Talk:Tome of Prowess (3.5e Sourcebook)/Rules

Irregularity Question

“	Classes should have no more than 2 more class skills than they have skill points to spend them on.	”
—TarkisFlux, Converting to ToP

This actually only applies to Druids and Wizards according to the chart. Most others have either one more or a fantastic three more for the poor Monk. Is this sentence outdated or am I reading it incorrectly? --TK-Squared 16:26, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

Outdated, thanks for pointing it out. It also let me find a transcription error in the wizard's list. - TarkisFlux 19:50, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

Competence Bonus

With racial bonuses being changed to circumstance competence bonuses, they are basically removed as a bonus what with how easy it is to gain masterwork tools. Have you thought about instead removing masterwork tools, making bonuses to skills from race actually worth something? I don't think it'd change things negatively too much, but would make racial bonuses interesting, unique, and differentiating from other races. (Sorry if I'm rambling or sound disorganized, posting from class...) --Ghostwheel 20:24, May 18, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, they are basically removed outside of low levels. Which I'm actually ok with. But sure, you could pull masterwork items or drop their bonus to +1 to put some oomph into racial skill bonuses if you wanted (though I'm not sure they need them). Doesn't require any tweaks here, since I still don't want racial bonuses stacking with the competence bonuses from magic items, but it might get added in as a sidebar option. - TarkisFlux 20:46, May 18, 2010 (UTC)

I'm gonna have to agree with GW on this one. Changing racial bonuses to competence along with every other concievable skill bonus in the game really ruins alot of races which rely on bonuses to certain skills to set them apart (at least a little). Take Halflings for example. Halflings recieve a +2 racial bonus to Move Silently (or in this case, stealth). Stealth is something that they are suppose to excel at. They are small size, have a bonus to dex and have Rogue as their favored class. The +2 racial bonus might not seem like much. It is a welcome perk, of course. However, take into account the type of class Halflings usually play: Rogues. Rogues excel in stealth, and normally will take at least one feat that helps them excel at this task. Consider then, a feat 'feat'ured in this Sourcebook, Unseen Assailant. Unseen Assailant is basically the feat for a stealthy character. It's initial benefit: +3 competence bonus to stealth checks. Why is this important? I'll tell you why. Not all races will benefit from this feat equally. Namely, races that are supposed to excel at stealth through bonuses to said skill will benefit from this feat less due to what I view as an overconsolidation of bonus types. Why should races that are supposed to excel at said skill not benefit equally from feats? I don't see how that makes sense at all. Now, I know that some races tend to have more than just a +2 racial bonus. And perhaps we could tackle the issue of what racial bonuses are considered overpowered and which aren't. But, I think there's an argument to be made for Racial bonuses not to be converted to competence. PS: I know I'm entering the argument a little late, but there it is.- BackHandOfFate 23:00, 12 August, 2012 (PST)

Those bonuses are on my todo list for replacing actually, because they are boring and they make you less likely to take multiple scaling feats for the same skill (when sufficient ones exist to do that anyway). Which isn't something I really wanted to get people to avoid for any particular reason, so it needs to be changed. Skill focus is a sufficiently useful standalone feat here anyway, and I would probably boost the racial bonus to +3 to match it and beat out masterwork gear bonuses.

That aside, I'm not adding racial bonuses back. I don't want halflings to be better at stealth than gear assisted everyone else, just like I don't want humans to have a broader selection of skills than gear assisted everyone else. You're welcome to see that stance as an over-consolidation of bonuses if you like, but as far as I'm concerned it's the only sensible thing to do. Getting a misc bonus in the +5 to +6 is larger than the numbers here were built for, and has all of the same problems as letting people stack their attributes to the heavens. It makes you not only succeed more often than expected with the skills when you acquire them, it also makes you about twice as good with them on average because of the built in scaling. They are capped low because they are valuable. Do it in your games if you want, but it's bad math and not happening in general. - Tarkisflux ^Talk 07:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

That's very... 4e of you. -- Eiji-kun 07:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

???? - Tarkisflux ^Talk 07:25, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm referring to the seeming 4e philosophy of attaining balance by making everyone the same. They use much of all the same mechanics, which is very good at keeping it balanced, but bad at keeping things unique. I disapplushie, but I always had gotten the notion that this was never really built for me. -- Eiji-kun 07:28, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that's what's going on here at all actually Eiji. This numbers capping thing is just a way to 1) reduce the chances of people doing more with the abilities than expected, and 2) prevent some races from always being better at something than other races by virtue of a higher cap. Doing this allows people who want to play a rogue and be as stealthy as they can possibly be for their level to pick whatever race they want, and maybe spend a feat if they want to choose a non-stealthy race. The alternative is for the most stealthy rogues to always be stealthy races that also took the feat, and that way lies the "all rogues are halflings" and "all wizards are gnomes" racial wanking that 4e is very guilty of. Your race has always mattered less as you level in 3.x (outside of some homebrew variants, bloodlines, and some other edge cases), and capping bonuses so people can replace racial selection with feats or gear (and also not break the admittedly fragile numbers here) doesn't change that.

As to the making everyone the same and the same mechanics charge, I would point out that spellcasters have the same mechanics and play differently because of what abilities fall out of those mechanics. Characters in this system have less than half of the full skill list at maximum, in varying configurations, and are vastly different and more divergent as they level as a result (unless they fill things in with more gear than they can afford under WBL, but meh to that edge case). So while it might not be built for you, and there's lots of good reasons to not want to use this, I don't think your concerns and resulting disapplushie are on the mark. - Tarkisflux ^Talk 07:53, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to have to disagree with you, Tarkis. I understand your concerns about ability stacking. But again, we're talking about a +2 bonus here. Not a +10 bonus from a magic item. +2 is not game breaking. If every race is equally good at skills, then what's the point of taking any race beyond ability modifiers? Do you really want to have a skill system that reduces diversity in races to the point of their skill bonus being countered by a 50gp skilltool? You're elimanating the incentive to select any race aside from Human. Ability bonuses aside, Humans now get more than any other core race from just an extra feat and a fully ranked skill. Even if you increase the racial bonus to +3, does it really make all that much difference? You still can't benefit from skilltools, or anything else. That just doesn't make any sense to me. The Half-Orc can use the Masterwork Skilltool for Stealth, but the Halfling can't? What kind of tool is this that it can't be utilized by a race that is already really good at stealth, but will benefit a race that has no natural talent for it? The heightened emphasis on skill power is not what I'm debating here. I am simply concerned that the skill system is oversimplified to the point where certain races are affected disproportionately in a negative way. Take Changelings for one example. They are considered a pretty interesting racial choice and can be alot of fun. They have decent racial skill bonuses which make them good party faces. But now, anyone with an equal charisma score can be just as good as they are as long as they've spent a few hundred gold on the appropriate equipment and have the same number of skill ranks. Even their minor shapechange ability is hopelessly nerfed to the point where any race can match their skill level with little effort. What point would there be to play a Changeling? You can expand on the skill system without taking away from what each race has to offer. Does an extra +2 really matter all that much? - BackHandOfFate 1:16, 13 August 2012 (PST)

→Reverted indentation to one colon

It's not just a +2 bonus though. It's another +2 bonus. There is a reason I suggest capping attributes at 20, because after that you start getting to the point where you can crit fish on skill ability checks when you first acquire them. Which isn't really something I want to allow or encourage. People hyper specialize if you let them, and I would expect them to do it here as well. Is it game breaking? Probably not, but it's hardly good for anything. You'd have to pair it with a scaling DC change to skip that part, and you still open the door to "all rogues are halflings" nonsense. I don't want halflings to be at the top of the stealth chain or changelings to be at the top of the social chain, and I'm not at all sure why you think that's a good or desirable thing. I don't care if halflings are so natually good at stealth that they don't benefit from specialized gear to help them (not that I'm even sure what specialized gear for the entire stealth skill ability set would even be).

If anything your concerns are making me reconsider keeping masterwork skill items around in their current form, not re-add the racial bonus. Because while I don't want any race to keep their skill position at higher levels, I do want them to do so for the low levels of the game. Up to level 5 or so, the racial bonus should matter. It's the level of most of the world populace, so if halflings are better at stealth than everyone else in that range then the world gets to develop stereotypes about stealthy halflings and fluff is maintained. Reducing to a +1 is a joke, but I could either remove masterwork skill items entirely or restrict them to only apply to a particular skill ability.

If you still think that removes any reason to play anything other than humans, I don't really know what to tell you. Mechanically, maybe, though being able to take a feat to get their bonus skill point thing is an argument against that (and I just wrote that feat so that you could do that). But there are lots of non-mechanical reasons to take a race, and being able to overcome the advantages of other races in a particular area with ability and gear selections is useful for bringing those reasons forward. If you don't have to be a halfling to be the best sneak, maybe you'll actually play another race. - Tarkisflux ^Talk 16:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Erm, can't a human take Auxillary Training too? Also, if bonuses still need to be very tightly controlled, are Rank requirements just there to ensure that opposed checks can stay interesting? --Foxwarrior 16:59, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, they could, and I realized that after I finished this section and writing it but before I saw your comment. So now they can't.

Bonus control is mostly there to keep people from over-performing with their skill abilities. It's an attempt to balance daily spells that basically always work but might not be available (not prepared or brought in a scroll / wand, insufficient quantities available, etc.) against at-will abilities that might not work but are free (not relevant in wish economies) and always available. It helps that it keeps opposed checks more interesting(ish), but that's part of the over-performing thing. The rank requirements serve as level limiters, in the same way that spell level serves as a level limiter, so that people don't get abilities before they would be level appropriate. - Tarkisflux ^Talk 17:25, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Old Skills

I suggest changing the Old Skills section into a table for easier reading. Havvy 21:01, July 17, 2010 (UTC)

Sure, that would work fine too. I'll get around to it eventually :-) - TarkisFlux 22:10, July 17, 2010 (UTC)

A minor issue over something unclear

Under these rules for standardised skill points, do we still get 4x that number at first level, or are we stuck with say 4 per level, even at first? If the latter, then I honestly have no idea how anyone manages to tame animals, as the DC for being able to interact with a suspicious CR 2 animal is 29. One would expect a wild animal to be suspicious of humans. I know you want to avoid the problems with diplomacy (which, for the record, had the most synergies of any skill), but how in the hell are we supposed to even have a chance of taming animals, even if we do sink most of our points into animal handling? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redgaia (talk • contribs) at

4x at first level. Can you point me at the relevant unclear section? - Tarkisflux 16:16, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, I think your DC math is a bit off. Training a suspicious animal to work is only 27, likewise rearing one. And while suspicious is probably appropriate for wild predators, I'd argue that indifferent is a better fit for wild herbivores without a history of abuse at the hands of people. If you're going to rear a CR 2 creature though, you need to get to them so young that I'm not sure either is appropriate. All of this is discounting the possibility of you building a relationship with them over time, like you do with actual people, before the training or rearing even begins so that when they're more comfortable with you. Or the fact that you can actually fail the check by 5 and still teach them the trick. Yes, it's really hard to take a leopard right out of the jungle and teach it to defend you within a week, but if you have a longer bit of downtime it's not a stretch at all for a guy with 4 ranks and a moderate wisdom bonus.

Though having looked at it again, rearing should probably be pulled out separately because it doesn't follow those time constraints at all. - Tarkisflux 17:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Had some time, so I just wrote in a new acquiring skill points section that should make it all super clear. - Tarkisflux 17:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, appreciate it. Was kinda tired when I wrote that, so sorry for the screwy maths. I got the feeling it had to be 4X, but just wanted to be clear. 's a good system so far, in my opinion. Good job =) Redgaia 01:18, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

synergy?

I didn't see anything this....--Parakee^Talk 22:30, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Because I left them out. And don't plan on putting then in. They're not useful in this setup. I'll write a sidebar to that effect in a bit. - Tarkisflux 23:40, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

What about this? What is there are special things you can do if you have x points in one skill and y in another?Parakee^Talk 22:13, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I can't think of anything that would fit in such a setup, and I would want several of them if I was going to do it. I'm also not particularly interested in asking people to track even more stuff with this setup. So if you have stuff in mind feel free to suggest it, but I'm not going to put much work in on my own since I have other things to do here.

There is already some ability synergy in having several related skills though. Acrobatics, Jump, and Endurance can be combined into big jumps that land on air that you can do for a long time without tiring, and that looks a lot like flight. Disguise and Bluff are required if you want to imitate an individual. There's a few other stacking abilities floating around as well. - Tarkisflux 23:19, 22 April 2011 (UTC)