Kahan Singh:
You weren't complaining about how different the Tumbling NWP was when you were, say, level 5, when your Parrying bonus would have only been (as I understand it) 2.
Actually, you're wrong. I've always thought Tumbling should be level-dependent rather than a fixed bonus, and since your memory about this seems to be lacking, recall that I brought up this issue a long, long time ago - and you
agreed with me! Now you apparently disagree with me, which I find ironic. I also find it offensive that you're insinuating I only care about changing rules when it benefits my character. Not only is that flat out wrong, but it's rude and also entirely irrespective of all the points I raised for why I think this rule needs to be changed. If I make a statement that "x rule should be changed because of y and z", don't come at me with snarky remarks saying "you only care about changing x rule because of a and b", and then avoid addressing y and z altogether. This follows with your typical obnoxious trend of criticizing things I suggest and making subjects about me and my supposed underlying motives while disregarding the actual points I raise in my arguments entirely. If you want to discuss this subject, fine. But stop with your little digs and jabs at me and have an actual civil, respectful, impersonal debate about it. Because I have had it with your nonstop snark towards me.
Kahan Singh:
If you want to get your Tumbling NWP better, I think you should only be allowed to increase it with another NWP slot. My healing NWP won't get any better unless I spend more points, so why should your NWP's get better with levels?
Well if you go by that logic, why should Parrying get better with levels? Why should THAC0 get better with levels? Why should anything get better with levels? Why not just have everything purchased with our extremely limited quantity of NWP's? The problem is that some things in D&D are experience-oriented (that is, they improve with the character's increasing experience), and other things are completely non-experience-oriented. Typically, the things which improve with level revolve specifically around two focal points in the game: combat and class abilities. So THAC0, HP, attacks per round, spell-casting, thieving skills, etc. reflect increasing experience while
some NWP's relate to character level and some do not. This is an inconsistency which I think is illogical, but that's how the game was made.
Personally, I think proficiencies like Healing
should improve with experience - assuming the healer uses it frequently enough. But D&D revolves around combat and I'm guessing that's why something like Parrying improves with level while Healing doesn't. In the end, it honestly doesn't make much sense and I think we need to recognize that fact. The game seems to assume that combat-oriented abilities are the main ones that should reflect experience, while non-combat skills (i.e. most NWP's) only improve if you spend extra slots on them - and even then, they only improve by a very small degree compared to combat abilities. You really don't get much bang for your buck there at all, especially when you consider how long you have to wait between gaining new NWP's and how few of them you can ever hope to acquire in total.
As an example, take Borimer's prowess with blind fighting. He's had that skill since (I believe) level 1, and has gained a ton of experience since then, so who's to say that he isn't now effectively a "level 7 blind-fighter"? That would make just as much sense as a "level 7 parrier" - yet the game doesn't treat these skills equally. Borimer is officially a "Fighter", but in actuality he's not just like every other cookie-cutter fighter, he has his own developed skills which are essentially part of his specialty and individual style. Yet, since
those skills are not "Class skills" that are part of the basic Fighter kit, they do not improve with his experience the way his other abilities do.
Consider how awkward this inequity would be to explain to a person IC. To anyone in the setting (i.e. characters who have no concept of D&D mechanics and only see what's in front of them with their own eyes), it would be difficult to make sense out of the fact that it's far easier and quicker to improve combat skills than to improve skills relating to anything other than combat like healing, tumbling, or whatever. The game seems to operate on the assumption that everything that isn't directly tied to combat or the standard character classes is secondary, and therefore does not fluidly improve with experience.
For instance, as a "Thief", I can increase "Read Languages" every level if I so choose, but to increase my acrobatic skills I have to wait 4 levels. So the game has decided for me what skills are important to my role/occupation and what skills are secondary. To anyone not versed in D&D mumbo-jumbo, they'd see very little distinction between a "Class skill" like deciphering writings and a "normal skill" like performing acrobatics or playing the lute or cooking, or whatever. The reality is that there isn't actually any significant divide in classification of these skills - the game simply treats them that way in order to narrow the focus of each character's role and abilities for the betterment of the group. It may be somewhat justifiable given the game's intended context for adventurers of specific walks of life, but that doesn't mean it's actually realistic or logical.
Anyway, short answer - I agree, there's no reason tumbling should get better with level while healing doesn't. I think both should improve with experience. I happen to think
any skill that a character uses regularly in the course of adventuring should hone and improve over time, just like we'd expect in real life. The game doesn't do that. But does that mean the game is right? That it shouldn't be changed? I operate on this rationale: if the game did something right, keep it; if it did something wrong, change it. I don't believe in either enforcing or resisting change for either liberalism's or conservatism's own sake; each idea should be handled on a case-by-case basis, and merit should win out over whether it's a preservation or a change. It's the merit of something that matters, not its source.
Kahan Singh:
Honestly, I'm not even sure why you bring this up now
I had been discussing it with Heath in private threads for quite some time. I'm bringing it up now because Heath just now posted the new rule for Tumbling. I thought that was obvious.