So why are skills so... useless?

[corrado33]

Apologies if this has been discussed to death, I didn't find anything in my search.

 

I've been playing for a bit now and anytime I have to increase my skills on a character, I really just apply it randomly if it's not my rogue or wizard. (Rogue obviously gets mechanics and wizard obviously gets lore.) I feel like these "skills" are only useful for scripted interactions. Sure, all of my characters have 3 stealth so that they can sneak around effectively, and all of my characters have 3 athletics so they don't get fatigued so quickly, but other than that? There's no reason to increase sneak any further, my characters almost never get fatigued (only my wizard, who has the lowest athletics will ever get fatigued.) (EDIT2: I guess at higher levels since I'll have more spells available to me I'll be resting less, so I may get fatigued more.) My main character is a rogue with high mechanics so it's useless to increase that for anybody else. There has only been 2-3 interactions when I needed a skill my main character didn't have (lore, survival.) And those really didn't affect anything...

 

I feel like they could have just as easily based the mechanics "skill" on dexterity and "survival/athletics" skill on constitution, etc. etc. (Like most other RPGs I've ever played.) 

 

Why the repetition? Am I missing something? Sure, it allows you to have a fighter who can sneak around very well or a fighter who can use scrolls (etc. etc.), but that seems a bit oxymoronic... 

 

Yes, it allows you to play in a more open ended manner (like having a party who can sneak through everything.) But it seems...excessive? Anyone agree? Disagree? Opinions? If you're not trying to avoid any combat these skills don't have many other uses it seems. 

 

EDIT: And unlike the wiki says, I can't use my companions skills for dialogue checks. 

Edited March 25, 2016 by corrado33

[Crucis]

Haven't you noticed that you get a "Second Wind" ability that's based on how many points of Athletics you have?  Or that your ability to disarm traps and open locks is tied to how many points of Mechanics you have?  Or the spell level of any scrolls you might want to cast spells from being tied to how many points of Lore you have? 

 

The amount of Stealth you have dictates how close to an enemy you can get before being spotted.  Yeah, 3-4 points is generally enough for a party to get into longer ranged weapons range of the closest enemy.  But if you'd like to get a character into MELEE range of an enemy unspotted, you're going to need considerably more than 3 points.  Generally speaking, it's not really worth taking that much unless your character is a rogue that wants to backstab an enemy with his first melee strike.

 

Stepping back, I understand that in theory, one could tied a lot of what these "skills" do to higher level attributes.  However, that starts to limit characters, particularly considering that the area of effect and duration of special abilities and spells is generically tied to a single attribute, i.e. INT.  With the skills system, regardless of what your set of attributes looks like, you can have a different mix of skills depending on the needs of the character. 

 

For example, given the way INT is (mis)used in this game, INT tend to be a fairly important attribute for Barbarians.  However, I wouldn't say that Lore is a skill that many barbarians would want.  It's more likely that they'd value some combination of Athletics, Survival, and Stealth instead.

 

Another example.  I often end up using GM in my parties because I like having a cipher along.  Most of the time, I have her go heavy on Lore so that I can have her cast spells from scrolls as well as use her cipher powers.  However, in my current party, I just didn't feel like having a rogue in the party mix this time around, so I have GM acting as the party's traps and locks specialist, as a "cipher-rogue".  And in this role, she's ignoring Lore and is putting a lot of skill points into Mechanics instead.

 

Not basing these skills directly off of attributes allows the player to come up with different "skill" builds regardless of what a character's attribute points are.  And even with the Companions, whose attribute points are always set in stone, the player can have a different skill-build from game to game, depending on the party and character's needs.

[corrado33]

Haven't you noticed that you get a "Second Wind" ability that's based on how many points of Athletics you have?  Or that your ability to disarm traps and open locks is tied to how many points of Mechanics you have?  Or the spell level of any scrolls you might want to cast spells from being tied to how many points of Lore you have? 

 

The amount of Stealth you have dictates how close to an enemy you can get before being spotted.  Yeah, 3-4 points is generally enough for a party to get into longer ranged weapons range of the closest enemy.  But if you'd like to get a character into MELEE range of an enemy unspotted, you're going to need considerably more than 3 points.  Generally speaking, it's not really worth taking that much unless your character is a rogue that wants to backstab an enemy with his first melee strike.

 

 

Not basing these skills directly off of attributes allows the player to come up with different "skill" builds regardless of what a character's attribute points are.  And even with the Companions, whose attribute points are always set in stone, the player can have a different skill-build from game to game, depending on the party and character's needs.

 

Oh I have noticed! Hence why my rogue has a high mechanics score and my wizard has a high lore score and my fighter has a high athletics score. 

 

But I came to the same conclusion as you have. The skills are only useful to take a character out of their typical role and make them into something very slightly different. I just wish they did... more. Wish they had more of a direct impact. Like athletics increasing reflex defense. (Which makes sense.) Survival eventually giving you a heal wounds skill, stealth eventually giving you the ability to go into stealth in combat, etc. 

 

So yes, I think I misspoke a bit in the OP. I appreciate that the devs. let you do this. It opens up the types of parties you can have (and allows you to do crazy things like an all wizard party yet still be able to open locks.) BUT, they just seem so... bland and uninteresting. 

Edited March 25, 2016 by corrado33

[jsaving]

The original idea was to separate the combat and noncombat "silos" so you wouldn't feel compelled to sacrifice combat effectiveness to be a better explorer/talker/sneaker -- climbing would be handled by athletics rather than might, sneaking would be handled by stealth rather than dexterity, knowledge would be handled by lore rather than intelligence, and foraging would be handled by survival rather than wisdom.  But the implementation was highly incomplete.  Skills like diplomacy/intimidation/persuasion, for example, aren't present, forcing you to sacrifice combat effectiveness to bolster your resolve score (or vice versa, sacrifice your dialogue success rate by dump-statting it).  So the skill system isn't perfect -- and you are right to separately point out how weird it is that your companions' skills often can't be used for dialogue checks even though they do frequently make interjections, sometimes in the same conversations where you can't tap them for checks.

[corrado33]

The original idea was to separate the combat and noncombat "silos" so you wouldn't feel compelled to sacrifice combat effectiveness to be a better explorer/talker/sneaker -- climbing would be handled by athletics rather than might, sneaking would be handled by stealth rather than dexterity, knowledge would be handled by lore rather than intelligence, and foraging would be handled by survival rather than wisdom.  But the implementation was highly incomplete.  Skills like diplomacy/intimidation/persuasion, for example, aren't present, forcing you to sacrifice combat effectiveness to bolster your resolve score (or vice versa, sacrifice your dialogue success rate by dump-statting it).  So the skill system isn't perfect -- and you are right to separately point out how weird it is that your companions' skills often can't be used for dialogue checks even though they do frequently make interjections, sometimes in the same conversations where you can't tap them for checks.

 

I think the original idea is a really cool one, as like we said above it allows you to have a much more open party (a rogue isn't NECESSARY just to find traps and pick locks, like it is in almost every older RPG) But it's just... lacking. Honestly I find survival useless, but that's probably because I'm not the type of player to rely on consumables. Maybe if it let you gather 2 ingredients instead of 1, then it'd be a little more useful. (I think they had something like this in WoW.) So I guess I'll put some suggestions into a list.

 

• Stealth: I think it's ok now. Maybe "allows player to enter stealth in combat" when you reach a really high level. But then that's a combat skill.
• Athletics: "Faster movement." Not a skill strictly focused on combat. It'd also require a UI button "keep party together." in case some members had faster walk speed.
• Lore: Fine as is I guess. I don't really use scrolls that much, but I can see it being necessary for a wizard. Maybe an extra level X spell as you get higher in the lore levels. Actually! How about if you have a player with high enough lore it'll tell you what kind of defenses the enemy has even if you haven't fought a lot of them... (I often find myself looking at the bestiary to figure out how best to attack a... beast. Almost like a "scan" or "sensor" from some of the final fantasy series. 
• Mechanics: Fine as is. This is the only skill that's currently a SKILL. 
• Survival: Allows you to recover twice/thrice the amount of ingredients. So if you harvest some moss, you get 2/3 instead of 1. 

 

I'd love to hear some more suggestions. Maybe somebody will make a mod.

[Baron Pampa]

Actually I prefer giving high lore to non-casters. A caster will have lot to do in every difficult fight and scrolls which, more or less, duplicate his natural skills aren't something very worth to look for. Non-casters, on the other hands, get some nasty tricks with lore. Like casting moonwell, or paralyzing whole enemy groups, or fireballs....I know! One casts scrolls of valor for accuracy, other paralyzes enemy and then the rest can nuke them;). Makes difficult fights much easier sometimes.

[Gromnir]

our main complaint with the skills is that we see no reason why the skills should have bonuses tied to classes.  is a stoopid and anachronistic approach given an espoused goal o' increased player freedom and customization.  perhaps make the background bonuses more significant is a good idea if the class bonuses were removed, but the classes themselves is unique enough w/o adding in an additional class limitation.

 

am also not liking the survival thresholds or even level usefulness from lore.  every point in a skill should have value... approximate equal value.  dr from survival has thresholds o' 1, 7, and 14.  accuracy bonus v. creature type is 4 and 10.  damage v. flanked is 6 and 12.  am not in favor o' such gaps.  am understanding that the change to survival were a fix and thus not optimal, but is still poor design. am similarly bothered that only the even levels is enhancing ability to cast scrolls.  making odd-levels o' skill progression largely meaningless outside o' dialogues is bad design. what is our motivation to get other than even numbers o' skill levels for any non main character? 

 

HA! Good Fun!

[corrado33]

our main complaint with the skills is that we see no reason why the skills should have bonuses tied to classes.  is a stoopid and anachronistic approach given an espoused goal o' increased player freedom and customization.  perhaps make the background bonuses more significant is a good idea if the class bonuses were removed, but the classes themselves is unique enough w/o adding in an additional class limitation.

 

am also not liking the survival thresholds or even level usefulness from lore.  every point in a skill should have value... approximate equal value.  dr from survival has thresholds o' 1, 7, and 14.  accuracy bonus v. creature type is 4 and 10.  damage v. flanked is 6 and 12.  am not in favor o' such gaps.  am understanding that the change to survival were a fix and thus not optimal, but is still poor design. am similarly bothered that only the even levels is enhancing ability to cast scrolls.  making odd-levels o' skill progression largely meaningless outside o' dialogues is bad design. what is our motivation to get other than even numbers o' skill levels for any non main character? 

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

Well now I feel kind of like an idiot. I didn't know skills offered bonuses, nor have I seen this anywhere in game... EDIT: Apparently survival is the only one that offers bonuses at particular levels other than the main effect. All of the skills should have bonuses like this!

[Crucis]

Actually I prefer giving high lore to non-casters. A caster will have lot to do in every difficult fight and scrolls which, more or less, duplicate his natural skills aren't something very worth to look for. Non-casters, on the other hands, get some nasty tricks with lore. Like casting moonwell, or paralyzing whole enemy groups, or fireballs....I know! One casts scrolls of valor for accuracy, other paralyzes enemy and then the rest can nuke them;). Makes difficult fights much easier sometimes.

 

Actually, Pampa, I think that a very good case can be made for giving certain casters Lore, because there are some scroll spells that are extremely useful in certain battles, but it also helps to have multiple characters being able to cast those scroll spells so that perhaps one hits.  The Paralyze scroll, for example.  Or the Revival scroll.  Just because one is a caster doesn't mean that you have access to all of the spells on those scrolls.  In a tough fight, your priest may be down, but if you have your wizard carrying a Revival scroll and has enough Lore to cast it, he too can cast a Revival spell.  And visa versa, a priest or a druid might not have a paralyze spell in their array of class spells, but with enough Lore, they can cast a paralyze scroll spell.  Having your casters have Lore allows them to do some cross-caster class casting from scrolls that they wouldn't otherwise be able to do.

[Crucis]

The original idea was to separate the combat and noncombat "silos" so you wouldn't feel compelled to sacrifice combat effectiveness to be a better explorer/talker/sneaker -- climbing would be handled by athletics rather than might, sneaking would be handled by stealth rather than dexterity, knowledge would be handled by lore rather than intelligence, and foraging would be handled by survival rather than wisdom.  But the implementation was highly incomplete.  Skills like diplomacy/intimidation/persuasion, for example, aren't present, forcing you to sacrifice combat effectiveness to bolster your resolve score (or vice versa, sacrifice your dialogue success rate by dump-statting it).  So the skill system isn't perfect -- and you are right to separately point out how weird it is that your companions' skills often can't be used for dialogue checks even though they do frequently make interjections, sometimes in the same conversations where you can't tap them for checks.

 

I kinda wish that there were talking skills in the game.  That said, I can see one reason why they might have been left out.  Since only the PC does the talking, any party member other than the PC would have no need for talking skills.  So that leaves only 2 ways to deal with this.  One, do what was done and have no talking skills.  Or two, they could have had talking skills only for the PC, and given the PC more skill points to distribute when leveling up.  The latter would introduce an added layer of complexity, but would have avoided players feeling the need to create PC builds that were strong on the primary dialog attributes (i.e. PER, INT, and/or RES) for no other reason than to have a PC who could open up more dialog options.

 

[Crucis]

our main complaint with the skills is that we see no reason why the skills should have bonuses tied to classes.  is a stoopid and anachronistic approach given an espoused goal o' increased player freedom and customization.  perhaps make the background bonuses more significant is a good idea if the class bonuses were removed, but the classes themselves is unique enough w/o adding in an additional class limitation.

 

Honestly, Gromnir, I disagree with this.  I like the idea of skill bonuses being tied to classes.  And I don't think that it's stupid in the least.  Maybe it's a tried and true thing to do, but that doesn't make it wrong nor stupid.  I see it as essentially some base level training in that class, though I'm not entirely sure that I agree with all the bonuses that the devs felt should be assigned.  Actually, I just went through all the classes, and the only one I have any significant disagreement on is Fighters.  I don't really see why Fighters should be a +1 Lore bonus.  Seems to me that they should either be +1 Athletics/+2 Survival, or the reverse.  The Lore bonus doesn't make much sense to me, except perhaps that the devs didn't want Fighters to have their mix of class skill bonuses look too much like those for Barbarians or Rangers.

Edited March 26, 2016 by Crucis

[Crucis]

 

Haven't you noticed that you get a "Second Wind" ability that's based on how many points of Athletics you have?  Or that your ability to disarm traps and open locks is tied to how many points of Mechanics you have?  Or the spell level of any scrolls you might want to cast spells from being tied to how many points of Lore you have? 

 

The amount of Stealth you have dictates how close to an enemy you can get before being spotted.  Yeah, 3-4 points is generally enough for a party to get into longer ranged weapons range of the closest enemy.  But if you'd like to get a character into MELEE range of an enemy unspotted, you're going to need considerably more than 3 points.  Generally speaking, it's not really worth taking that much unless your character is a rogue that wants to backstab an enemy with his first melee strike.

 

 

Not basing these skills directly off of attributes allows the player to come up with different "skill" builds regardless of what a character's attribute points are.  And even with the Companions, whose attribute points are always set in stone, the player can have a different skill-build from game to game, depending on the party and character's needs.

 

Oh I have noticed! Hence why my rogue has a high mechanics score and my wizard has a high lore score and my fighter has a high athletics score. 

 

But I came to the same conclusion as you have. The skills are only useful to take a character out of their typical role and make them into something very slightly different. I just wish they did... more. Wish they had more of a direct impact. Like athletics increasing reflex defense. (Which makes sense.) Survival eventually giving you a heal wounds skill, stealth eventually giving you the ability to go into stealth in combat, etc. 

 

So yes, I think I misspoke a bit in the OP. I appreciate that the devs. let you do this. It opens up the types of parties you can have (and allows you to do crazy things like an all wizard party yet still be able to open locks.) BUT, they just seem so... bland and uninteresting. 

 

 

I'm not sure that I like what they've done with the Survival skill.  It smacks of a little bit of desperation to make the skill relevant. I think that a better idea might have been to allow survival "heal" a little bit of a character's own health (not END) or possibly a team mate's health outside of battle, similar to Wound Binding or Field Triage, but definitely a non-combat ability.  Indeed, perhaps using it might be like a mini-rest.  You'd have to stop for a time allow the "survivalist" medic to do his work, maybe requiring 15-30 minutes of down time.  Not a real "Rest" like Camping.  But enough time for some non-magical binding of wounds, etc.

 

Also, I could see another way to use the survival skill.  Use it as a "Foraging" skill.  The more points you have in Survival, the less time it might take you to forage up some food and firewood, etc. to provide for adequate rest, even if you had no camping supplies. The way this could work, in theory, is that you'd hit the camping/rest button (out in the wilderness, not in an urban area or a dungeon, etc.), and if you had no camping supplies, you'd have to spend additional time foraging for the food and other necessary items for proper food and rest.  Also, I could see adding up all of the points the party has in Survival into a "pool" and the amount of points in survival would be used, rather than that of any single character.  One limitation I could see might be that no character whose health bar was in the red could be used in this "survival foraging pool" since that character is too heavily wounded to be out foraging, and should really be off their feet.

 

As for Athletics, another thing I could see it used for is, along the lines you're thinking, as a modifier to Reflex saves, as well as Deflection.  Maybe do it this way.  Each point of Athletics adds a +1 to Reflex and +1 to Deflection.  When you think about it, it's really not a lot, and given the way you "pay" for points in each skill, it gets increasingly more expensive to add additional points to this Athletics training bonus to Reflex and Deflection.  Hey, one could even argue that it should modify Fortitude as well, since Athletics is really more than just training yourself to be agile.  It could also be seen as "physical toughness" training.

 

 

Anyways, this is all just some off the wall brainstorming.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Baron Pampa]

 

Actually I prefer giving high lore to non-casters. A caster will have lot to do in every difficult fight and scrolls which, more or less, duplicate his natural skills aren't something very worth to look for. Non-casters, on the other hands, get some nasty tricks with lore. Like casting moonwell, or paralyzing whole enemy groups, or fireballs....I know! One casts scrolls of valor for accuracy, other paralyzes enemy and then the rest can nuke them;). Makes difficult fights much easier sometimes.

 

Actually, Pampa, I think that a very good case can be made for giving certain casters Lore, because there are some scroll spells that are extremely useful in certain battles, but it also helps to have multiple characters being able to cast those scroll spells so that perhaps one hits.  The Paralyze scroll, for example.  Or the Revival scroll.  Just because one is a caster doesn't mean that you have access to all of the spells on those scrolls.  In a tough fight, your priest may be down, but if you have your wizard carrying a Revival scroll and has enough Lore to cast it, he too can cast a Revival spell.  And visa versa, a priest or a druid might not have a paralyze spell in their array of class spells, but with enough Lore, they can cast a paralyze scroll spell.  Having your casters have Lore allows them to do some cross-caster class casting from scrolls that they wouldn't otherwise be able to do.

 

That's true of course. What I mean is the benefits of high lore are much bigger for non-casters, as their options are much more limited without it. That doesn't mean that casters get no benefits at all, but in most cases a spell from their repertoire is more beneficial than scroll. Can't say the same about rogues, fighter etc., which gain a whole array of new options.

 

 

 

Crucis

Gromnir, on 25 Mar 2016 - 10:58 PM, said:

our main complaint with the skills is that we see no reason why the skills should have bonuses tied to classes.  is a stoopid and anachronistic approach given an espoused goal o' increased player freedom and customization.  perhaps make the background bonuses more significant is a good idea if the class bonuses were removed, but the classes themselves is unique enough w/o adding in an additional class limitation.

 

Honestly, Gromnir, I disagree with this.  I like the idea of skill bonuses being tied to classes.  And I don't think that it's stupid in the least.  Maybe it's a tried and true thing to do, but that doesn't make it wrong nor stupid.  I see it as essentially some base level training in that class, though I'm not entirely sure that I agree with all the bonuses that the devs felt should be assigned.  Actually,, I just went through all the classes, and the only one I have any significant disagreement on is Fighters.  I don't really see why Fighters should be a +1 Lore bonus.  Seems to me that they should either be +1 Athletics/+2 Survival, or the reverse.  The Lore bonus doesn't make much sense to me, except perhaps that the devs didn't want Fighters to have their mix of class skill bonuses look too much like those for Barbarians or Rangers.

I think that it goes against PoE design goals, which included freedom to customize your character as you like regardless of his race and class.

[Infinitron]

The core Infinity Engine-style gameplay isn't really complex enough to support truly active skill systems outside of scripted scenarios and dialogue sequences. The only non-combat thing you do with the environment on a regular basis in these games is sneak, pick locks and disarm traps. You don't swim, you don't climb, you don't repair, etc.

 

The skills as they exist provide some useful benefits, but they're mostly there for the sake of being there. They're not really a thing that you do.

Edited March 26, 2016 by Infinitron

[Gromnir]

 

our main complaint with the skills is that we see no reason why the skills should have bonuses tied to classes.  is a stoopid and anachronistic approach given an espoused goal o' increased player freedom and customization.  perhaps make the background bonuses more significant is a good idea if the class bonuses were removed, but the classes themselves is unique enough w/o adding in an additional class limitation.

 

Honestly, Gromnir, I disagree with this.  I like the idea of skill bonuses being tied to classes. 

why?  what purpose does it serve?  the poe classes, w/o the skill bonuses, play complete distinct.  is some unspoken goal achieved by making certain skills integral linked to a class? 

 

on the other hand, a goal were to allow players to customize, which makes tying the skills to classes even more curious.  

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Elerond]

Reason for tying skills to classes was to make classes have more D&D spirit, if I remember correctly explanation that was given.

[DreamWayfarer]

Reason for tying skills to classes was to make classes have more D&D spirit, if I remember correctly explanation that was given.

Two steps forward, one step back? Yeah, sounds consistent with many other things in-game.

[Crucis]

 

 

Actually I prefer giving high lore to non-casters. A caster will have lot to do in every difficult fight and scrolls which, more or less, duplicate his natural skills aren't something very worth to look for. Non-casters, on the other hands, get some nasty tricks with lore. Like casting moonwell, or paralyzing whole enemy groups, or fireballs....I know! One casts scrolls of valor for accuracy, other paralyzes enemy and then the rest can nuke them;). Makes difficult fights much easier sometimes.

 

Actually, Pampa, I think that a very good case can be made for giving certain casters Lore, because there are some scroll spells that are extremely useful in certain battles, but it also helps to have multiple characters being able to cast those scroll spells so that perhaps one hits.  The Paralyze scroll, for example.  Or the Revival scroll.  Just because one is a caster doesn't mean that you have access to all of the spells on those scrolls.  In a tough fight, your priest may be down, but if you have your wizard carrying a Revival scroll and has enough Lore to cast it, he too can cast a Revival spell.  And visa versa, a priest or a druid might not have a paralyze spell in their array of class spells, but with enough Lore, they can cast a paralyze scroll spell.  Having your casters have Lore allows them to do some cross-caster class casting from scrolls that they wouldn't otherwise be able to do.

 

That's true of course. What I mean is the benefits of high lore are much bigger for non-casters, as their options are much more limited without it. That doesn't mean that casters get no benefits at all, but in most cases a spell from their repertoire is more beneficial than scroll. Can't say the same about rogues, fighter etc., which gain a whole array of new options.

 

 

 

 

 

Pampa, while I agree that IN THEORY non-casters get a greater bump from Lore than casters do, I think that in practice, most non-casters' role really tends to need them worrying about doing their non-casting things.  Oh, maybe a second line non-caster, like a Paladin or a Chanter (sort of a hybrid who gains invocations to cast so slowly that it's hard to see them as normal casters) could be a worthy scroll caster.  And sometimes it can be useful to have a front line combatant with the ability to cast a low level spell like Fan of Flames or Shocking Grasp, that's normally difficult for a wizard to cast without exposing himself (unless he's a melee wizard in the first place, of course).

 

As for "in most casts a spell from their repertoire" is better than a scroll, I can't agree.  To me, the most important uses of scroll casting are for the casting of Paralyze or Revival spells.  And if you don't have either of those spells in your repertoire, then anything you *could* cast probably will NOT be as important as a Paralyze or Revival spell, if those spells are NEEDED in the situation.  For example, if you're fighting the some dragons, a Paralyze spell can be critical to victory, and having only a single caster cast Paralyze is a risky thing.  Better to have two casters casting paralyze, and worry about what to cast next if and when you succeed in paralyzing the dragon at all.  As for Revival, that should be fairly self-explanatory.  You're in a difficult fight and you have guys down.  Heck, maybe one of them is your priest or a paladin.  And you need them back in action.  That suddenly becomes more important than any spell the wizard might cast from his own repertoire if he's the one with a revival scroll.

 

 

 

As for Rogues and Lore, honestly, Rogues are one class to whome I almost never give any Lore.  Why?  Because I view their Mechanics skill as so critical, that spending skill points on Lore is a waste.  Heck, it's hard enough finding skill points for Stealth, Athletics, and Survival on a Rogue, at least for me, because when I have a rogue in my party, his primary job is traps and locks, not combat.  He's there to take care of traps and locks.  And if his Mechanics isn't high enough, then he's not getting the job done.

 

 

 

 

[Crucis]

 

Reason for tying skills to classes was to make classes have more D&D spirit, if I remember correctly explanation that was given.

Two steps forward, one step back? Yeah, sounds consistent with many other things in-game.

 

 

I disagree.  I don't see as 2 steps forward and one back.  I think that typing skills to classes is a VERY GOOD THING.  And losing that would reduce the value of classes and weaken the game for me.

[anameforobsidian]

I like the skills as they stand.  I think traps could use a bit more work, but some people swear by gaze of the adragan traps.  Lore is excellent due to revival, and skill boost scrolls for challenges.  Mechanics is necessary.  Athletics is something most melee characters should take.  Survival is finally useful.  I have Sagani take it to high levels so she can get the appropriate slaying boost.   Stealth is used all the time, and makes for great openings.

[ojaiike]

Level 10 survival is actual extremely important because it gives an accuracy boost to all your **** vs dragons witch is really important. Athletics is important for tanks because of second wind, while mechanics is dull but required lore basically gives you infinite disables heals revives buffs and damage if you have the components.