Talk:Rules/Skills

Only prob i see is the cha skills. Try this instead:

Diplomacy [Diplomacy, Intimidate]

Perform [Perform, Gather Information] AKA Work the crowd

Ledgermain [Sleight of Hand, Escape Artist]

Go out of town for a few days and all goes amok. --Arz 16:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I still say an empathy [heal, sense motive] skill set is a good combination since both skills don't come up often enough to be singled out. That, and the nameset also fits well. --Askewnotion 16:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Me too ;) --Mqs 17:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Ledgermain above. --Randy (Talk) 16:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I also. Shall we? --Mqs 17:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem with merging Dipl. and Intim. is that they truly are very different. Both are cha-based social skills, but being good at one and the other are pretty much mutually exclusive. I understand, also, your desire for Perform + Gather Information. Randy, how do you feel about that one? Gather Information fits soundly with both. --Mqs 17:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Performing is to talking to a crowd, while gathering information is talking with people. I think that it's a better fit with Diplomacy. --Randy (Talk) 17:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

A series of people, however, as Mike puts it. I do prefer it with Dipl. --Mqs 17:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Diplo-timidate is mostly interpersonal v. group exhortation ala perform-ation. Gather info is not dealing with strictly one person, but more often a series and some small groups. I can safely say I will not be 100% satisfied with all the combos. Heck perform/gather isn't perfect, just closer. --Arz 15:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Based on this conversation, might I suggest making a Streetwise skill? Combine Sense Motive and Gather Information?

WIS vs CHA. --Mqs 16:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Bah. All social skills should be CHA. It would simplify things at least. In any case, with that in mind, I think putting Diplomacy and Gather Information makes more sense than Perform and Gather Information. I still think all social skills should be CHA. --T3knomanser 16:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Sense Motive is the perfect Wisdom (intuition) skill. --Mqs 16:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Depends on your perspective. One could argue that it's less about intuition and more about detecting subtle social cues. To me, that makes more sense. I've always seen WIS more as practical application of knowledge and INT as book learnin'. Also, looking at your combinations, I just noticed that you've combined a few other skills regardless of their attribute linkage. Ride(DEX)/Handle Animal(CHA); Survival(WIS)/Use Rope(DEX). So one could make the argument that Sense Motive/Gather Information could be combined into Streetwise. And then one could have a separate argument about whether they should be CHA or WIS skills, since gathering information could be seen as WIS related as well as CHA related, if you take the stance that it's about intuitive synthesis of information. --T3knomanser 16:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

You make many valid points, and have convinced me. Randy? Others? --Mqs 17:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I am convinced. Make Streetwise happen. Since Diplomacy is losing Gather Info, should Diplomacy and Intimidate be merged? I'm on the fence about that, but I wanted the opinion of others. --Randy (Talk) 17:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Depends. Do you think Diplomacy needs to cover more terrain to remain useful? Diplomacy is about getting people to do what you want by offering them a carrot; intimidate is about offering them the stick. A successful diplomat needs to be able to do both, but in game terms, intimidate is more about looking scary. --T3knomanser 17:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

In game terms, both use force of personality (CHA) to effect behavior changes on people so I think that merging makes sense. --Randy (Talk) 18:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Influence and Streetwise in there. Heal is still the bastard child. Is there anything that can be done with at? Extra uses of the skill? --Mqs 18:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

It could fit under Survival maybe, but that would be crowding it too much, I think. I think though that Heal could be renamed "Medicine" and cover any medical knowledge. That would allow it to be used, say, with trap making: it could boost the damage from traps. It could also be used to get a few extra points from a Cure spell- you're better able to direct the magic.

I've been considering giving Heal the following abilities:

Convert Wounds, As a standard action a DC15 (or 20) Heal check can be made to convert 1d6 lethal damage to nonlethal damage, with an extra 1d6 gained for every five points over DC15 (or 20). This may only be used on a recipient once a day.

Refresh As a standard action the Heal skill may be used to regain 1d8 hit points with a successful DC15 Heal check. This may be used once a day.

Those are my raw thoughts. --Randy (Talk) 18:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

A caster with 5 or more ranks in Heal can, when casting a conjuration (healing) spell, choose to remove any one of the following conditions affecting the subject of the spell, in addition to the spell’s normal effects: dazed, dazzled, or fatigued. A caster with 10 or more ranks in Heal can choose from the following conditions in addition to those above: exhausted, nauseated, or sickened. Also, when determining the amount of damage healed by your conjuration (healing) spells, you can substitute your total ranks in Heal for your caster level. The normal caster level limit for individual spells still applies; thus, a 3rd-level cleric with 6 ranks in Heal when under the effect of healing lorecall cures 1d8+5 points of damage with a cure light wounds spell.

From Healing Lorecall (SPC). Randy and I propose adding DCs to the following for heal check to remove. What action would this be? Standard? Full Round? Minutes?

• Dazed
• Dazzled
• Fatigued
• Exhausted
• Nauseated
• Sickened

--Mqs 19:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I recommend DC 20 for the first three, 25 for the latter three. Each would be a full round action that provokes an AOO. A heal check could, as a non-combat action (1 minute+), heal a heal check in HP, but costs "herbs and the like" consuming X GP per HP [per HD?] in gold. --Mqs 19:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

For actions, I recommend the first three be full round actions. Consider a boxer in the corner getting refreshed and having his fatigue removed. The last three should take 10 minutes, reserving them for out of combat. --Randy (Talk) 19:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Nauseated and sickened almost never happen outside of combat. --Mqs 20:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't think fatigued should be fixable inside of combat. It should take a long time to fix, in part because you definitely need at least some rest. Since exhausted reduces to fatigued with only an hour's worth of rest, I would say that should be a full round action. Fixing fatigued should take longer- 10 minutes. I would add that, for all of these, they require material components in the form of herbs and salves. Cheap, but there. --T3knomanser 21:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Campaign specific, but how about heal checks to identify bloodline? I doubt creature identifying knowledge can determine all the specifics of your ancestry. I'm talking guessing your grandparents ancestry and where did you get that quality from? --Arz 14:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Very plausible. I like it! --Mqs 15:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• Add Control Shape as the other half of the heal skill. --Arz 17:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Prone

If tumble checks are now opposed, does this mean tumble from prone is now opposed? A la, all tumble checks are now opposed. Also when tumbling on a fall does Captain Planet oppose? --Arz 17:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Interestingly, perhaps tumble to stand from prone should be opposed, but with a penalty? However, tumbling to reduce a fall is still the set DC. Only tumbling to avoid an AoO has been made opposed. The other uses are still set. --Mqs 18:39, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree that tumbling from prone should be opposed with significant penalty. I believe the usual DC to tumble up from prone without provoking is DC 35, twenty higher than the usual tumble DC, so I recommend a -20 penalty. --Randy (Talk) 19:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The epic use also changes standing from a move to a free action. Good justification for lowering the penalty somewhat. Only similar thing I can think of is sleight of hand has a -20 to change action from standard to free. I can't think of a skill that has a change from move to free. Needs work. --Arz 20:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I understand the rationale for -20, let's think it through fully before we go ahead with it. It does jive with the penalty for sniping (-20 to hide after a shot) nicely, though. However, DC35 to stand from prone is actually possible once you have a +15 modifier, and more regularly possible after then. An opposed roll with a -20 modifier basically says, "if you have sense motive, you're going to whack me as I stand up". I guess that feels the same as an archer sniping. He can't expect the person with actual ranks in spot not to see him except in outstanding conditions (he rolls very high, spotter rolls very low). The same situation is here. Against a trained senser, you're going to take a beating when you stand. But, against the common Joe, you'll still have a fair chance of standing, once you're a trained tumbler, despite the -20.

Mike does bring up a point of, "standing from prone without provoking" but without it being a free action. Should we attack that, instead of the flat DC35 (which, could be left unaltered as a flat DC). --Mqs 20:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm of the mind that if someone is willing to spend a full-round or standard action just to stand from prone they should be able to do so without taking an AoO. Alternatively, this could be an excellent use for a single action point—stand from prone without provoking (move action). --Randy (Talk) 20:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

That, itself, would be a separate house rule outside of the purview of the skills discussion. To me, as well, it seems reasonable for a full round action to stand from prone while threatened does not provoke. (I don't want to get into discussing action points at all. I don't want them to become a fall back of, "Oh, just spend an action point for it...") Mike did bring up a good point of how the opposed tumbling would work with this, and I do believe it should be addressed. I do think the -20 penalty is fair, while the flat DC of 35 to stand up as a free action can remain. --Mqs 20:40, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the full round action to stand from prone to not draw an AoO. Kinda like a full withdraw in your own square or something like that. I also agree that if you want it as a move action it should be opposed at -20. The 35 should also remain for standing as a free action. Perhaps if you are trying to stand as a free action without drawing an AoO these would require 1 check that satisfies both, or two separate rolls? --Askewnotion 22:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Free actions never provoke (just as swift and immediate do not). --Mqs 22:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Appears that we have agreement on how to handle tumbling from prone. --Randy (Talk) 12:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Details: A lost opposed tumble check to stand while threatened means he stands (as a move) and takes all relevant AoOs, or means that he stays prone? Big difference. Compare to normal tumbling, he'd attempt, and a failed means an AoO happens -- but the movement still goes. Compare to tumbling through a foe's square -- failed check means movement doesn't happen (but AoO still does). Since we're still leaving the DC35 to stand as free (which itself then doesn't provoke), we're essentially adding an entirely new skill use. I can see it going either way -- failing to stand (with our without an AoO) as well as standing (with an AoO). --Mqs 13:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

My preference is that the character stands either way, taking the relevant AoOs. --Randy (Talk) 14:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to pull this back a little. I was unable to find any rule that disallows a normal {DC15+} tumble check while standing from prone. Standing from prone is movement and the check is to avoid AoO incurred by movement. Please do not quote FAQ. --Arz 13:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

15: Tumble at one-half speed as part of normal movement, provoking no attacks of opportunity while doing so. Failure means you provoke attacks of opportunity normally. Check separately for each opponent you move past, in the order in which you pass them (player’s choice of order in case of a tie). Each additional enemy after the first adds +2 to the Tumble DC.</blockquote

DC 15 during normal movement.

Standing up from a prone position requires a move action and provokes attacks of opportunity.

Standing up is a move action, but not movement -- just as redirecting a spiritual weapon is a move action rather than movement. It's a convenient reminder that we call them "move actions", but really they're "light actions" rather than a "standard action".

Refer to http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#moveActions -- move and stand up are separate move actions. I interpret "normal movement" as just the top one in the chart, "move". Tumble while doing other move-equivalent actions that provoke, such as searching your backpack or loading a weapon? --Mqs 13:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

5' step while prone

From Arz via email SRD actually describes tumble/prone situation in even shakier fashion than PHB. Might wanna check if Frank's other Q?: Can I 5' step while prone. The only limit I found was terrain restrictions. So a regular move or 5' seems legit, w/ move still incurring AoO unless you tumble.

Prone does not say anything about restricting movement. Need to look into this more when I have the books (and time) at hand. --Randy (Talk) 18:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Crawling You can crawl 5 feet as a move action. Crawling incurs attacks of opportunity from any attackers who threaten you at any point of your crawl.

SRD of course doesn't further define crawl. It's always been interpreted as moving while prone. --Mqs 18:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4dnd/20080124a The FAQ, page 35, mentions crawling while prone. It's apparently the only source that defines what crawling is, and states that you can't move while prone other than crawling. There are no instances of the words "prone", "crawl" or "tumble" in the errata. Note that the FAQ suggests a -10 to tumble 5' while prone as a move action. --Mqs 16:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Rules Compendium (p94) says that even the DC 35 tumble check to stand up as a free action provokes. This makes it the only swift-or-faster action I can think of that provokes. The Rules Compendium doesn't really make better definitions of crawling or prone, either (other than creatures like snakes can still be considered prone, and can crawl their normal movement instead of just 5'...) --Mqs 16:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Knowledge Religion's synergy with Turning Undead

Should 5 ranks in Religion still grant +2 to turning checks, now that synergy bonuses are eliminated? --Randy (Talk) 01:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I would say this would disappear, as would Animals applying a bonus to Animal Empathy checks. However, with Rich's alternate rules (allowing any skill check to be roleplayed to add to circumstance modifiers anything else), it's still there. --Mqs 01:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

But, using those rules, it would be a DC20 to get +2. The flip side is that, if you really pump it up, you could be getting +3s or more. Assuming I'm understanding the application of those rules, anyway. --t3knomanser 02:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Ride

Ride is listed as a charisma skill. Should there be special denotation to make it dex?

Ride, Gather Information and Use Rope all changed relevant ability when conflated. Randy and I never considered restoring them after the "package" fix. I don't see it a problem either way. --Mqs 11:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

We will revert. --Mqs 18:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)