TheHobgoblin wrote:I don't know...
First, someone who has a bit of training in a skill such as Arcane Lore but isn't vastly intelligent might sometimes get confused about what they learned while someone with a high intelligence could be figuring things like a puzzle and so when he encounters the situation he has a better chance of passing it than a rookie.
The way I see the nature of Arcane Lore, I don't think someone without training would be able to figure anything, even with high intelligence. It's the kind of thing I believe intelligence helps, but the knowledge is more important. But maybe I need to take another look at it.
TheHobgoblin wrote:I certainly don't think anyone should be given a flat -2 penalty on any skill rolls. Although what you are proposing existed in 3rd edition D&D as "trained skills".
I don't see any problem. The -2 was chosen to give the final results I would want in the final table (maybe I should just add +2 to the skill bonus and start with base value 9 instead of 11, one less factor to join the math). This gives a person with basic knowledge of the skill 3 points of advantage above someone who never trained/studied it...it's 15% chance, sounds fair to me.
But dividing trained skills and non-trained skills is a tricky thing. For instance, why is cooking not on your list? Or Performance? Or Riding? These aren't things someone just does naturally either and having taken a proper lesson on doing these things would likely help more than
Well, you are right about Performance, it should have been added to the list.
About Cooking, it would fit the table as well, but its role in the game like preparing meals from hunted animals or from fruits and vegetables collected from nature. Things that every adventurer can do, but some of them have special skills on doing it. Unlike Lore, Craft or Engineering where the chances of untrained people to succeed is much lower.
The same for riding, the description says that it is to be tested in unusual situations, every adventurer knows how to ride, unless the player decides he doesn't from the beginning. If it was to be used in horsemanship contests or something that required professional training, it would be better to have another skill.
TheHobgoblin wrote:Other things that might work--
Skills ranks in a skill are worth double. You get a +2 the skill per a rank. No odd skill ranks.
This was my first thought, but added to the ability scores, they would result in numbers much higher than I would want.
TheHobgoblin wrote:Or, you don't get skill points each level. Instead you start with 4 skills and you choose those 4 and get a +5 bonus in those skills. Then at levels 5, 9, 13, 17, 21, 25, 29, and 33 you can select a different skill (you never get to pick the same one twice) and you get a +5 bonus in that skill.
I like the progression as is. The character starts his adventuring career with basic knowledge of the skills (I assume he has spent much more time practicing for his class abilities than for his other skills) and slowly progress his skills as he levels up.
Of course everything could be adjusted in real time without any changes to the system by me depending on the character backgrounds. "You never designed a siege weapon before, so you get -10 modifier in your roll". But if since we have the skill system, I'd like to make it a bit more realistic.