spell lists overlap in many places! Considering that all the Wiz and Sorc can do is cast spells, basically, if someone has reason to cry, it's a specialist wizard seeing all those new shiny classes like Duskblade, Warlock, Warmage, Archivist, etc etc...

Sorry, making a character useful or relevant to the group cannot mean demanding that you alone get some Special Ability that no-one else is allowed to have.


I know that the players in my group would love to have some more skill points to spent on "non-vital" skills, like i.e. the paladin on Knowledge (nobility) or the fighter on Knowledge (tactics) or a Craft skill, they simply can't afford to divert enough points into it to make it worthwhile. Even the bard rather spends ranks on Move Silently, Perform and Listen, although I try to run a campaign where knowledge skills are not a wasted commodity.

Unfortuantely, when I started the campaign, the d20 D&D v3.0 books had just come out and we were still too much "in awe" of the new system; we didn't dare to customize it to our own liking; that was in the days before stuff like d20 Modern and Unearthed Arcana. Although we upgraded to v3.5 and I have offered my players to take PrCs, so far none of them has taken one... With all the new books and options WotC keeps adding, like regional feats, flaws, more PrCs, new base classes, class substitution levels, racial variants, apprentice & mentor systems, and optional rules in the Unearthed Arcana like channeling, I've seen a lot of things I'd like to add to my game (and of course stuff I won't touch with a 10' pole), but it's almost impossible to change characters retroactively without upsetting things too much.

Back to the topic of skill points: What annoys me most is that Wizards and Sorcerers only get 2 skill points. With all other classes, the logic seems to be "If you have a lot of class skills, we'll give you a lot of skill points, too." But the wizard does have a lot of skills... he has all those knowledge skills, for example, and various d20 fantasy supplements keep adding more, like Knowledge (tactics), Knowledge (arcanobiology), or Knowledge (Necrology). Isn't the often-cited reason why the wizard is so terribly inept at anything but spellcasting that he's a pimply wimpy nerdy bookworm? The stereotype for the basic PHB wizard is a sage-type character. :smallannoyed: Bad BAB, only 1/3 good saves, few feats (and don't get me started on having class features like scribe scroll that actually decrease your XP when you use them!), lowest possible hit dice, lowest possible skill point allocation. Shouldn't a "bookworm" at least get some free bonus knowledge skill-boosting feats? At least something like the Forgotten Realms regional feat "Education" at first level?? Hello?

I've actually come across page at WotC website with two game designers (forgot their names) discussing the strengths and weaknesses of the various core classes, and actually pretending that the wizard had lots of skill points! Funnily enough in other classes with 2 skill points, that trait was listed under weaknesses, exceptfor the wizard, where it was listed under strengths... no doubt to boost the short list of wiz "strengths" a bit. Their logic was that 2+INT skill points means the wizard has plenty points to spend because every wizard naturally has a high INT, and that is why he doesn't need more skill points. I guess in their corner of the world no 1st level wizard has ever started play with an INT of only 14? Even if a wizard starts with INT 18, that only gives him 6 points... which is what the bard gets even without any potential INT bonus!

By the same logic I could demand that rogues don't get a good Reflex save... after all rogues usually have high DEX anyway. Why do clerics need a good Will save? They have a high WIS anyway. See my point?

"But," I hear you cry, "the wizard has full spellcasting! Spellcasting is so incredible powerful!" HOGWASH!! Yeah, my character feels really special when he's cast his handful of spells for the day and then has to trudge after the rest of the group like a fifth wheel.

Unless you regularly play in groups with level 15+ characters and lots of money and time to make all the pink little wands you can carry, arcane spellcasting isn't all that's cracked up to be. First of all, the cleric and druid get full spellcasting too, and look at all the shiny class features of the druid! Second, what other class depends on a mundane item for their primary class ability? A book that first needs to be filled with spells by expensive means and then can be stolen, destroyed, burned up or ruined under water unless you take even more expensive protective measures? Bleh.

If full spellcasting prevents you from learning anything else but flinging spells, why do we get Arcane Tricksters, Duskblades, Spellswords, and other PrCs that have no problem with combining full spellcasting with combat or skill focus?

Perhaps WotC game designers have realized that the PHB 3.5 wizard and sorcerer are no longer able to compete, and have decided to develop the arcane caster along archetype lines into separate spellcaster types, i.e. the Beguiler or the Warmage, which represent a high-powered version of a specialist wiz/sorcerer, but with A LOT more spells to burn and nifty extra powers, ultimately making the core class wizard specialist irrelevant.

Want to see a PrC that embodies exactly what I secretly imagined a wizard to be? (More, even, to be frank, because it's an urban PrC meant for Bards and Wizards and thus gets all the skills of both classes - personally I'd be happy with maybe 50% of them provided I'm allowed to take my pick.) Take a look at WotC's Cityscape supplement (Nov 2006), page 100, the Urban Savant PrC. Six shiny skill points, d6 hit die, 2/3 good saves, tons of extra feats at each level, and full spellcasting in light armor with no spell failure chance.


---
One things about skill DCs that bothers me is that some skills, like i.e. Listen, Bluff, Diplomacy, Tumble and Perform, have relatively low DCs to accomplish most tasks well, or these DCs are tied to an NPC's opposing skill roll, like Listen-vs-Move-silently, or Bluff-vs-Sense-motive. Beginning characters have at least a 50% chance to do most things, and at higher levels characters hardly need to roll unless you introduce steep modifiers.

On the other hand certain specialist skills like Open Lock and Use Magic Device (emulating a different race or abilities) start with DCs at 25 and go up to 40. Which means characters have to put a lot of ranks into these skills for many levels just to get into decent skill ranges one day to accomplish anything. Even taking 20 won't help your 3rd level rogue much if a lock has DC 35. D&D is supposed to be pseudo-medieval, but locks are state-of-the-art?

THe point is, for easy everyday situations with DCs of 5 or 10, you usually don't even roll. You only have to roll for high-risk situations, or during combat, and that's when just having +1 in a skill doesnt help you much.

Still, even if you increase skill points for every class, no character will be able to be great in everything, and max ranks ceiling for level still exists. I have no problem with a wizard having forgery as a class skill as long as there's a background story reason for it. For every point he puts into Forgery, that's one less skill point he can put anywhere else. *shrug* Hey, it works in GURPS.

I do admit that Viscount Einstrauss has a point, though, when he argues that if you upgrade PCs you have to upgrade monsters and NPCs too. But why is upgrading a system that offers too few skillpoints to begin with "cheesy"? Is it more unbalancing than WotC creating PC classes with all kinds of spell-like abilities usable AT WILL? Monsters without class levels already calculate skill points by monster dice not by any sort of class. Where's the problem?

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-02-24, 11:35 PM
It's because, as stated before by someone else here, this way doesn't do it by a percentile. Rogues get gipped here because an extra 2 skillpoints effectively only raises their skillpoints by 25%. Compare that to the fighter, wizard, sorcerer, or cleric who suddenly has double. Even the bard, ranger, and monk are getting a 33% return. Rogues, who's single best ability is that they have the most skillpoints, are raising the very least under a 2 point blanket increase. So, statistically, you just awarded everyone else while punishing the rogue. Why?

I'm not saying other classes couldn't use some more skills. I'm saying the rogue should be significantly better at it, because it's their niche. You're taking away that "significant" part and just making it "a pretty decent bit".

As for the other thing about the rogue1/wizard thing working, it's because Able Learner makes every skill cost 1 to use, which is why that's so cheesy.

Saph
2007-02-25, 04:47 AM
Also, the classes with the fewest skillpoints are usually full casters (wizard, cleric, sorcerer), and full casters don't need boosts. Having only 2 skillpoints per level is about the only weakness Clerics have - do you really want to make them even more powerful?

- Saph

Bears With Lasers
2007-02-25, 04:53 AM
Is it more unbalancing than WotC creating PC classes with all kinds of spell-like abilities usable AT WILL?
PC classes like the Warlock? Yes, it is more unbalancing (even if it isn't at all), because the Warlock is majorly underpowered, not uber.

Whamme
2007-02-25, 04:55 AM
Also, the classes with the fewest skillpoints are usually full casters (wizard, cleric, sorcerer), and full casters don't need boosts. Having only 2 skillpoints per level is about the only weakness Clerics have - do you really want to make them even more powerful?

- Saph

See, given Clerics and Wizards already break the game balance, I say go for it. There's no real balance to be lost, so why not tweak at will?

Renegade Paladin
2007-02-25, 05:31 AM
I've been considering this myself. The subject came up in the discussion thread for OneWinged4ngel's Rebalanced Paladin on the WotC board. I think it sounds like a good idea; frankly, most skills aren't going to break anything.

Though I wouldn't just give two more to every class. Wizards can definitely do without, as can bards I think. I'm playing a human barbarian now with 15 INT (the rolled stat spread was insane) who has so many skill points that I've maxed every class skill except Handle Animal and Craft, so I don't especially think they need it.

I'd give the boost to fighters, monks, paladins, rangers, rogues, and possibly sorcerers. Of course, while I was at it I'd rebuild some of those or use someone else's rebuild, but that's another topic entirely.

Anon-a-mouse
2007-02-25, 06:08 AM
Bards, rangers and rogues are already the weakest classes. Why on earth would you want make them proportionately weaker?

Dark
2007-02-25, 08:21 AM
Isn't the often-cited reason why the wizard is so terribly inept at anything but spellcasting that he's a pimply wimpy nerdy bookworm?
Hmm, that made me think of restricted skill points. What about giving the wizard 2 skill points that can only be used on Knowledge skills?

This could be generalized: give everyone 2 restricted skill points per level (8 at 1st level, as usual), that can only be used on Knowledge, Craft, Profession, or Perform skills. Class and cross-class rules still apply normally. The number of restricted skill points is not affected by Intelligence either way.

This way, characters can pick up a number of minor background skills, without having to sacrifice primary adventuring skills to get them.

Some concerns about this change:


Bards benefit unequally from this, since they can apply their restricted skill points directly to an important class skill (namely Perform).
It allows adventurers to maintain full competence in two professions, in addition to their adventuring career. That's a bit unrealistic. On the other hand, they're not likely to use a feat on skill focus like an NPC expert would.
It'll make it easier to get into prestige classes that are "balanced" by requiring ranks in obscure knowledge skills.
It'll make it easier to get synergy bonuses; this also encourages players to put their restricted skill points into synergy skills rather than into genuine background skills.

Giving only 1 restricted skill point instead of 2 would help with most of these concerns, but it would magnify the bard thing.

Matthew
2007-02-25, 11:02 AM
By the same logic I could demand that rogues don't get a good Reflex save... after all rogues usually have high DEX anyway. Why do clerics need a good Will save? They have a high WIS anyway. See my point?

Actually, I am on board with that. I don't really get why the Save progressions have such a huge disparity when the Classes already have Attribute Scores that will favour those Saves. Full Saves for all!

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-02-25, 12:17 PM
I'd almost completely agree with that, too. It depowers casters slightly due to some of their spells suddenly having a harder time working (yes, yes, I realize that a caster has plenty of non-save spells and can also make the saves so high that they'll never be reached anyway), and anything that depowers casters a little works in favor of balance.

The only issue then is that there's some non-crazy-cheap stuff that other classes can do that suddenly become harder, like traps and such.

Redwizard26
2007-02-25, 02:45 PM
Actually, I am on board with that. I don't really get why the Save progressions have such a huge disparity when the Classes already have Attribute Scores that will favour those Saves. Full Saves for all!
I like this line of thinking ... how many times have stories had characters that were fighter types that resisted something that must be a will save by being thick headed and stubborn. I realize that there is a feat to use Con instead of Wis for Will saves but it shouldn't be the requirement for every fighter that doesn't want to be charmed into killing his friends.

Secondly I have always felt that there is such a huge amount of skills that few characters can ever touch due to both lack of skill points and because most classes have so few class skills. when was the last time you put more than 5 ranks into a climb or use rope or escape artist... most of the time when I read in a published adventure that something has a DC 30 escape artist for a small creature I simply assume that my players wont even attempt it...

Matthew
2007-02-25, 03:00 PM
I also advocate having Great Fortitude, Lightning Reflexes and Iron Will Feats grant +4 Bonuses. I have also been known to suggest that each Save uses the best bonus and worst penalty of two Attribute Scores

i.e.

Fortitude = Strength and Constitution
Reflex = Dexterity and Intelligence
Will = Wisdom and Charisma

So that a +3 Strength and +1 Constitution would equal +3 overall, whilst a -1 Strength and +1 Constitution would equal +0 overall.

barawn
2007-02-25, 03:05 PM
Sorcerers and Fighters are doubly hurt by their lack of useful class skills. More skill points won't help, if Bluff and Climb are the best skills you've got.

I dunno about that: a fighter with Bluff, Intimidate, and Ride maxed can be pretty formidable in combat if used well, and the extra skill points allow them to tack on additional cross-class skills then as well.

I personally always thought the restriction on the maximum of cross-class skills was a bit odd - you're already severely restricted enough by the "2 skill points needed for 1 rank" bit. The maximum on cross-class skills should just be the same as the class skills.

(Either that, or remove the other restriction: make it so that your maximum rank is "levels in which the skill is a class skill + (1/2)*other levels", and remove the 2-for-1 adding).

Tobrian
2007-02-25, 03:13 PM
The problem is of course that completely remodeling a system from the ground up is a lot of work, time I don't have. But would it break the system? Hell, the d20 system has parts that are broken already, or at least annoying to me, nothing's perfect...

Maybe I'm just suffering from severe GURPS withdrawal. During the 1990s we used to play a lot of GURPS and CoC and Swashbuckler, and converted WoD to GURPS. Now these days, even at RPG cons it's mostly d20 d20 d20 everywhere. Playing D&D again was nice at first, but right now ALL the groups I've left (people get older, move away, have less time to spend on RPing) are D&D. *mutters* :smallannoyed: It's getting a bit... much. So I try in vain to make the d20 D&D system do things it can't.
Sorry for ranting.

Tobrian
2007-02-25, 03:17 PM
As for skill ranks in monsters without class levels... animals or magical beasts for example. Most of their skill consist of things like climb, swim, listen, spot, hide. I don't think why raising a PCs and NPCs skill points has to result in raising the racial skill abilities of these animals. If you really want to you can always raise their racial skill bonus +2.

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-02-25, 03:21 PM
I dunno about that: a fighter with Bluff, Intimidate, and Ride maxed can be pretty formidable in combat if used well...
Bluff is not a class skill for a fighter.

Second, neither Bluff nor Intimidate are all that useful in combat without a fair amount of feat action. Feinting doesn't do much for a fighter unless fighting a foe with an extremely high Dexterity. And there are generally more productive things to do with your turn for a round than making a character shaken for just one round.

Third, Ride has sufficiently low DCs for all its primary tasks that even the most hardcore mounted combatant doesn't really need to keep on adding ranks beyond middle levels. Unless maybe the combatant feels a strangely pressing need to stand on his or her mount (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/epicSkills.html#ride). :smallwink:


(Either that, or remove the other restriction: make it so that your maximum rank is "levels in which the skill is a class skill + (1/2)*other levels", and remove the 2-for-1 adding).
:confused:

Your maximum rank is "Character Level + 3" for any skill that is a class skill for any of your classes. A Rogue 3/Wizard 3 has a maximum rank of 9 for Tumble and Disable Device—the same as a Rogue 6. You only have a reduced maximum rank if a skill is cross-class for all your classes. Your suggestion appears to change this.

its_all_ogre
2007-02-25, 04:42 PM
um no.
phb states that if you multi-class your class skills are forever skills from any and all of your classes, regardless of which class you advance.
so if you have first level rogue and then go pure fighter you could have at level 20 maxed hide, move silently, spot and listen(just for example)
the addition of this rule is one of the best things about 3.5 ed

Matthew
2007-02-25, 04:44 PM
Yes you could, but Shhalahr isn't saying anything different. However, a character cannot invest in a Skill 1:1 unless it is a Class Skill for the Class he is currently levelling in.

barawn
2007-02-25, 06:43 PM
Bluff is not a class skill for a fighter.

I know. That was just a previous suggestion.


And there are generally more productive things to do with your turn for a round than making a character shaken for just one round.

There's no range requirement on Intimidate. It's fairly useful that way, especially in combination with someone who can hit at range with something that requires a saving throw.


Third, Ride has sufficiently low DCs for all its primary tasks that even the most hardcore mounted combatant doesn't really need to keep on adding ranks beyond middle levels.

That I agree with, which is fairly annoying. It'd be nice if they came out with a mounted combat splatbook with higher DCs for more creative actions. That being said, claiming cover against every attacker isn't a bad trick, and it requires a crapload of checks, so a large number of ranks is nice.


Your maximum rank is "Character Level + 3" for any skill that is a class skill for any of your classes. A Rogue 3/Wizard 3 has a maximum rank of 9 for Tumble and Disable Device—the same as a Rogue 6. You only have a reduced maximum rank if a skill is cross-class for all your classes. Your suggestion appears to change this.

That was just one suggestion. I was mainly saying the reduced max rank is pointless overkill. The first suggestion didn't change that (just get rid of the reduced max rank). The second suggestion was mainly to increase skill points per level without changing the number of skill points per level. It does change things, though. Not sure it wouldn't be a good change, though.

Another not-so-bad suggestion for 'effectively increasing skill points' would be a feat making half the skill points fed into a cross-class skill that is in class for other classes be "given back": i.e. if you've got a Rogue 1/Wizard 5 who dumps 10 skill points into Tumble over his wizard levels, he can take a Feat which instantly gives him 5 skill points to use as if it were earned as a Wizard.

Basically allows someone to use a Feat (thus slowing Feat growth) to recover previously-slow Skill growth. Maybe cap the skill points regained, as you don't want 10 levels of slow Skill growth to be refunded with one Feat.

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-02-25, 06:56 PM
There's no range requirement on Intimidate.
Yes there is.

"You can intimidate only an opponent that you threaten in melee combat and that can see you. (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/skillsAll.html#intimidate)"


That being said, claiming cover against every attacker isn't a bad trick, and it requires a crapload of checks, so a large number of ranks is nice.
And if you can pull that off, your Ride Skill is high enough to make the Mounted Combat feat pay off to the extreme when they eventually start attacking your mount so you can't hide behind it any more. Of course, being that Mounted Combat is limited to one use per round, that's not too helpful when fighting a swarm of baddies.

barawn
2007-02-25, 07:07 PM
Yes there is.

Whoops, I missed the "threaten" part. Well, that's retarded.


And if you can pull that off, your Ride Skill is high enough to make the Mounted Combat feat pay off to the extreme when they eventually start attacking your mount so you can't hide behind it any more. Of course, being that Mounted Combat is limited to one use per round, that's not too helpful when fighting a swarm of baddies.

Actually, Cover requires a Ride check for each attacker unless they're attacking at same initiative order.

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-02-25, 07:12 PM
But Mounted Combat (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/featsAll.html#mounted-combat) only lets you use it once per round.

I'm referring to the feat that lets you negate attacks against your mount.

Matthew
2007-02-25, 07:13 PM
Great Feat, that. Just sad that they don't use a similar mechanism to let Fighters Parry.

Tobrian
2007-02-25, 07:32 PM
Great Feat, that. Just sad that they don't use a similar mechanism to let Fighters Parry.

I know a roleplayer who flat-out told me he refuses to play D&D because they still don't have a way to parry. Makes a swashbuckler type character a bit useless.

Matthew
2007-02-25, 07:37 PM
There is a kind of way to parry, but it's a Core Variant Rule - Opposed Armour Class Rolls; combine it with the Defence Bonus Variant and you pretty much have a parry system. Personally, though, I just prefer House Ruling a Parry System into our (A)D&D Game and playing Default D&D as written...

Helgraf
2007-03-02, 03:01 AM
Hmm, that made me think of restricted skill points. What about giving the wizard 2 skill points that can only be used on Knowledge skills?

This could be generalized: give everyone 2 restricted skill points per level (8 at 1st level, as usual), that can only be used on Knowledge, Craft, Profession, or Perform skills. Class and cross-class rules still apply normally. The number of restricted skill points is not affected by Intelligence either way.

This way, characters can pick up a number of minor background skills, without having to sacrifice primary adventuring skills to get them.

Some concerns about this change:

Bards benefit unequally from this, since they can apply their restricted skill points directly to an important class skill (namely Perform).
It allows adventurers to maintain full competence in two professions, in addition to their adventuring career. That's a bit unrealistic. On the other hand, they're not likely to use a feat on skill focus like an NPC expert would.
It'll make it easier to get into prestige classes that are "balanced" by requiring ranks in obscure knowledge skills.
It'll make it easier to get synergy bonuses; this also encourages players to put their restricted skill points into synergy skills rather than into genuine background skills.Giving only 1 restricted skill point instead of 2 would help with most of these concerns, but it would magnify the bard thing.

Now that's an idea ...

Helgraf
2007-03-02, 03:20 AM
A couple of clarifiers -

A) Yes, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If I did this, I'd increase monster skill points by type by 2 as well.

B) Proportional increase: The problem is that if I only give the 2 SP classes one extra skill point, proprotionally, rogues get 4 extra SP - which is more than I was angling for while at the same time giving the low SP classes practically nothing.

C) Yes, if this is done, one has to look carefully at Prestige classes with low skill rank requirements to see that they can't be entered earlier than intended.

D) Yeah, I know. Casters are overpowered. This isn't going to make them suddenly moreso; they're still restricted to their inclass skills (but see next point).

E) Yes, if they happen to be humans (or dopplegangers) and willing to multiclass and spend a feat they develop almost any skill they want. But frankly, any human build can do that, caster or no, so it's not directly relevant; that's the cheese of Able Learner, a good example of why I don't just accept everything from the race books carte blanche.

F) There is a skill (Open Minded) in one of the complete books that gives you a flat 5 Skill Points.

G) I actually like the 'restricted extra SP' option - I may have to look into expanding that idea ...

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-03-02, 09:03 AM
C) Yes, if this is done, one has to look carefully at Prestige classes with low skill rank requirements to see that they can't be entered earlier than intended.
Skills have maximum ranks. Increasing the number of skill points available skill points doesn't change that. Any Prestige Class whose entry level depends on skill ranks will retain its minimum entry level at "Maximum skill ranks required minus 3".

Helgraf
2007-03-02, 11:31 AM
Skills have maximum ranks. Increasing the number of skill points available skill points doesn't change that. Any Prestige Class whose entry level depends on skill ranks will retain its minimum entry level at "Maximum skill ranks required minus 3".

Yes, but PrCs with a bunch of "2 ranks of x skill" prerequisities, where the skills chosen are deliberately chosen to make it difficult to fulfill without either multiclassing or spending cross-class skill ranks (either of which delays the ability to get into the class) could, in theory, be made easier to get into in this way.

However, on the whole, yes, you are correct.

Ionari
2007-03-06, 12:17 AM
Like the originator of this thread, I've found the canon skill rules to be somewhat onerous. I've had a particularly hard time diverting skill points to "soft" skills such as knowledge, profession, craft, perform, etc.

Part of the problem with the "soft" skills is that the level of generality is unclear. Some skills are split up - e.g., Knowledge (Waterdeep local). Others are general, e.g. Knowledge (nature). Some are treated inconsistently. FRCS lists, e.g., Blackstaff as having ranks in Knowledge (Waterdeep history) and Manshoon in Knowledge (Moonsea geography), suggesting that history and geography are specialized by region; Meanwhile Blackstaff's lovely almost-bride Laeral is described in Waterdeep CoS as having ranks in Knowledge (history) and Knowledge (geography), indicating that those skills are not specialized by region.

Clearly, the higher the level of generality, the more powerful the skill - if putting a point into Knowledge (nature) helps you regardless of terrain, it is worth more than if you need to put in a point for every type of terrain you plan to spend time in.

This points to a few possible ways to strengthen the role of soft skills in the game and/or encourage players to invest valuable SPs in them.

Since I am not a very experienced gamer/DM, I'd appreciate your input on these methods - from both a balance and a more general playability perspective. The goal is to make soft skills more attractive to players without having to resort to brute force penalization and second-guessing of their actions ("you can't cast protection from fire because your character doesn't know red dragons breath fire"). Suggestions for improvement are most welcome! Please note - I am using FR simply because I am most familiar with that setting; the points I am trying to make are more general, though.

1. Generalize the skills. Make each soft skill as general as possible. Perform (drama) would cover thespian and oratory performances alike, Knowledge (history) is applicable to the history of all Faerun, etc. This method has the benefit of simplicity, but little else to commend it (in my view; but I am putting it here since you might see something I do not). It seems counterintuitive for a ranger to understand the nature of deserts when he has only experienced forests and grassland, for example.

2. Many skills, many skill points. Each point into Knowledge (history) counts as three points - but they have to be applied to specific sub-skills (e.g., Knowledge (Waterdeep history)). All three can be applied to the same sub-skill, but skill maxes still apply. A character can use this to max out three Knowledge (history) sub-skills with one SP each level, or keep her Knowledge (Moonsea history) maxed by investing a point every three levels.
Points to consider:
* Prestige class requirements - if 6 ranks in Knowledge (history) are required, is it enough to have developed 6 ranks in a history sub-skill? 6 ranks in each of three history sub-skills? A total of 18 points across all history sub-skills, with at least one sub-skill being 6 or above?
* Synergy for related sub-skills (e.g., history sub-skills for Zhentil Keep and the Dales)?
* Flexibility for other kinds of divisions - e.g., a player doesn't want to specialize in regional history, but all-Faerun military history - is this okay? If he has 6 ranks in Knowledge (military history) and 6 ranks in Knowledge (Tethyr), is his effective rank on a question of Tethyr's military history 6, or is there an added benefit? A simple synergy benefit (+2), or something else?
* Skill focus feats - take the feat for Knowledge (history) and apply it to any three sub-skills in that tree? Or do you get 12 points to distribute among all Knowledge (history) sub-skills any way you want?

3. Name your specialities. Soft skills are relatively general ("nature" rather than "nature desert"), but this is not worth as much as in method #1 above because DCs are set somewhat higher. Instead, when the player puts points into a soft skill, she gets to pick a speciality. Put a couple of points into Knowledge (nature)? You can specialize in Knowledge (nature - desert). This gives you a bonus of X (let's say +4) on Knowledge (nature) checks having to do with the desert. The more skill points you have in a skill, the more specialities you get to accumulate. You can take a point in Knowledge (engineering and architecture) and specialize in Dwarven architecture; later take another point (or maybe two points - see next sentence) in that skill, and specialize in castles; later, in types of building materials. Sometimes, you can name a speciality by purchasing a single point in the relevant skill, if the speciality is a relatively narrow one; other specialities, at the DM's option, require the application of two or three points to the overall general skill.
You cannot pick the same speciality twice; however, you can subspecialize - e.g., if you already picked Dwarven architecture, you can subspecialize in Dwarven tunnels for an additional stacking bonus of Y (let's say +2).
The main drawback of this method is that it requires a lot of handling by the DM. The benefit is that it is much more flexible than method 2, because it allows for greater focus, more tradeoffs between depth and breadth of knowledge. Note that the bonuses are not limited by skill maxes; so, an NPC sage can "punch above her weight", and get a Knowledge skill considerably above what you might expect of her level, if she focused. This, I find pleasing in terms of roleplaying - e.g. the expert on xorn who doesn't know a whole lot about the planes generally, a moderate amount about the plane of Earth, quite a lot about the denizens of the plane of Earth, and is a world-class expert on xorn, all at level 8. If you know how to find her, you don't need to go to some level 18 snoot of a sage who will charge you an arm, a leg and a liver just to talk to you.
The very flexibility of this method is also, in a way, its weakness. See the "Points to consider" for method 2 above - most of them apply with added ferocity to method 3.

Thoughts? Comments?

Jannex
2007-03-06, 04:51 AM
I very much agree that the skill system in D&D needs to be fixed somehow, although I suspect that its problem may be a systemic malady inherent in the class/levelling system.

I started roleplaying with White Wolf; therefore, I tend to favor skill-heavy characters. I'd love to try my hand at playing a Paladin sometime, but I can't because they only get 2+Int skill points per level, and I would "not have fun" (read: go insane with frustration and attempt to stab my eyes out with my pencil) if I tried to play such a limited character. The only way I can ever play a Paladin and retain my eyes is if I can convince someone to run a gestalt game, take Devoted Performer, and run Bard up the other column.

So yeah. I'd love it if there were a way to fix the skill system, such that "less-skilled" classes had a reasonable number of skill points, but without screwing over the "more skilled" classes (which, obviously, I love).

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-03-06, 08:06 AM
Part of the problem with the "soft" skills is that the level of generality is unclear. Some skills are split up - e.g., Knowledge (Waterdeep local). Others are general, e.g. Knowledge (nature). Some are treated inconsistently. FRCS lists, e.g., Blackstaff as having ranks in Knowledge (Waterdeep history) and Manshoon in Knowledge (Moonsea geography), suggesting that history and geography are specialized by region; Meanwhile Blackstaff's lovely almost-bride Laeral is described in Waterdeep CoS as having ranks in Knowledge (history) and Knowledge (geography), indicating that those skills are not specialized by region.

Clearly, the higher the level of generality, the more powerful the skill - if putting a point into Knowledge (nature) helps you regardless of terrain, it is worth more than if you need to put in a point for every type of terrain you plan to spend time in.
I do believe the intention is that an unspecialized skill would have higher DCs. So it's more difficult to use all around, but you get some versatility with it.

i.e. Knowledge (Waterdeep history) is useless in Shadowdale, but using it to know something about the lords of Waterdeep could be DC 5 compared to a DC 15 check for general Knowledge (history).

Dark
2007-03-06, 10:27 AM
Like the originator of this thread, I've found the canon skill rules to be somewhat onerous. I've had a particularly hard time diverting skill points to "soft" skills such as knowledge, profession, craft, perform, etc.
I don't think this is doable in principle. These skills model the non-adventuring lifestyles. They are by nature less useful for adventurers than adventuring-focused skills. Profession (farmer) is just never going to pay off compared to Bluff or Spot or Spellcraft. Even if you managed to change that, you'd then have to explain why apprentice wizards aren't sent out to plow some fields as part of their training :)


1. Generalize the skills.I think even Craft (anything) or Perform (anything) wouldn't be unbalanced, just unrealistic. And in a world where every level 1 fighter knows how to use every martial weapon, it might not even be unrealistic :)

However, as you said, if you do that then these skills lose color and flavor. Also, they become useless for modeling non-adventurers.

I like your third approach, possibly because it's similar to the core mechanic of the RPG system I've been developing for a while :)

I'd combine approach 3 with approach 1, though. Someone might learn simply Craft, which covers everything that can be crafted, and then (for example) specialize in weaponry, steelworking, and swords. Then give a straight +2 bonus for every specialty that applies to a particular project. Much simpler.

As another example, a bard might specialize Perform in stringed instruments, lutes, songs, and ballads, in order to stack up +8 in a particular scenario.

By allowing different kinds of specialties (such as instrument types, performance types, perhaps even situational specialties such as "hostile audience") and allowing them to stack, you gain much flexibility. This can be combined with the idea of subspecialization, such as allowing both "stringed instruments" and "lutes" as specialties.

Helgraf
2007-03-06, 01:03 PM
Hmm, that made me think of restricted skill points. What about giving the wizard 2 skill points that can only be used on Knowledge skills?

This could be generalized: give everyone 2 restricted skill points per level (8 at 1st level, as usual), that can only be used on Knowledge, Craft, Profession, or Perform skills. Class and cross-class rules still apply normally. The number of restricted skill points is not affected by Intelligence either way.

This way, characters can pick up a number of minor background skills, without having to sacrifice primary adventuring skills to get them.

Some concerns about this change:

Bards benefit unequally from this, since they can apply their restricted skill points directly to an important class skill (namely Perform).
It allows adventurers to maintain full competence in two professions, in addition to their adventuring career. That's a bit unrealistic. On the other hand, they're not likely to use a feat on skill focus like an NPC expert would.
It'll make it easier to get into prestige classes that are "balanced" by requiring ranks in obscure knowledge skills.
It'll make it easier to get synergy bonuses; this also encourages players to put their restricted skill points into synergy skills rather than into genuine background skills.Giving only 1 restricted skill point instead of 2 would help with most of these concerns, but it would magnify the bard thing.

This could be avoided by excluding Perform from the Bard list of restricted skills, since for the Bard, Perform isn't a 'fluff'/'soft' skill. Alternately, it could be applied with a rider 'cannot be added to the Perform skill with which the character has the highest number of skill ranks' which would essentially then have the bard developing a second or even third pool of perform skill - and frankly, having a bard capable of playing more than one class of instrument or perform in more than one method is usually a good thing anyway.