Talk:Capped Skill Bonus (3.5e Variant Rule)

Variant Rule Type

Wouldn't this fit better as a transformational rule, since it changes the way the rules work as written, rather than adding something new on top? --Ghostwheel 13:37, January 8, 2010 (UTC)

Maybe. It looked more like it was just addressing an unaddressed issue in core rather than actually changing anything fundamental. I don't see this altering how the game is played, so I tossed it into supplementals. I think it has a much smaller impact than Taking Stock, for example. - TarkisFlux 17:40, January 8, 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the impact matters as much as whether it changes existing rules, or adds things that one could effectively never be aware of and still play "by the rules". I think if there's any chance to the system it's "transformational", and if it adds anything new without changing things as-is it's "supplemental". --Ghostwheel 02:24, January 10, 2010 (UTC)

Then I think you need to go read the descriptions on the variant rules page again. They make multiple references to core dynamics, and place a higher emphasis on that than actual changing of existing rules. The implication is that the impact on how the game is played is more important in categorization than whether it changes the rules or not (though large scale rules changes are likely to coincide with large scale dynamics changes, and thus be transformational anyway). Since I don't care about whether a rule scraps an existing piece of rules legislation anywhere near as much as I do about what adoption of that rule will do to how my game is played, I think that's a better measure of a variant rule. Further, the supplemental rules description allows for "little or no change in the core dynamics"', making your argument that any rules change is a transformational one invalid. If you don't like this placement you're going to need to address why this is a substantial change to the core dynamics of the game (or the skill system in this case) or suggest that we rethink the variant rule categorizations in general to support the organization you seem to want. - TarkisFlux 20:12, January 10, 2010 (UTC)

Nah, I don't mind it the way it is--just forgot what our official description was, rather than the connotation of the words. --Ghostwheel 23:40, January 10, 2010 (UTC)

Ratings

	MisterSinister opposes this article and rated it 0 of 4.
	This was dumb when Spycraft did it, and it's still dumb now. Rather than applying a patch to fix a gaping chest wound, why not just fix the causes of the chest wound, like stacks of bullshit bonuses applying to skills from items, spells, etc? This is a bad solution to the problem, and thus, I don't think it's good.

Too Low Cap

I love the idea, but in practice, +3 is wayyyyyy too low of a cap. It means that for many characters there is no need to invest ANY ranks at all into a skill in order to maximize their modifier. Plus, many checks will be flat out impossible at this low of a bonus. Maybe increase it to 10, or even 20?

I agree with you. I wrote this a long time ago and I need to revise it. --Leziad (talk) 16:49, 28 January 2022 (UTC)