Class/regency proposal.

[bbeau22]

A lot depends on how you used skills - if maxing out was built into DC's then an average PC would only have 4-5 usable skills - 2+human+ int. That said 4-5 is a fair number. Anyone interested in skills would just dip into a level of expert/etc or choose high int anyway...

Even with rulers=2 skills then as a DM if you figured 'good, probably suceed at most stuff' at around 2/3 then the flexibility of the system allowed the choice of how good to be refined very well - it all depends on how the DM builds the DC's, expectations of the campaign, etc. Personally I built in arithmetic cost increases to gaining points and the like and roughed out ad hoc bonus form support - even unskilled to include other pc's.

4e has gone back to nwp's in many ways, a small number of skills (2 if I read it correctly) with digital results; 3e was analogue, far from perfect, but significantly better than 2 or 4 e if skills were seen as the key aspect of a character.

I think 4-5 is a good number of skills, but I certainly don't think that is the normal ... save for perhaps a human Birthright domain ruler style fighter. I certainly was talking more of an adventure style fighter that doesn't have to be human. I think 3 maybe 4 is more typical. To get higher, would probably mean a reduction in your fighters ability to fight too much.

As with DC's, many adventure paths that are out there have built in DC's already for different types of information and incounters. Of course, as a DM you can lower those DC's for the group, but that doesn't really solve the overall problem of lack of skills for most characters.

Also it becomes a problem with making some DC's still challenging for those with the proper skill. A DC 20 is typically a hard check but which could be automatic for a skilled character and nearly impossible for an unskilled. The difference becomes greater and greater as they level up because 0 in a skill never grows

I hear what you are saying about analog vs. digital, but I wouldn't go that far. That would be saying that once you get a skill you are 100% successful all of the time if you have the skill, which isn't the case. Not to mention that skills can be adjusted through feats to make you better, so they aren't locked in one spot.

I think the lowest amount of skills is 3 not 2 for 4th edition, which would be a boost for many classes like Wizard, Priest, Fighter. You can also use the many more feats you get in 4th edition to gain access to a new skill and add it to your trained.

What I really like is that as your character grows in level and gets more powerful he gets better at skills, even ones that haven't been focused on, which I think makes a lot sense. They are still inferior to other adventurers that have them trained and have spent feats to improve them either further, but it keeps it so you can be involved.

I just see the limitation as a bit too harsh. I use the fighter class as a clear example but priests have the same problem. Wizards are in a little better shape because Intellegnce is a primary start for many other reasons and they get the bonus skills for a high int.

I have been reading the pathfinder 3.75 edition and they try to tackle this also. They combine some skills so there are less skills to take which helps (4th edition does this also.) and give extra skill points or extra hp as a base set-up.

-BB