Rolling Back Flight

[jiriku]

If climbing is so essential to success, all you've managed to force the Skill-Monkeys to take a skill that 1) they cannot fail at, else the game ends and 2) reduces their effectiveness in other tasks, and in 99% of cases, they didn't make a skill monkey to climb on stuff. They're probably not taking ranks in climbing because it isn't terribly useful in most cases and they have to weaken themselves to do it. So now you have the double punishment of no flight for mundanes AND you're expected to dump skill points into Climb else your progression won't continue. It is this type of situation that often leads to all Wizard parties in my experience.

Your point is valid, but if you accept a number of assumptions. What if those assumptions aren't true?

Counterpoint: what if being able to maneuver freely increased your effectiveness, rather than weakening you? What if climbing was terribly useful in many cases? What if failing a Climb check didn't end the game? What if progression continued just fine without Climb, but characters who could climb well received regular, tangible benefits? This is not me making stuff up. This is exactly what the OP says he intends to do.

[Venger]

If you force a man with a gun to take a tennis racket because you have placed a tennis match challenge in front of him, you cannot blame him if he chooses to play the game with the Uzi instead and leave the annoying racket at home.

If climbing is so essential to success, all you've managed to force the Skill-Monkeys to take a skill that 1) they cannot fail at, else the game ends and 2) reduces their effectiveness in other tasks, and in 99% of cases, they didn't make a skill monkey to climb on stuff. They're probably not taking ranks in climbing because it isn't terribly useful in most cases and they have to weaken themselves to do it. So now you have the double punishment of no flight for mundanes AND you're expected to dump skill points into Climb else your progression won't continue. It is this type of situation that often leads to all Wizard parties in my experience.

let's uh... stop with the metaphors, they never help anything. we'll just go back and forth constructing more and more elaborate ones and forget what we're talking about.

right, exactly. if you make gameplay untenable for mundanes, no one is going to want to play them. so if your goal is to watch people roll climb checks, you're going to be sorely disappointed.

See, I think that's backwards. Not necessarily untrue, but backwards. Any game, and especially a cooperative game, should be built around the expected challenges, not expected capabilities. That's the core problem people keep raising with pushing back flight -- you need to be able to fly in order to contribute in certain challenges. Well, fine, but I would like to see those challenges pushed back two levels. Nobody with solid ranged options and flight should show up before 7th. Nobody with flight, good ranged weapons, and a way to attack while out of reach of arrows should show up before 10th. Dungeons and other adventure locations should be built in the same way--flight should never be a necessity below a certain level.

we're all in agreement about this. what we're trying to impress upon you is that it's really really hard to find very many monsters like that straight through 7th level and it will likely be a lot more effort than you think.

I also don't think you should need spells per se in order to get magic, but that's for a different thread.

what does this mean? are you talking about ToB?

I've kicked this around in my head before too. A systemized way (not necessarily the skill system) to make a lot of buffs strictly better if they're cast on a "mundane" would really improve intraparty dynamics even if it didn't truly address the core balance. Some buffs obviously already work like this--enlarge person is something you cast on the beatstick--but I think you could expand the ambit of buffs that work this way quite a bit. It's not much of a stretch to imagine martial types with a lot of body awareness being better at throwing their weight around once they've been given wings or been turned into a bear. I've never actually sat down and tried to work out a system or edit the 1.5 billion spells though.

what are you saying here? like, have a mundane character reap some more stat bonuses from enlarge person? that's a fine idea, but it will necessitate going through every single one of the ~5000 printed spells and trying to rebalance each one which will... take some time.

[StreamOfTheSky]

I think the argument also applies more when it is a buff spell that mundanes need in order to do anything in certain fights, like flight. Less so for the class of spells I will now dub 'Reality-Diddling' spells, which...Aren't as benefical to the party as a whole unless they wish to become the god-king's maid or something because he's fixed the problem of the world ending last week. Adding more of the latter is a bad, bad, bad, idea. Adding more of the former? Yeah, technically makes the wizard better, but in such a way that is more likely to increase the usefulness of mundanes, as well as their enjoyment in many cases.

Overall, I think what the spell does and how it affects the game is a big factor on if it mucks up balance to remove, or can be ditched without problem. Not spells in general, but what they do.

That I agree with. Buffs that can be used on others, and potentially synergize with them better than the wizard, are totally fine. It's (part of) the reason I always ban Alter Self and Shapechange but often allow Polymorph and Polymorph Any Objects, with some restrictions.
I think almost all buffs should be able to be cast on others, and the idea that "self only" makes a spell lower level needs to die quickly.

But any other spells, like save or die/suck/lose, solve-the-plot divinations, summons/pets/mentally-dominated-slaves that do the job of the mundanes, etc...? Those can have a hatchet taken to them for all I care. Actually, I do care, and will some day do an exhaustive nerfing of the core spells...

[jiriku]

what we're trying to impress upon you is that it's really really hard to find very many monsters like that straight through 7th level and it will likely be a lot more effort than you think.

Mmmm. Only 5% of the monsters of CR 10 or lower in MM1 are strong ranged flyers. I just counted them. Add to that the ability to customize the other 95% with templates, hit die advancement, and class levels, and I really don't see where you're coming from.

[Venger]

That I agree with. Buffs that can be used on others, and potentially synergize with them better than the wizard, are totally fine. It's (part of) the reason I always ban Alter Self and Shapechange but often allow Polymorph and Polymorph Any Objects, with some restrictions.
I think almost all buffs should be able to be cast on others, and the idea that "self only" makes a spell lower level needs to die quickly.

But any other spells, like save or die/suck/lose, solve-the-plot divinations, summons/pets/mentally-dominated-slaves that do the job of the mundanes, etc...? Those can have a hatchet taken to them for all I care. Actually, I do care, and will some day do an exhaustive nerfing of the core spells...

I agree with this philosophy. I really dislike how many of the best spells are personal only so you can't share them with your pals.

yeah, SoD are not fun. either they kill you or they make you stop playing the game.

if you do this, I'd love to see it (tried rephrasing that a million times, but I can't make it sound non-combative. I mean it as it's stated though, not like a 'I'd like to see you try')

[Honest Tiefling]

Your point is valid, but if you accept a number of assumptions. What if those assumptions aren't true?

Counterpoint: what if being able to maneuver freely increased your effectiveness, rather than weakening you? What if climbing was terribly useful in many cases? What if failing a Climb check didn't end the game? What if progression continued just fine without Climb, but characters who could climb well received regular, tangible benefits? This is not me making stuff up. This is exactly what the OP says he intends to do.

I see the OP wanting to make these skills useful, but not a lot about how they want to make a climbing focused game. I also don't see how it is particularly feasible for an RPG to have climbing challenges give regular prizes for those who have invested in climb make sense with the world. I cannot think of many situations where that is going to happen, outside of robbery. A climbing focused game would be rather nifty, I admit, but probably really hard to pull off. Not to mention, really dull for everyone else.

And taking ranks in climbs typically weakens characters, because they do not have infinite Skill Points and are not as versatile as spell casters. That's less ranks for UMD, Disable Device, Search, Spot, Listen, Sense Motive, Move Silently, Tumble, and Hide. Most of which are getting to get far more usage then climbing things and some screw over the party if he does not take them.

Also, gimme gimme gimme a list of spells to ban/change for 3.5 or Pathfinder. I think a DM for a group (that I was NOT a part of, but knew a few of the players) got annoyed with the party magus got bored of the dungeon, got the party to buff him up and then fought the entire rest of the dungeon by himself just to get it over with.

[Venger]

I see the OP wanting to make these skills useful, but not a lot about how they want to make a climbing focused game. I also don't see how it is particularly feasible for an RPG to have climbing challenges give regular prizes for those who have invested in climb make sense with the world. I cannot think of many situations where that is going to happen, outside of robbery. A climbing focused game would be rather nifty, I admit, but probably really hard to pull off. Not to mention, really dull for everyone else.

that's because it's not feasible (in 3.5 anyway) what's gonna happen, harpies will politely perch atop a rock wall while the mundanes crawl up to take a jab at them?

And taking ranks in climbs typically weakens characters, because they do not have infinite Skill Points and are not as versatile as spell casters. That's less ranks for UMD, Disable Device, Search, Spot, Listen, Sense Motive, Move Silently, Tumble, and Hide. Most of which are getting to get far more usage then climbing things and some screw over the party if he does not take them.

yes, and skillmonkeys have to max like a zillion things, they don't need another tax.

Also, gimme gimme gimme a list of spells to ban/change for 3.5 or Pathfinder. I think a DM for a group (that I was NOT a part of, but knew a few of the players) got annoyed with the party magus got bored of the dungeon, got the party to buff him up and then fought the entire rest of the dungeon by himself just to get it over with.

you lost me. what are you talking about here?

Mmmm. Only 5% of the monsters of CR 10 or lower in MM1 are strong ranged flyers. I just counted them. Add to that the ability to customize the other 95% with templates, hit die advancement, and class levels, and I really don't see where you're coming from.

I have no arguments with your math whatsoever, but OP never said he was playing core-only. there's a lot more monsters out there than that.

I never said that he couldn't do a game where his party only ever encounters earthbound foes. I just meant that it'd be something he'd always need to look out for if there was ever a generator or a module or anything. flight creeps up on you is all.

[Flickerdart]

There need to be some "other creature only" buffs. Wizards could still use them on familiars; druids on their companions; clerics could get summons but should probably be charitably focused anyway. I've always liked the "soft" implementation of this in Concentration duration buffs such as Control Body where the caster himself normally can't do anything while maintaining the spell, but it would be nice to be able to have multiples of these up.

It would really help if spells of this sort granted more options to the target. So the casters could spread their versatility around, less "bam, you got an extra attack" and more "bam, you now have a crazy vine arm, and whenever you get tired of hitting people with it you can end the spell to entangle everyone around you."

[Honest Tiefling]

you lost me. what are you talking about here?

Steam Of the Sky is talking about a massive ban list. I was providing a case of a caster going berserk and wrecking the plot to indicate why I desire such a list.

[jiriku]

I also don't see how it is particularly feasible for an RPG to have climbing challenges give regular prizes for those who have invested in climb make sense with the world. I cannot think of many situations where that is going to happen, outside of robbery. A climbing focused game would be rather nifty, I admit, but probably really hard to pull off.

I doubt you'd see a "climbing-focused" game, any more than regular d&d at levels 5-7 is considered a "flying-focused" game. But let's apply our imaginations.

• Robbery is actually a pretty good idea. The trope could also be inverted -- use Climb to escape from a building without the loud noise and hit point damage normally associated with jumping out of a second-story window. Kidnappings and hostage rescues also fall into the same "one more option for how to get into or out of a building" scenario.
• Buildings, trees, ravines, small cliffs, or very large boulders could be included in most battlefields. Perhaps ascending one takes one move action with a Climb check and two actions without Climb. Characters who attack from an elevation can receive the +1 bonus for higher ground and may be able to claim cover from foes at lower elevations. Foes may need to expend actions or make skill checks to be able to make melee attacks at all. Characters who are prone atop a height might be able to claim total cover from those below.
• Pit traps on the battlefield could stick a character in a 10' hole. A character with ranks in Climb can more easily get out of the hole.
• Chokepoints on the battlefield could be circumvented by characters with Climb, enabling group tactics like encirclement if some party members can climb.
• Characters might begin on a higher level in combat but need Balance checks to avoid falling to a lower level. Those with ranks in Jump or Tumble would take less damage from the fall, and those with Climb would need to expend only one action to get back to the higher level, instead of two.

I came up with this stuff in two minutes. The key to all of these examples is that you don't NEED Climb in any of them, but having it is useful -- it enables you to use your actions more efficiently, grants you a bonus, or expands the number of options you have for dealing with a situation. I'm sure that any number of people who are better dungeon masters than me could sit down and brainstorm dozens more just like these, with no more than half an hour's effort. Am I making sense now? (Important question, it's getting late here and I am running mostly on coffee.)

And taking ranks in climbs typically weakens characters, because they do not have infinite Skill Points and are not as versatile as spell casters. That's less ranks for UMD, Disable Device, Search, Spot, Listen, Sense Motive, Move Silently, Tumble, and Hide.

This is only true if Climb is a bad option relative to those skills. What if it wasn't? I'll grant you, that's a tall order -- you've listed the five-star skills there, and most of those skills are useful over and over again. But I think the OP said he was using a consolidated skill system. Would an Athletics skill that encompassed Climb + Jump + Swim be worthwhile?

[Honest Tiefling]

Which is why I mentioned it a while ago. Climb by itself is annoying to take. A skill that can do Climb + Swim + Jump? Far more useful and in my opinion, actually tempting.

And the problem I see with your list is that they come up maybe...Once every encounter, but probably more like once every three encounters. If you used those tricks all of the time, well, know Boris the Strong and Fair is rendered useless because he's in a pit the entire fight. Others can be gotten around with far more necessary skills, like search for the pit traps. Running over to a tree in the midst of combat may not be the best idea because you are wasting actions you could be spending flanking or attacking. These are good ideas and would certainly lead to interesting encounters but I don't see any of them that could push out one of the more necessary skills out, given the lack of skill points a skill monkey actually has.

My point being, if you want Skill Monkeys to take these skills, really consider consolidating them to make it easier and less taxing, and then reward them for taking these skills.

[jiriku]

Which is why I mentioned it a while ago. Climb by itself is annoying to take. A skill that can do Climb + Swim + Jump? Far more useful and in my opinion, actually tempting.

My point being, if you want Skill Monkeys to take these skills, really consider consolidating them to make it easier and less taxing, and then reward them for taking these skills.

Ok, I could get behind that idea as well. Sorry, guess I overlooked your mention earlier -- the thread moved a lot while I was out this afternoon.

[Mendicant]

Something I'd caution you about Mendicant is that flight access comes from diverse sources. There are warlock invocations, druid wild shape forms, racial feats, grafts, summoned monsters, animal companions, and other sources as well. You'll need to either come up with a simple blanket rule that affects everything at once (hard) or modify dozens of powers across dozens of sourcebooks (tedious and complicated). While I think your plan is good strategically, executing it tactically may prove a challenge.

Yeah, that's no small part of why this whole conversation is largely theoretical. If I do ever get around to doing this, it won't happen in a vacuum. The first step, before any house rule, would be to run it by my players--"hey guys, I don't want flight to become a thing until somewhere around 8th level, for x reasons." If there's buy-in, I could start by rolling back access to the fly spell and the other spells that provide flight, and all the other sources of flight like the witch hex can be dealt with if they come up. Honestly, as a house rule, one way to avoid the most serious problems people have brought up would be to just make fly and its fellow travelers x-level spells that only become available at level x+1. You can't learn fly until 7th or 8th, but once you do, prep it in a 3rd level spell slot. It's a third-level spell, congratulations. This'd be an unwieldy kludge as a standardized rule for a lot of tables, but it wouldn't be too bad for just one where everybody knows the score.

Perhaps address the problem you see with your players and see if they'd be willing to cooperate, in that if they are interested in a certain option that falls within certain parameters, they bring it up with you? I mean, why bother with the warlock if you have no warlocks? If someone is interested in Polymorphing, get them on board and have them bring potential spells they'd like to take next level to you so you have far less work to do.

That's a good idea.

It is this type of situation that often leads to all Wizard parties in my experience.

See, if mountains are still expected to be a challenge at 6th level, which I frankly don't think is an unreasonable expectation design-wise for a game that owes so much of its DNA to Tolkien, Leiber, and Howard, then the party of wizards isn't zipping around laughing at anything because they don't know how to fly yet. If climb is necessary, not just for you but for everyone, your skill isn't a requirement for your advancement, it's a requirement for the party's advancement. An all-wizard party makes less sense there, not more, because a barbarian rock climber who can stick pitons in the cliff face is a much more efficient use of resources than 5 castings of spider climb. Maybe I've just been playing too long with Pathfinder's consolidated skill list, but I am not seeing the damage sticking a couple ranks in climb is supposedly doing to the skillmonkeys.

Also, you really don't see a lot of people who want to climb on stuff? I see it all the time, especially from new players who haven't become jaded by D&D not being super great at genre emulation. People want to be cliff-scaling barbarians, second-story cat burglers, and assassins who escape by bounding from rooftop to rooftop. They don't want to be somebody's attack dog who patiently waits to be let off the leash.

[jiriku]

People want to be cliff-scaling barbarians, second-story cat burglers, and assassins who escape by bounding from rooftop to rooftop. They don't want to be somebody's attack dog who patiently waits to be let off the leash.

My players bring these archetypes to the table ALL THE TIME, and I enjoy playing them as well. Heights are more thrilling when you have to worry about the consequences of a fall. Plus, "that time Bob's character fell off the roof and nearly died and brought the guards down on all of us" makes a great story that the players will love retelling for years, while "that time that Bob's character cast fly to get to the roof and had feather fall prepared just in case" gets forgotten right away.

[Honest Tiefling]

I'm a little confused at this point, I think you've played both 3.5 and Pathfinder. I'm a big fan of consolidated skill lists, so I still think the Pathfinder list is better in many ways. (OTHER then the lack of Forgery, that is) Are you playing a Pathfinder or a 3.5 game, because with Pathfinder skills I think a rogue could manage a bit more leeway with things (and if a rogue isn't a good enough skill money for this exercise, then I...Guess I cry in the corner.), but I am not entirely certain which game is being discussed here.

[Extra Anchovies]

(OTHER then the lack of Forgery, that is)

Linguistics is Forgery, Decipher Script, and Speak Language rolled into one.

[Venger]

Ok, I could get behind that idea as well. Sorry, guess I overlooked your mention earlier -- the thread moved a lot while I was out this afternoon.

glad we're all on the same page.

See, if mountains are still expected to be a challenge at 6th level, which I frankly don't think is an unreasonable expectation design-wise for a game that owes so much of its DNA to Tolkien, Leiber, and Howard,

just because they're influenced by that aesthetic doesn't mean the mechanics are beholden to their narrative structures. just because frodo didn't drop the ring into the volcano from atop a giant eagle doesn't mean your players shouldn't be able to.

then the party of wizards isn't zipping around laughing at anything because they don't know how to fly yet. If climb is necessary, not just for you but for everyone, your skill isn't a requirement for your advancement, it's a requirement for the party's advancement. An all-wizard party makes less sense there, not more,

even if you make flight spells difficult to access, casters will bypass mundane obstacles in other ways (footsteps of the divine, spider climb, dimension

because a barbarian rock climber who can stick pitons in the cliff face is a much more efficient use of resources than 5 castings of spider climb. Maybe I've just been playing too long with Pathfinder's consolidated skill list, but I am not seeing the damage sticking a couple ranks in climb is supposedly doing to the skillmonkeys.

here's where I think the seed of our conflict stems from.

it's exactly like an example that's more well known and generally agreed upon.

by the same token of logic, you could say a rogue with open lock (assuming your dm is a grognard who won't let you use DD on locks) is a better use of resources than a wizard casting knock 5 times.

this isn't actually true. a wizard's (or other caster, whatever) spell slots are renewable resources. he gets new ones every day, and they can be whatever he likes: rope trick, baleful transposition, knock, etc.

a rogue's skill point are a nonrenewable resource. once he spends them at level-up, he's stuck with points in open lock (coming at the opportunity cost of points he could've spent on a good skill, like UMD) for life (barring psyref, doing the wight thing,or whatever, of course)

having a caster use knock to open some doors frees up more of the party's nonrenewable resources to spend on other stuff. that's a positive thing.

spiderclimb, like knock, is essentially CL-independent, so is a good wand. that means it won't even cost slots, just a few bucks.


I think that pf's skill list is clouding your judgement somewhat. the skills are a lot more fragmented in 3.5, the skill point system works differently (you need to buy them each level instead of autoleveling class skills) and you don't get that many more points to spread around:

acrobatics covers balance, tumble, jump and swim.

stealth is split up into hide/ms in 3.5, as is perception into spot/listen.

skillmonkeys need to put point into many of these (including dd/umd/knowledge/etc) so roping climb or whatever else in is making thing more difficult for them.

Also, you really don't see a lot of people who want to climb on stuff? I see it all the time, especially from new players who haven't become jaded by D&D not being super great at genre emulation. People want to be cliff-scaling barbarians, second-story cat burglers, and assassins who escape by bounding from rooftop to rooftop. They don't want to be somebody's attack dog who patiently waits to be let off the leash.

sure, if you want to put in some houserules letting people climb on the mumakil, more power to you. people love to do stuff like that. hammer and piton is a nice starting point to think about mechanics.

[jiriku]

glad we're all on the same page.

Heh! Sorry, Venger, but I was agreeing on the topic of skill consolidation. I still heartily believe that delaying access to flight is entirely practical and doable.

even if you make flight spells difficult to access, casters will bypass mundane obstacles in other ways (footsteps of the divine, spider climb, dimension

Since the OP is DM and is actively contemplating a broad system rewrite, why not challenge this assumption as well? What if, rather than merely delaying access to flight, he implements a houserule that all spells whose primary function is to bypass a skill check are learned at +1 level? This would sweep up jump, spider climb, dimension door, fly, knock etc etc etc. The result would be that the magic trivializing skill use becomes more expensive both to learn and to use (more gp and more valuable spell slots). Casters would be incentivized to ration such magic more carefully, and might prefer to lean more heavily on a skillful character. For example, rather than always preparing knock, a wizard might keep one scroll of knock handy and only use it if the party comes across a door that they absolutely can't bypass through lockpicking or brute force. Alternately, rather than learning both fly and suggestion, a caster might elect to learn only one and lean upon the party acrobat or bard in situations where the other spell would have been used.

by the same token of logic, you could say a rogue with open lock (assuming your dm is a grognard who won't let you use DD on locks) is a better use of resources than a wizard casting knock 5 times. this isn't actually true. spell slots are renewable resources. a rogue's skill point are a nonrenewable resource. spiderclimb, like knock, is essentially CL-independent, so is a good wand. that means it won't even cost slots, just a few bucks.

This is a false analogy. Yes, skill points are an allocated resource. Spell slots are not. But spells known are also an allocated resource, and gold spent purchasing spells or wands is also an allocated resource. Further, a renewable resource still needs to be managed -- hit points are a renewable resource, but if you could address a certain kind of challenge by sacrificing 95% of your hit points, you might consider carefully whether it was always a good idea to do so! Now, you could make an argument that the price of knowing how to cast knock is low relative to the price of knowing how to pick a lock, but that's a different argument entirely from the one that you're making. And if the price of knowing how to cast knock (or fly, or spell x, etc) goes up, there's a point at which the costs become competitive with one another -- cost is no reason to prefer one option over the other when choosing between the two.

[Venger]

Heh! Sorry, Venger, but I was agreeing on the topic of skill consolidation. I still heartily believe that delaying access to flight is entirely practical and doable.

No, I know that's what you meant. No problem. I agree with you that consolidating skills is a good idea and helps skillmonkeys feel less sting if they can just buy acrobatics vs having to buy a bunch of different skills.

Since the OP is DM and is actively contemplating a broad system rewrite, why not challenge this assumption as well? What if, rather than merely delaying access to flight, he implements a houserule that all spells whose primary function is to bypass a skill check are learned at +1 level? This would sweep up jump, spider climb, dimension door, fly, knock etc etc etc. The result would be that the magic trivializing skill use becomes more expensive both to learn and to use (more gp and more valuable spell slots). Casters would be incentivized to ration such magic more carefully, and might prefer to lean more heavily on a skillful character. For example, rather than always preparing knock, a wizard might keep one scroll of knock handy and only use it if the party comes across a door that they absolutely can't bypass through lockpicking or brute force. Alternately, rather than learning both fly and suggestion, a caster might elect to learn only one and lean upon the party acrobat or bard in situations where the other spell would have been used.

since he says doing stuff beyond messing with flight spells is beyond the scope of what he's asking for, I'd interpreted that as him not wanting to rewrite the whole system, but I'm not 100% as to his intent either.

sure, they might ration it more carefully, but it's always gonna be cheaper than real actual skill points since those are not refreshed every day like slots are.

This is a false analogy. Yes, skill points are an allocated resource. Spell slots are not. But spells known are also an allocated resource, and gold spent purchasing spells or wands is also an allocated resource. Further, a renewable resource still needs to be managed -- hit points are a renewable resource, but if you could address a certain kind of challenge by sacrificing 95% of your hit points, you might consider carefully whether it was always a good idea to do so!

no, it's a perfect analogy. climb functions just like OL in that example. the wizard can expend a renewable resource (a slot) or the rogue can expend a nonrenewable resource (skills) how is it not the same when the skill's climb and not open lock?

if I knew I could win an encounter by sacrificing less than 100% of my hp? of course I would! there's no lasting penalties in a hp system, I'd be good as new after a couple lesser vigors. that's exactly what I'm saying about spells. if I knew I could bypass an encounter by casting knock, of course I'm gonna do it, especially if I wand it and it costs me the equivalent of a few gp.

Now, you could make an argument that the price of knowing how to cast knock is low relative to the price of knowing how to pick a lock, but that's a different argument entirely from the one that you're making. And if the price of knowing how to cast knock (or fly, or spell x, etc) goes up, there's a point at which the costs become competitive with one another -- cost is no reason to prefer one option over the other when choosing between the two.

since the hypothetical we've been using thus far is wizard, who can learn NI spells, there is no (nonrenewable) cost for learning the spell, like there would be if he were a sorcerer or something. that's exactly the argument I'm making, not a different one.

even if the caster were a sorcerer, he could just use a wand. money is a renewable resource because like xp, all you need to do to get more is kill some more people.

cost is how you choose between two options. you choose the one that' cheaper.

no matter how much gold it costs for a scroll to scribe something into your spellbook, it's not gonna be more expensive than skill points because you can't (normally) buy skill points.

[jiriku]

Every time I think I'm starting to see where you're coming from, you take a left turn and I'm wondering again.

You said that gold is renewable, because, like xp, you can always get more of it. But skill points are obtained by gaining xp. I agree that the same activities that generate xp also tend generate gold and skill points. But this would mean that gold and xp are the same type of resource -- they are either both renewable or both nonrenewable. Gold is also convertible to skill points because you can spend it on items that enhance or bypass skill checks.

Further, you state that there are no lasting penalties for expending a renewable resource. This is not always true. For example, suppose you have one fly or one knock spell prepared. You burn this spell trivializing a skill challenge. Later that day, you defeat a villain who flees combat. A fly spell or knock spell would enable you to pursue him and capture or kill him. However, because you've expended the resource, the villain escapes. This is a lasting penalty. The specific example is not important, either -- we could postulate endless scenarios where a spellcaster who fails to carefully manage his highest level spell slots can find himself unable to succeed because he doesn't have the right tool for the job just when he needs it. In fact, d&d regularly presents challenges that require players to manage renewable resources, and offers long-lasting consequences for failing to do so.

I mean, I think we both agree on general principles. Skills should be roughly of equal value from one to the next, and should be meaningfully useful. However, some skills are inefficient and because of that a character who can cheaply use magic or gear to help with skill use can allocate his skill points more efficiently. Where we seem to differ is on the matter of whether the magic/gear has a meaningful cost at all. It seems to me that once you determine that everything has a price and you're willing to make skills more economical and spells less so, it's basic microeconomics to find a balance point where the tradeoffs involved are comparable or are weighted in favor of the skills.

[Honest Tiefling]

I dunno about you, but I never get experience for murdering rich but low level people. Almost as if my DM wanted to discourage random rampages in town or something...Nah.

I do have to wonder if after the consolidated skill list thing, if it doesn't come down to style. In a low WBL game, buying wands will be dang near impossible. Without gear for more spell slots or high OP giggle-worthy PO tricks, what few spell slots you have are a lot more valuable. I do have to wonder if Venger is more arguing in terms of a high PO game, with higher wealth and ways to generate it, should it not be more forthcoming, versus jiriku, who seems to be playing, and dare I say it, a more traditional dungeons and dragons game.

Oh, and please, please, please consider using Pathfinder Rogue and Fighter classes, even if you aren't going full Pathfinder. Having some extra class features will also make the Skill Money package a little more tempting without major rewrites.

[StreamOfTheSky]

I'm a little confused at this point, I think you've played both 3.5 and Pathfinder. I'm a big fan of consolidated skill lists, so I still think the Pathfinder list is better in many ways. (OTHER then the lack of Forgery, that is) Are you playing a Pathfinder or a 3.5 game, because with Pathfinder skills I think a rogue could manage a bit more leeway with things (and if a rogue isn't a good enough skill money for this exercise, then I...Guess I cry in the corner.), but I am not entirely certain which game is being discussed here.

PF created its own issues with the way they did skills. The TL;DR is rogues got screwed. The lengthy explanation is:

1. They made skills even more imbalanced if anything. Spot and Listen were already near must-have skills for anyone who had it in-class in 3E. PF combines them and adds in Search for good measure. Now everyone has max Perception. Always. But wait, what about if it's not a class skill...?
2. Which leads me to...removing the cross class ranks rules means everyone can max out the absolute best skills regardless of what their class actually gives them. So yes, literally everyone maxes Perception.
3. But, the +3 class bonus, you ask? Pfft, that's piddly ("homogenous" 4E at least gives a whole +5 separation for trained and untrained skills). Rogues being MAD means they'll be at least that much behind whatever class prioritize that stat. Plus, you can get the skill as a class skill via trait AND get a +1 on top of that, making you better than rogue.
4. Also, everyone can find all non-magical traps now with their maxed out SearchPerception and Detect Magic is infinite use, but enough with the nitty gritty of rogue-screwing, let's go back to #1 and 2. They really do tie together importantly. Since there's such disparity in the "tiers" of skills, and everyone can cherry pick the very best ones, having lots of skill points is near-meaningless. After the first 4-6, none of the remaining skills offer nearly as much (the amount of good skills narrows further if you dump an attribute and decide to pass on investing in skills using it -- except for Perception, even the Wis 5 Paladin maxes that).

EDIT: 2nd TL;DR. 3E Rogues were relevant due to niche protection. Most others just plain were not allowed to do stuff they could. You might think that's a terrible way to make a class appealing, and I won't argue with you. But, to TAKE AWAY that protection and give them basically nothing in return? You just made the class pointless.

[Honest Tiefling]

I said I liked the skill consolidation, not the other bits. I agree, having a class skill only equate to a +3 bonus gets...Meaningless, after a while. I wanted to try a house rule where that bonus went up with level, actually.

Some more skill boosting talents surely could help a scootch. I however, do not agree that rogues need niche protection in terms of detecting traps, since no one I have ever talked to has ever made a rogue to be a trap ***** unless they had a crush on another player. That shouldn't be their niche, their niche should be fun time stabby stabby agile combatant with some other skills that can be customized. Heck, if someone ELSE could find the dang magical traps, they could focus more on that cat burglar thing they have going on. I don't like niche protection at all, I like classes with some oomph to them that laugh in the face of niche protection because there are genuinely fun reasons to play them.

I don't think Pathfinder is perfect, but I think picking up some skill consolidations cannot hurt and are simple enough to do.

[jiriku]

I dunno about you, but I never get experience for murdering rich but low level people. Almost as if my DM wanted to discourage random rampages in town or something...Nah.

Your DM is kinder than mine. When I steal money from low-level people, the high-level opponents mysteriously have less treasure afterwards.

I do have to wonder if after the consolidated skill list thing, if it doesn't come down to style. In a low WBL game, buying wands will be dang near impossible. Without gear for more spell slots or high OP giggle-worthy PO tricks, what few spell slots you have are a lot more valuable. I do have to wonder if Venger is more arguing in terms of a high PO game, with higher wealth and ways to generate it, should it not be more forthcoming, versus jiriku, who seems to be playing, and dare I say it, a more traditional dungeons and dragons game.

You know, that might be the source of the confusion. I guess for me, my gut response to the OP says "if he wants to delay flight, he's more comfortable with low-power, traditional, ground-based fantasy." In a setting with Magic Marts where WBL is a guideline or an afterthought, anything you can buy is fair game and you need every edge you can get to keep your character alive in combats against highly optimized foes. In that kind of environment, you want to hoard your skill points precisely because they're dribbled out so slowly compared to the firehose of gp rewards. It's precisely the environment where you'd be desperate to get flight as soon as possible and stingy about spending resources on anything that would eventually be replaced by flight.

[Mendicant]

Just to clear up a couple things: I do intend to slowly rewrite a lot of the system to suit my preferred playstyle, but that is a large, long-term project and includes a lot of things beyond what I'm looking for in this thread. Knowing what pushing back flight spells and class features like the witch's flight hex for two more levels would do in a vacuum is still useful to me, even if I would never do it, because it helps me anticipate problems and see places where the rules intersect in a way contrary to what I'm going for. I'm brainstorming at this point, and identifying all the possible pitfalls is super helpful.

I am playing Pathfinder, with some important modifications back towards 3.5 and a handful of fairly minor house rules. Those modifications do not include going back to the old skill list. I hated having to pay double to build a sneaky character when I was 15, and I have no intention of going back.

I'm using Pathfinder's broken up version of polymorph, fwiw, because I think it is one of the few definitive improvements Paizo made.

I am not playing core-only, and I build pretty much all of my encounters from scratch. I am not going to have any trouble finding enemies who don't fly from levels 4 to 8. I am living that reality right now, because I DM for a level 6 party with only one full caster.

I am not currently contemplating nerfing skill spells, for three reasons:

First, they don't alter the game as fundamentally as fly. Fly changes the game in a way that isn't matched even by a lot of higher-level spells--if I found myself in D&D world, I would rather know fly than a pretty big swathe of the fourth and even fifth level selection.

Second, those spells do not trivialize the skill list quite as badly as fly does. They duplicate things the climbers and swimmers of the party can do, but very often not in a good way. More in a "the rogue could have solved this problem for us, why didn't a prepare web?" way. Nobody is ever going to prepare jump as a 2nd level spell.

Third, keeping those skill spells at a lower level is valuable because it allows the party to stick together if it needs or wants to. If they're going to be a gang of daring second-story men, the wizard using spider climb to get to the same balcony the rogue and bard did with regular climb is not really a problem. He still sank a valuable resource into it, and maybe the heist taking more than 50 minutes means they have to go to plan B because he can't get down.

[Venger]

Every time I think I'm starting to see where you're coming from, you take a left turn and I'm wondering again.

it's cool, man, don't worry about it. same here.

You said that gold is renewable, because, like xp, you can always get more of it. But skill points are obtained by gaining xp. I agree that the same activities that generate xp also tend generate gold and skill points. But this would mean that gold and xp are the same type of resource -- they are either both renewable or both nonrenewable. Gold is also convertible to skill points because you can spend it on items that enhance or bypass skill checks.

y'know, since you whipped out microeconomics, I'll rephrase, since we seem to be getting hung up on semantics:

gold and xp are fungible. skill points (again, barring weird tricks) are not. once you've got them, they're more or less set and you can't move them around.

I mean, you can do that in a generic game, but if OP wants to make everyone dependent on skillranks, I'm not sure how easy he'll make buying a +competence item.

Further, you state that there are no lasting penalties for expending a renewable resource. This is not always true. For example, suppose you have one fly or one knock spell prepared. You burn this spell trivializing a skill challenge. Later that day, you defeat a villain who flees combat. A fly spell or knock spell would enable you to pursue him and capture or kill him. However, because you've expended the resource, the villain escapes. This is a lasting penalty. The specific example is not important, either -- we could postulate endless scenarios where a spellcaster who fails to carefully manage his highest level spell slots can find himself unable to succeed because he doesn't have the right tool for the job just when he needs it. In fact, d&d regularly presents challenges that require players to manage renewable resources, and offers long-lasting consequences for failing to do so.

yeah, that makes sense.

I mean, I think we both agree on general principles. Skills should be roughly of equal value from one to the next, and should be meaningfully useful. However, some skills are inefficient and because of that a character who can cheaply use magic or gear to help with skill use can allocate his skill points more efficiently. Where we seem to differ is on the matter of whether the magic/gear has a meaningful cost at all. It seems to me that once you determine that everything has a price and you're willing to make skills more economical and spells less so, it's basic microeconomics to find a balance point where the tradeoffs involved are comparable or are weighted in favor of the skills.

yeah, I think so too.

obviously, it depends on how much pocketmoney your DM gives you.

I dunno about you, but I never get experience for murdering rich but low level people. Almost as if my DM wanted to discourage random rampages in town or something...Nah.

who said anything about that? I just said "people" as a catchall for monsters/golems/ppl with class levels/etc

I do have to wonder if after the consolidated skill list thing, if it doesn't come down to style. In a low WBL game, buying wands will be dang near impossible. Without gear for more spell slots or high OP giggle-worthy PO tricks, what few spell slots you have are a lot more valuable. I do have to wonder if Venger is more arguing in terms of a high PO game, with higher wealth and ways to generate it, should it not be more forthcoming, versus jiriku, who seems to be playing, and dare I say it, a more traditional dungeons and dragons game.

sure. if you don't have any money to buy things like wands or +competence items, and your DM prevents you from finding scrolls to put in your spellbook, of course you're gonna be forced to use naked skills.

huh? but I"m on your side. I haven't said anything about op tricks. just doing normal stuff. how'd you get high OP from that?

yeah, jiriku's philosophy seems more classical dungeoncrawl type thing than the sort of games I've played in.

Oh, and please, please, please consider using Pathfinder Rogue and Fighter classes, even if you aren't going full Pathfinder. Having some extra class features will also make the Skill Money package a little more tempting without major rewrites.

yeah, if you're doing an amalgam, giving the mundanes some new trinkets is a good idea.

[Honest Tiefling]

Consider making more spells buffable. Like Expeditious Retreat, sure, is one of the better spells anyway, but somehow, I like the idea of slapping this and Jump on the party rogue just to see how far he gets.

Also, I mean PO, as in, Practical Optimization, not that OP is a bad thing...Just I wonder if the ceiling is higher for certain parties then others. Nothing wrong with OP if everyone at the table is on board with it. Speaking of, what level of OP are we expecting here?

[jiriku]

gold and xp are fungible. skill points (again, barring weird tricks) are not.

Ok, I see what you mean by that.

yeah, jiriku's philosophy seems more classical dungeoncrawl type thing than the sort of games I've played in.

That's probably a fair assessment. I try to run very open-world sandbox games, but when I play, my DMs lean more heavily towards tactical games in low-magic settings. They're also slightly terrified of my optimization habits and in some cases have forbidden me from playing spellcasters. So I've got a lot of play experience in environments where access to magic is sharply curtailed and each spell known or magic item obtained is a hard-won, scarce resource.

[Venger]

Ok, I see what you mean by that.

cool. I knew we'd come to an understanding sooner or later

That's probably a fair assessment. I try to run very open-world sandbox games, but when I play, my DMs lean more heavily towards tactical games in low-magic settings. They're also slightly terrified of my optimization habits and in some cases have forbidden me from playing spellcasters. So I've got a lot of play experience in environments where access to magic is sharply curtailed and each spell known or magic item obtained is a hard-won, scarce resource.

I like sandbox games too, but I haven't had the chance to play in many. the system's not super well-suited for it. the ones I've played in also lean towards tactics. same. I usually play at a handicap in games too. no T1/T2 for this guy.

I can understand that. that's a little different from my experience, as you've sussed out. I don't really play in low-magic games, they're not really my style, but I can definitely understand how the dynamic would be reversed there.

[Endarire]

I prefer combining Climb, Swim, and Jump into one skill - Athletics (STR). I combine Balance and Tumble into Acrobatics (DEX). People still generally don't take Athletics due to the situations happening so rarely. I'd rather just give people flight, water breathing, shape altering abilities, etc.

Consider this real life comparison. Why use a sword in combat when you can use a fairly accurate, high-capacity rifle/gun? Athletics skills just outmoded as a function of 'tech tree progression.' Climb, Jump, and Swim are just low tech, usually high-cost abilities compared to flight spells, etc.