Skillz

Is anyone else a bit dubious about the skills? The explanations for some of the skills seemed very sketchy (in the true sense of being like unfinished sketches). I mean, diplomacy essentially just says, "The DM decides." Which is always true, more or less, but I almost wonder what's the point of investing in it when it could be handled simply by roleplaying?

That's a small example. The one that really irritated me was Endurance. Which was a stupid worthless feat in 3e and now is a stupid worthless skill in 4e. Am I missing something? What is the point of choosing a skill that mainly allows you resist getting hungry and stay comfortable in the rain?

I still dislike the idea of class skills. Why can't a Wizard be intimidating? Has anyone even heard of Gandalf? Why can't a rogue be diplomatic? Isn't that one of the great archetypes: the smooth-talking gentleman swordsman adventurer? Yeah, sure, he can bluff, but why is he only good at lying and not at just being nice? For that matter, why can't a fighter or a cleric be good at lying? Seriously, with all that god-talk you'd think the priests would be the best at it.

On the whole I think they did right by streamlining the whole system, and making it so that everyone has a decent chance of passing skill checks even if they're untrained. Thumbs up for a definite improvement.

I don't know if y'all are inclined to tinker with the rules before we've given them a test-drive, but I move that class skills be abolished. The new rule is that every class gets the number of trained skills listed in his class description and he can pick whichever skills he damn pleases.

I'm pretty tired right now, so I'm not going to be very verbose. BUT, I completely agree with your position on class skills, and wold have no reservations about scrapping that part of the rulest. The class and cross-class skill thing that was a part of 3.0 and 3.5 is a concept that should have been retained.

I think the class skills are just a way of saying "these are skills that you are most likely to be trained in". As in it is entirely possible for a wizard to be intimidating BUT was he showed that specific skill by his master or academy? A rogue is probably very diplomatic but was something he learned with the thieves guild or through the hard knocks of surviving on the street? The priest is most definitely an accomplished lier but when he was trained in the priesthood did they have to take "not being honest 101" probably not. I don't think your idea of removing the class skill restriction is bad I just wanted to give my views on why they probably did it that way.

Manticel wrote:

I think the class skills are just a way of saying "these are skills that you are most likely to be trained in".

If that was the case, then they could just have a list of suggested skills under each class. The current way does not just say, "these are probably the most appropriate skills for you," it actually says, "you are not allowed to be trained in these other skills." Which, as you say, does make a certain sort of intuitive sense. But to me it seems needlessly restrictive.

The more I think about it, the more I'm starting to think that the 4th Ed. revisions have to do with the ease at which D&D can be implemented as a videogame. It seems to me that some flexibility is lost in this revision, which means RPing is bound to be resitricted somewhat, simply based on the kinds of things that PCs can't do now. Looking at the skills now, though it doesn't say that a class CANNOT take a skill that is not in their class skill list, it does say that a PC has use use a feat to get a skill that is not in their skill list... To me this just seems excessive.

Regarding class skills: I am not going to just remove it out right. I agree with Troy's assessment and I think we saw this coming that it is for a video game age but times change I still like the look of the rules vs 3.5e etc. Everything won't be perfect.

With that said they do play test (supposedly) the rules etc and I am sure there are some in there to stop the forum homos from breaking them and making power classes etc. Granted I don't think this group would do that but easier to not try fate. So here is how it will work: DM discretion; you need to have something that tells me why/how/when your guy picked up something that a traditional member of the class. Yes your mage COULD be intimidating but why did he do that when he was buried in books? Was he a bully or got bullied? Your fighter can lie but why is he inclined to that and not interested in just beating the piss out of an obstacle like a normal fighter. Rouges tend to be sneaks what in his past or present makes him want to be a smooth talker, was his family full of high socialites etc

Bottom line get creative and you can have it. I will work with you on it if you mail me etc since i dont have world details posted yet (inc. soon)

The Sarge wrote:

Regarding class skills: I am not going to just remove it out right.

Sigh. Well, I respect your authority, sir, and I appreciate that you're open to the possibility if there's a compelling reason. It's probably just as well. Patrick will rape you in ways you never thought you could be raped, and he'll do it by the rules; I'd hate to see what he'd be capable of if we start tweaking things without knowing what the results might be.

Trying not to ask for to much, kinda like when we had the rule of using action points 2 at a time. It does take a bit more from a player to think of reasons rather than just do

But like that I am not asking for much just some background and insight into why you are who you are. I just want to avoid a situation where people can grab any skill they think as useful and be able to handle anything I throw at them with a toss of a die instead of thinking on their feet etc.

Also I hate you all and want to see you suffer.