D&D 3.5 Skills... too many areas or not enough points?

ZER0 · Post by **ZER0** » Tue Jan 13, 2009 4:29 am

I've pondered the various usage of skills in D&D for a very long time. The usefulness of skills is extremely variable (I will take Hide and Move Silently over Spot and Listen, since Spot and Listen take distance penalties and my only problem with being stealthy is taking longer; Appraise is right the hell out), but that's not the issue I'm going to discuss here. Rather, I get upset because my 18 INT Human Rogue still can't do near half the things on his list. That bothers me a lot.

The simple solution, what 4E went with and what I'm doing in my current Tome campaign, is just to condense the list. But some people want more variation in their skills, and I can accept that and even agree with it. So what's the other solution?

More skill points. Why don't I put points into Use Rope? Because I have Disable Device. Why don't I put points into Spot and Listen? Because there aren't enough points. The question is, how many more skill points is reasonable? A Human Wizard with 18 INT will have just enough points to get his monster knowledges, and then Spellcraft. No Concentration. But you know, that's fine. That's the Wizard, and I honestly don't care if he didn't learn about crocodiles so that he could avoid losing his spell when one bites him. What does bother me is the Rogue, or the Ranger, or even the RoW Fighter. Because there are certain things that they are supposed to be able to do as a whole with skills, and can't because they have to pick and choose. I had a Cleric who didn't know anything about the god his god hated because INT is a dump stat, and knowing about devils seemed more important at the time. Also, his throat was slit by an opposing Cleric in his sleep.

So, again, how many more points is reasonable? Twice as much seems a little much, but as they are it isn't enough.

Talisman · Post by **Talisman** » Tue Jan 13, 2009 4:36 am

In the latest D&D game I've participated in, we gave +4 SPs/level to the classes with 6 or 8 (rogue, ranger, bard) and +6 SPs/level to the others. A bit generous perhaps, but it did let everybody take some actual skills beyond the "take these or you will die" skills.

I favor a combination. 2 SPs/level is fvcking pathetic, especially for classes like the cleric (expected to be knowledgable, perceptive, charismatics, etc) and the fighter (allegedly the generalist). However, who ever takes Use Rope? Appraise? I mean, really.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Tue Jan 13, 2009 4:48 am

I can imagine a reason to take Appraise, assuming sufficient skill points left over.

Given how Use Rope works, I'd have to be looking for something other than "nothing" to get it, even without a favorable comparison in some other skill.

Its just not useful in its own right.

JonSetanta · Post by **JonSetanta** » Tue Jan 13, 2009 4:52 am

SAGA skills seem better for lack of points; you either have it or not, which means that when you do have a skill it's always at its best. Or something.
I don't know for sure since I've never played SAGA, but I'd put a vote in that.

Psychic Robot · Post by **Psychic Robot** » Tue Jan 13, 2009 8:46 am

Too many areas and not enough points.

Calibron · Post by **Calibron** » Tue Jan 13, 2009 10:52 am

Too many areas, not quite enough points, and the individual skill ranks thing is too messy. I corrected all of those in my house rules.

TOZ · Post by **TOZ** » Tue Jan 13, 2009 11:50 am

Perhaps instead of ranks, we see it as proficiencies? Bump the skill points upwards, and have one point equal half proficiency, requiring two to be fully proficient.

In this way, you either don't have the skill, have it at half proficiency, or full proficiency. This lessens the problem of 'Hey, I'm 10th level, let me take a new skill' ending up as: 3.5: I still suck at it because I have no points. 4E: I go from not being able to sing to being a master vocalist overnight.

Does this make sense to anyone else? I see it as being less of a bookkeeping problem while keeping a nod to realistic training.

Calibron · Post by **Calibron** » Tue Jan 13, 2009 11:56 am

Makes sense to me. It's pretty much what I did.

TOZ · Post by **TOZ** » Tue Jan 13, 2009 12:36 pm

What kind of progression did you use? I imagine the usual x+Int per level wouldn't work with a buy once have forever system. Give the base first level points, and then a few points every other level or so?

Calibron · Post by **Calibron** » Tue Jan 13, 2009 1:55 pm

CatharzGodfoot · Post by **CatharzGodfoot** » Tue Jan 13, 2009 9:16 pm

You could definitely double the number of skill points every class gets without hurting gameplay. There would still be the problem of useful vs. useless skills, though.

Splitting Spot into multiple skills to balance it with Use Rope is probably not a great solution, so you're either looking at consolidation or better uses for existing skills.

Voss · Post by **Voss** » Tue Jan 13, 2009 9:53 pm

Its a combination of factors, really. Personally, I think you should have a skill list big enough that you just can't take everything- it helps for distinct characters and overlapping areas of expertise between characters (and thus helps make a party a group of people where all of them actually contribute).

But there are quite a few useless skills in the 3.5 list. Some need to be merged, and others can just be dropped. And classes with 2 sp/ level just need to be changed. Skill access needs to be opened up as well. Cross class is utterly ridiculous as it currently functions.

The saga/4e method of 'knowledge= complete mastery' is crap. Points really aren't hard.

Surprisingly enough, Pathfinder probably does it best of all the d20 systems I've seen. The list is consolidated, but still varied and class skills give a simple bonus rather than extra ranks or instant mastery. There are still issues with a lot of the skills, including the problem with going way off the range with the skills that matters for (first level stealth check of +15 is not only possible, its easy)