D&D 4ed - Skills (char sheet)

When I calculate my skill bonus, do I then add all the bonuses, or just pick the highest number? I seem to recall reading it's the highest number, but can't find it in the players handbook. Add them all seems a bit OP? Thanks

The number in the far left column of your sheet is the total bonus you add to your roll. For example, your Endurance skill is 5 (trained skill bonus) + 2 (Con bonus) + 2 (racial bonus) for a total of +9. Add that to your d20 roll when you are asked to roll for Endurance.

Then it is a bit overpowered :P Thanks

Nah, not really. Assuming the DM is properly adjudicating the DCs for your skill checks, the moderate DC at 1st level is 12 and the high is 19. 4e math assumes that you should succeed at a moderate DC on a roll of an 8. So any skill of yours at a 4 is decent as far as the game is concerned. You're still only making the high DC 55% of the time on Endurance, but you will nail the moderate DC 90% of the time. The trick is when you get asked to make Endurance checks really. Outside of a DM asking for a skill check when he's not supposed to, you're looking at making Endurance checks for disease recovery (not terribly common) or in skill challenges. Your typical skill challenge (again, if your DM is running them as designed) will have primary skills listed for the number of PCs in the party plus two. That's only 40% of the total skills in the game in a typical group and Endurance isn't the likeliest of candidates and would be used as a secondary skill (if even possible). Secondary skills always roll against the high DC, so that means you'll succeed 55% of the time - no better than a saving throw! What this should tell you is that 4e rewards characters built with a wider range of decent skills than just a few skills with high bonuses (and the rest super low). So it's actually better to train skills where you don't have your primary stats, background bonuses, or racial bonuses in favor of more opportunities to hit the moderate DC. Even in a Complexity 5 skill challenge (12 successes before 3 failures), you're likely only going to use 3 different skills before you've succeeded or failed in it. The greater chance you have of those 3 skills being primary skills and thus at a moderate DC, the better you'll be at skill challenges (and skill checks in general). So if you ever hear your party's fighter ask someone else to go gather information because has hasn't trained any social skills, ask him why he didn't train Streetwise. If it's because he dump-statted his Charisma, that's okay! At 1st level, training minus 1 for stat penalty is... you guessed it... 4! Meaning on an 8 or better he'll hit the moderate DC, exactly as expected. Now everyone in the party should have some combat, exploration, knowledge and social skills trained, no excuses!

Knud H. said: Then it is a bit overpowered :P Thanks Nope not at all that is a +9 to a skill that is hardly used. &nbsp; Now this is a bit OP. Druid = 20 wis primary ability score +5, &nbsp;Wood Elf +2 racial and can use perception skill for initiative roll, born in forest background +2, &nbsp;Windlord theme +2 perception, Skill training +5, Blindfight sentinel feat +2 perception grand total =&nbsp; Perception +18 at first level that can be used for all your initiative rolls. &nbsp;You will always go first, part of this is giving all your allies a +2 initiative as well and you have a +18 in the most often asked for skill check in the game not that you will be making many since your passive perception is 28 well beyond the highest DC a 1st level character should ever be asked to make. So yes the system can be abused but +9 is not even close. EDIT : &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Wanted to see what other ways I could bend the skill system. &nbsp; Arcana skill shenanigans :Wizard Int 20 = +5, Eladrin +2, Trained +5, Unseelie Agent background +2, Moteborn theme +2, Feat Arcane Familiar [book imp] +2 &nbsp;Total = Arcana +18 &nbsp;it seems that +18 is about as high as you can get sure there is skill focus instead of these other feats but that is just +1 more, and with the wizard build it would still stack so he could get that as his feat at level 2. Now the fun part about the Arcana 18, with his cantrips once per encounter the wizard can now use that in place of intimidate, diplomacy, and stealth &nbsp;so maximizing that one skill gives you a huge bonus in 3 others. &nbsp;Also if you go with sprite familiar instead of book imp you can use a minor action to detect magic with your +18. And all that is just a level 1 build for the best OP arcana builds there is a thread over at wizards about it apparently at level 30 you can have a +65 to the roll and use it for about 9 other skills and initiative checks. &nbsp; <a href="http://community.wizards.com/forum/4e-character-optimization/threads/2023226" rel="nofollow">http://community.wizards.com/forum/4e-character-optimization/threads/2023226</a>

Couple of things on why those aren't "overpowered" either. First, if the DM is running the game properly, he almost never asks for a Perception check because asking for checks without a player stating an actual action to trigger the skill is a no-no. As well, if the player actually takes an action to "search the room" or the like, there's still no check unless they're also in a dramatic situation (tension). If nothing's going on, then there's no check. They just take the time and succeed. If your DM asks for too many skills checks, then yeah, maybe there's a case to be made here. But that's a DM fail, not an overpowered skill. There is also the matter of opportunity cost. You've so focused on one skill that you've effectively got only two other skills to choose and no real way to give them any particularly high value except for the training bonus plus primary stat mod. So you've got one big skill, Nature at around a +10, and two other skills to pick. When a skill challenge comes up, you're going to have a harder time than someone who has spread out their skill selections and bonuses. In fact, in our games because we run skill challenges RAW, the specialists like this often cause the party to fail the skill challenge because they have a coupe of awesome skills and the rest are terrible, incapable of hitting the RAW moderate DC reliably. In a social skill challenge, for example, Mr. Perception here is totally going to blow it for the party unless he puts his training in those skills and brings them up to a 4 or 5 so that he can reliably hit the moderate DC. (This all comes down to what primary skills are in the skill challenge, naturally.) Of course, again, if your DM doesn't run skill challenges RAW or doesn't use skill challenges at all, then there's a case to be made. But that's, again, a DM fail causing the imbalance. A +18 Perception means tapping the high DC (which will probably never be necessary). You're better off dropping that skill by around 6 points (choose other themes, feats, backgrounds, or whatever) so you can tap the moderate DC, then get those points elsewhere to bring a broader range of skills up to a decent level. You will be more well-rounded and able to kick butt in combat and non-combat situations equally. Mr. Wizard is also filling his utilitarian role with those cantrips, but again, those are only once per encounter. They aren't an I-win button for sure and during a combat encounter (say, using Spook to get an enemy to surrender), there's an opportunity cost for doing that instead of fulfilling your role as a controller. Average NAD of a 1st-level monster is 14. Add 10 if hostile for DC 24. You're still only making that (one) guy surrender 75% of the time when you could be controlling with AOE. Situationally effective at best. There is a case to be made for initiative. Going first is valuable, especially for a controller. But going "super-first" is no different than going first most of the time. If you're beating everyone handily at initiative (or blowing past the moderate DC with no problem), then you've gone overboard and many of the points in those skills represent opportunity cost you could have reallocated in other areas. Specialists are fun, but the game as written doesn't particularly reward that tact. Everything is a trade-off.

It all does depend on the DM like almost everything in an rpg. &nbsp;But a couple of points those are not to over specialized the themes match up with the role/class well and provide other benefits maybe not the optimal combat choice but solid in other areas besides skill optimization, same goes for the feats blindfight sentinel and arcane familiar have other very good uses and why I went with them over skill focus. Perception is 'called' for by a lot of old school DM's it is just how they learned the game, either they make a bunch of rolls in secret, use passive perception, or ask for rolls to find things all the time. &nbsp;Even with the newer style DM's they use perception like how you describe but 'fail forward' or take a note from the rpg Gumshoe and yes the player/party finds what they need to move the plot forward but the high perception roll earns them extra clues or items. &nbsp; Perception is also a great defense ability it helps you avoid surprise situations, and not being attacked by a stealthed skirmisher can sometimes mitigate a good bit of damage. As far as being weak in other areas it didn't take much to get that 18 and that is level 1, you don't ever have to devote another resource to boosting that skill again and it will maintain peak performance. &nbsp;The skill challenges are not an issue because like you said you diversify the druid has insight for social challenges, heal, and nature all also key off of wisdom so all at +10 or +12 with racial mods . But yes I also don't think they break the game in the hands of a good DM nothing in 4e does really. &nbsp;All this does it let the specialist steal the spotlight for a bit and moves the story forward faster both of which are perfectly fine. I would argue however that the wizard spending an action to make all the bloodied enemies surrender is very good battlefield control and with 75% success rate a solid tactical &nbsp;choice, again not game breaking all it is doing is probably speeding up a slow combat with an elite or couple brutes and maybe saving a healing surge or two.

Yes, it does depend on the DM. The key thing I wish DMs would take away from discussions like this is that they are often creating these "OP" situations themselves by not playing the game as intended. Then they frequently blame the game or the players ("min/maxers!"). I'd love to see more 4e DMs engage in "fail forward," which is actually included in 4e rules anyway under the rules for skill challenges. So that's really the DM running RAW and not necessarily doing anything new or house-ruling. The two mistakes I see the most are DMs asking for Perception checks when no action triggering such a check has been offered and (2) asking for checks in mundane situations. The 4e rules specifically say not to do that. House rules or mistakes along those lines skew the relative importance of skills, leading to players encouraged to min/max along those lines. There's nothing wrong with min/maxing, of course, but it's frequently a symptom of another issue. If I were that druid, I wouldn't train any skills based on Wisdom, nor use my background or feat options to add toward them. I would train things where my ability scores sucked just so I could get in line with 4e's math and shoot for as many skills with a +4 bonus or greater as possible. It would have me at almost 50% of my skills in that "roll an 8 to succeed" range that the system expects.&nbsp; That's how you optimize skills in 4e, assuming your DM is running 4e RAW. Of course, if I showed up to a table where the DM sets the DCs to whatever the heck he feels like at the time, I'd be screwed. (I'd also not be back for a second game.) As far as Intimidate, my reading of the rules indicates that it is single-target. Powerful when fighting a solo or once the combat's outcome is already a fait accompli. But otherwise, the wizard does have better options (especially when it comes to fighting solos).

John R. said: Druid = 20 wis primary ability score +5, &nbsp;Wood Elf +2 racial and can use perception skill for initiative roll, born in forest background +2, &nbsp;Windlord theme +2 perception, Skill training +5, Blindfight sentinel feat +2 perception grand total =&nbsp; Perception +18 at first level that can be used for all your initiative rolls. While impressive, I'm a big fan of the "Strategist's Epiphany" Skill Power; as a daily, roll History (after everyone has rolled initiative), and all allies (plus self) within close burst 5 can use the History roll for their initiative. Why go first when you can make the whole party go first? =) Of course, you can't have a Skill Power at lv1, but it's a nice skill for a character with high History. I've got a Wizard going at the moment that's not quite so tricked out as that theoretical Wood Elf, but +15 at lv8 isn't something to sneeze at.

Headhunter Jones said: As far as Intimidate, my reading of the rules indicates that it is single-target. Powerful when fighting a solo or once the combat's outcome is already a fait accompli. But otherwise, the wizard does have better options (especially when it comes to fighting solos). I was under the same assumption until I read it again before making that post. &nbsp;Most of time it uses singular terminology in the description, "target", "a monster", "the monster", etc... &nbsp;but rules compendium page 148 under Opposed Check: "If an adventurer attempts to intimidate multiple monsters at once, make a separate intimidate check against each monster's Will. &nbsp;Each monster must be able to see and hear the adventurer." Not sure if that changed since the PHB1 or not I don't have it near me to reference, but again I thought it was solo target until this morning too. Towards Brian, I like that skill power good idea. &nbsp;Having the whole team go first in the climatic boss battle sure can swing things the heroes way quickly. On the topic of character building I personally like to be a specialist in one thing so that when that one thing comes up my character can shine, sometimes I will diversify my other abilities to shore up weak areas or focus on a few skills to be good at it all depends on the character. &nbsp;I don't think any way is better/worse it all comes down to personal preferance.&nbsp;

I stand corrected on the multiple targets rules. I would still submit it's apparent brokenness is offset by that tactic requiring bloodied targets. Any team of PCs acting optimally is going to focus fire to take down threats rather than get them to bloodied before moving onto bloodying the next one in hopes of intimidating them later. Doing so represents more rounds in which the monsters get to attack, which costs resources. In light of other options the wizard has, I think that tact is not so great. The wood elf Perception -&gt; Initiative thing is pretty sweet though. It's more useful across a broader ranger of circumstances.

Yeah I was thinking about the focus fire thing too a little bit ago, but it didn't support my argument ;) The wood elf perception thing is sweet, but even that comes at a steep cost. &nbsp;They give up one of the best racial encounter powers for it elven accuracy, that lets you have a second chance of hitting with another encounter or daily power. The best part of this whole discussion is that even when you try and break 4e it seems to balance itself out so yeah, a big skill bonus can be useful and with the right skill powers/racial abilities/class powers players can use them in creative ways that might swing combat a bit here and there but in the end none of it breaks the game.

Agreed!

Headhunter Jones said: if I showed up to a table where the DM sets the DCs to whatever the heck he feels like at the time, I'd be screwed. (I'd also not be back for a second game.) Well I'm the DM, and a first timer at that, so I use my gut felling based of the average. I find that roleplaying the game is more important then going by the rules 100%, and the group seems to like it.

As for skill checks, then I might be a bit old fashioned and use perception the most. But I will do my best and use other skill checks, if they can be roleplayed into the situation, to make the game more fun :)

Knud H. said: Headhunter Jones said: if I showed up to a table where the DM sets the DCs to whatever the heck he feels like at the time, I'd be screwed. (I'd also not be back for a second game.) Well I'm the DM, and a first timer at that, so I use my gut felling based of the average. I find that roleplaying the game is more important then going by the rules 100%, and the group seems to like it. The good news is that you lose nothing but gain a lot by actually following the rules. Following the rules means you're validating your players' choices in the game. If they want to be a specialist in Perception, then they'll spot everything all the time. Good! Because that's what they invested in. If they'd rather be more well-rounded and have lots of skills that will generally succeed, good! That's their choice and it should be validated by using the proper DCs. To give them that validation, you don't have to do anything other than follow the rules of the game you've chosen to play. To make it easier for you, check out this handy chart . It has all the DCs by level plus a lot of other level-based calculations all laid out for you. I can improvise an entire game using just this chart. DMs in General: Don't make up DCs, man. They are already listed so use them. If you are jacking up the DC because you secretly don't want the PCs to succeed or lowering them to the point they're trivial, just don't ask for a roll! You're already deciding the outcome, so man up and say you've decided something by fiat rather than pretend to give them a fair roll. Or you can save yourself from doing that by just following the published DCs and playing to find out what happens. (Trust me, the latter is more fun for everybody. It's kind of the point of the game.) Knud H. said: As for skill checks, then I might be a bit old fashioned and use perception the most. But I will do my best and use other skill checks, if they can be roleplayed into the situation, to make the game more fun :) Just remember - never ask for skill checks unless the PC has stated an action that triggers the skill check. How do you know a stated action triggers a skill check? Examine the situation: Is it a non-mundane dramatic situation (tension, PCs acting under fire, or otherwise engaged in heroic adventuring)? Is there something to be gained or lost? Is success as interesting as failure? If the answer to those three things is "Yes," then you ask for a skill check. If even one of those answers is "No," then it's not a skill check. The PC just states his action, succeeds, and you carry on. Example 1: The PCs are in the forest. One of the PCs wants to climb a tree. There is nothing else going on in the scene. Is it an Athletics check? NO. Given time and reasonable care, he PC simply climbs that tree. Example 2: The PCs are in the forest. They're surrounded by wolves. One of the PCs wants to climb a tree. Is it an Athletics check? YES. It's dramatic and not mundane (PCs are under fire). The PC can gain an advantage by climbing (wolves don't climb) or lose by not climbing (fail) or possibly falling (fail by 5 or more). Success is as interesting as failure because the PC either climbs up and can attack the wolves from safety; failure means getting savaged by wolves on their turf. DC is listed in Athletics description (probably 10 or 15 in this case). Insight and Perception get special treatment: You always use the PCs's passive values (write them down and keep them in front of you) to see if they spot traps, hidden foes, or lies. If they want to actively make the check, they have to say so and (if in a tactical situation) it costs a minor action to do that. Bear in mind the guidelines above as well to test if it's actually a roll. There's no Insight check to see if that mundane merchant is lying. The PCs just succeed because they're badasses and the mechanics of the game aren't meant to simulate mundane activities. They're there to resolve dramatic conflict involving heroic fantasy adventuring. I hope that helps in your game. Note that you won't get it 100% right every time. Even 5 years on I mess up sometimes. But if you strive to follow those guidelines, I guarantee you your game will improve and be better than most other games out there. Good luck in your first outing as DM!

Forgot to mention that I/we do like the rules, but wing it a bit because we are all new to the game. As we gain better knowledge of the rules the will play a bigger part of the game ;) The important thing to me as the DM is that PC's have fun, and then rules comes in second.

That's perfectly understandable and I wish you luck. That chart I linked above makes it very easy for you to follow the DCs as written if you care to use it. One reason I recommend playing by the rules is that if you don't play by rules (or agreed-upon house rules), you get into the realm of DM fiat. While many players are perfectly okay with that, consider that games that have a lot of this are heavily biased toward the DM's preferences. As such, the players start to play the DM rather than play the game . This means - if they're smart players - they note the things you say "Yes" to, grant auto-success for, or lower the DCs for (maybe because you like when they ham it up on the acting side or they appeal to your sense of logic or they come up with a "creative" idea) and then only do those things. Their mechanical choices at this point no longer actually matter. The intricate play of the game mechanics that are supposed to present the challenge are now replaced with the challenge of pleasing the DM. All that matters is putting things in terms that the DM will approve of. That's a very easy game to win. Having said that, some groups prefer that style of play. If your group does, then carry on!

Headhunter Jones said: ...That chart I linked above makes it very easy for you to follow the DCs as written if you care to use it. Yeah forgot to thank you for that.. thanks :)