D&D 4E 4E had better have fewer skills & feats

[Narfellus]

I don't have any problem with the 3.5 skill sets. I really like them actually. They are meticulously detailed in the books with good examples of use, and statting a character, IMO, doesn't take long. Even adding synergy and stuff like is, i think, sort of fun. I DM too but i NEVER take the time to fully stat NPC's. If and when they need a relevant skill i know what their max ranks are and use that as a baseboard.

Feats are an entirely different monster. Yes, i do like feats. I think there are probably too many feats, and not all feats are created equal. In general, players probably don't get enough feats, but maybe that's just a side effect from having so many hundreds to choose from. I like the option of burning action points to simulate feats you meet the prereq for, or using the UA rule where you burn a point to augment an existing feat. This lets players sample some of the vast plethora that is featdom without having to strap on a feat permanently that might get little use.

 

[cmanos]

Whi is it that people want a new edition??? if you don't like what you are given, change it yourself. Be creative here. If you want it slick and simple, you can make it slick and simple. I seriously doubt feats and skills are going away. I've got my 1st ed stuff if you want to buy it from me...

 

[cmanos]

With skills I have to calculate my skill points, then start picking skills, then go back and forth and check for class/cross class problems. Then I have to check my skill points to make sure I didn't go under/over. Then I look at teh synergy table and put in all my synergies. then I have to add up all my ranks and extra points to calculate my final skill result.

Maybe you should try Rolemaster. Give it a try and you will LOVE what 3.5 has for it's skill system. I can sit down and make up a first levek character in 20 minutes.

 

[drothgery]

Whi is it that people want a new edition??? if you don't like what you are given, change it yourself. Be creative here. If you want it slick and simple, you can make it slick and simple. I seriously doubt feats and skills are going away. I've got my 1st ed stuff if you want to buy it from me...

I don't really want a new edition any time soon (though I expect I'll end up buying any new edition that I consider an improvement on the old one eventually), but what's the harm in talking about problems with the current system?

The fine-grained skill system of D&D 3.x, where skills are fairly narrow and you pick them up one point at a time, seems to work against a fundamentally coarse-grained system like D&D, IMO.

 

[Sir Elton]

Not that I disagree with you Empress, however the accounting for skills is really more complicated than it needs to be. I think the 'skills' could be reduced down into fewer categories and a simpler system that allows for more role-playing feel.

jh
..

Castles and Crusades has beaten your vision for 4e to the Punch. The designers really made the d20 system simpler than it already has. Surrender 4e back to Wizards of the Coast and go buy Castles and Crusades.

 

[drothgery]

Castles and Crusades has beaten your vision for 4e to the Punch. The designers really made the d20 system simpler than it already has. Surrender 4e back to Wizards of the Coast and go buy Castles and Crusades.

We'd like a simpler skill system, not no skill system.

 

[Mercule]

GURPS and Hero have already gone GURPS and Hero. Why should a third system go the same way? If you want a game that much like GURPS or Hero, play GURPS of Hero.

Exactly. If D&D goes much further that way, they're going to start losing market share. All the feats and PrCs that are available already have me to the point of wondering if I'd be better off just going with Hero. Any further, and I'm likely to skip 4E altogether.

That is, unless they hit just the right balance (as defined my me).

 

[painandgreed]

Open lock though is not a sub set of disable device. There are no sub set skills. Each has its use and they do not overlap. Use rope is actaully not narrowly defined, it covers everything one could use a rope for.

I'm with Psychic Warrior on the Open Lock. Most devices can be seen as locking mechanisms anyway. What happens if the trapmaker builds a lock into his device? Does that require two rolls with different skills? If you miss the Open Lock, does it set off the trap? I can easily see simply saying that locks are just another device and using the Disable Device as for that also. Two main troubles here that see. One, rogues have one less skill they have to buy and are just that much more powerful so it might disrupt play balance a little because they won't have as many skills to divide points between. Two, any expert locksmith then is able to Disable Devices. Not the best aproximation, but still well within the boundries of heroic fantasy.

Use Rope is a narrow skill as not everybody is presented with a need to expertly use rope on a daily basis. Like forgery, it only comes in handy if you use it but not everybody is going to need or even want to use it. Those people who are going to need it will find it worth their while to learn it. A woodland adventurer who carries manacles around with them to bind prisoners may not ever need Use Rope while an underdark or mountian adventurer may find themselves unable to adventure without it. Similarly, your typcial orc killing adventurer may have no use for Forgery while a party involved in court intrigue may find it indespensible. Some skill are going to be rather specialized and only those people who really need it will ever use it.

 

[Umbran]

but what's the harm in talking about problems with the current system?

The thing is, discussion of current problems and discussion of the next edition don't need to be linked. You can talk about what you don't like in the current skill system until you're blue in the face without ever saying "4e".

If the goal is to discuss the current problem, then it is more constructive to leave possible future editions out of the conversation. The subject of future editions carries a lot of economic and social baggage that has noting to do with the current system mechanics, and that will cloud the issue.

 

[Mythmere1]

I'd also like to see the Skill list paired down significantly, many skills should be grouped together, and a different resolution mechanic to bring down the disparities at higher levels. I agree that "skill bonus accounting" is a royal pain and should be addressed.


Cheers!

This is close to what Castles & Crusades has done. I don't think it's going to happen with D&D. D&D has taken the approach that the more options there are, the better, and the resulting rules complexity is an inherent and acceptable downside to the benefits of customization.

As an example of the competing design philosophy, C&C has much less in the way of player options (outside of role-playing, of course, which is a constant factor in all systems), but plays faster and is easier to prepare and handle (no computer programs necessary for tracking character sheets). It's just a different focus - but I think D&D has picked a particular direction that they won't change.

D&D is used in tournaments and other less role-playing oriented venues, where adept character building is part of the game. This leads to an emphasis on maximizing choices, and complex rules aren't a problem.

Castles & Crusades takes a different direction, and so, I assume, do the other rules-lite games out there. C&C's my favorite (and the best example) because it is so close to D&D but with a different rules emphasis.