Why isn't base attack a skill?

JoeGKushner said:

Simple enough question right? Even in games I've seen where hit points were random like Rolemaster Standard System, your attack ability may have gotten a bonus based on your profession, but it was still a skill.

Click to expand...

It has a complex point-buy skill system, where they even categorized skills into groups (combat, subterfuge, etc.) and depending on your class/profession, the cost differs widely.

Not something I would introduce into an entry-level game like D&D.

Do rules lite systems like True 20 or the generic classes from Unearthed Arcana keep a fixed BAB per level?

Ranger REG said:

It has a complex point-buy skill system, where they even categorized skills into groups (combat, subterfuge, etc.) and depending on your class/profession, the cost differs widely.

Not something I would introduce into an entry-level game like D&D.

Click to expand...

The current version of Rolemaster (which I will, thankfully, be revising in the next 1-2 years), is not anything that anybody could possibly call an entry-level game. I totally agree with you on that point. The character creation rules are needlessly and overly complex in some areas.

However, while D&D may be a gateway game into rpgs, it also cannot be called entry-level game. The rules for it (all of the rules, not just character creation) are simply too complex for it to be considered entry-level. Outside of initial character creation, D&D is much more complex than Rolemaster has ever been.

billd91 said:

And why NOT start by killing rats in the sewer? You gotta start somewhere! Start with base vermin and work yourself up to dragons.

Buying up your attack values directly, and at nearly any level you want, works for some games. It's great for superhero games in which the PCs are expected to be better at combat than the normal guy. But level-based games in particular are designed to work PC up from lowly dirt farmers and spitoon holders (or more often, hobbit gardeners and gentry or young enslaved Cimmerians) to great heroes and pass through the developmental steps on the way.

Click to expand...

In the first installment of the Age of Worms adventure path, there are no rats, IIRC. There are some weird monsters, lots of traps, and a few other interesting challenges. But no rats. I think it goes to show that if you're stuck killing rats for four levels every time you start a new campaign, you're in a rut.

Granted, I sent my most recent party up against some rats pretty quickly, but then I've always had fun with rats. I kept almost-killing a particular character with them in an old campaign, and the player decided that the character developed a neurosis about rats and eventually it got so bad he had to give up adventuring. I think it might have been the giant rat the size of a cow that did him in.

Ranger REG said:

It has a complex point-buy skill system, where they even categorized skills into groups (combat, subterfuge, etc.) and depending on your class/profession, the cost differs widely.

Not something I would introduce into an entry-level game like D&D.

Click to expand...

I get what you are getting at here, but it has nothing to do with being an entry level game.

It has to do with being an accessible game.

This conversation is interesting to me in part because I strongly considered whether such a thing would be possible (though I was more considering making a melee attack skill and missile attack skill...) I do think the d20 skill system is easy to use and flexible and considered whether it could be applied more broadly. BAB did seem an odd man out.

But I ran into the sorts of problems that I and others have mentioned earlier... the skill system only entertains two levels of skills access: in class and cross class. This is both good and bad. It's good because it does not require the complexity that Rolemaster did... complexity that I can say from actual experience with the game, made in much less accessible to the average gamer.

Despite claims by rules light advocates, I find that the skill system is something that the avarage gamer can grok. Which is not something I can say about role-master. I have never had a D&D player tell me that they just weren't getting the system, hand me their character sheet, and ask me to make their character for them.

But whereas in D&D you can have two levels of skill access, that is not enough to define attack skills under the existing framework, where there is a pretty compelling need for three different levels of combat competance, (which some even claim is insufficient.)

So the problem is if you use the skill system as is, you throw off the balance of the system as it exists unless you make special exceptions (which adds complication in and of itself) or you make the skill system more complex (which makes it less accessible.)

I think it would take a top down re-design to realize a workable compromise. But if you were willing to entertain that, I think it would be possible. I picture something like the existing system except that specific classes have a third "forte" skill category, and only fighter classes would have attack (and defense) skills as forte skills. And then, re-design the whole combat system, creatures, AC, etc., around that.

This of course, would mean that you shed all of your existing support. That was a deal killer for me in wasting too much time developing such a variant myself. Existing support is important to me, as I think it is for many gamers.

As it is, if you really want this, I'd say the easiest compromise is to treat BAB as pre-allocated skill points that you can pull out and put elsewhere. This makes a decent house rule since you can simply assume that most published characters don't take this option and you can ignore it if you don't need to do it. And most character will not need to use the option.

For some time, a while back, I was considering doing something like this, and then dropped the idea in favor of the "don't reinvent the wheel" philosophy. I was going to turn combat into a skill like Knowledge. So, you'd have, for example, Melee (longsword), Melee (dagger), Ranged (longbow), Ranger (dagger), etc. as skills. A fighter might, for example, have some special class feature such that if he had any ranks in any Melee skills, he'd be able to use all the other Melee skills untrained, but everyone else could only use a Melee skill if he'd put ranks in it.

Edit: And, to get around the level +3 issue (i.e. maxing out skill ranks in Melee or Ranged), one could either change the entire AC system to start at 13, or add a -3 penalty to all attacks (such as there's automatically a +10 right now to everyone's AC), or simply ignore it and see what happens.

But, too much work for too little payoff.

Dave

Rasyr said:

However, while D&D may be a gateway game into rpgs, it also cannot be called entry-level game. The rules for it (all of the rules, not just character creation) are simply too complex for it to be considered entry-level. Outside of initial character creation, D&D is much more complex than Rolemaster has ever been.

Click to expand...

I disagree.

it can be called an "entry level game" because in practice that is precisely what it is.

While "alll of the rules" can be seen as daunting, many simply are ignored in the early stages as people play the main stuff... characters, monsters, basic combat... and play that fine. they add in stuff as they go along. The infamous 2000+ feats doesn't get in the way to newcomers since they don't run into them until many purchases down the road. You take the basic three books and its fairly easy to "just get playin'" and have fun, and the niggly bits will come out as you gain experience, not right away.

Because the core concept behind the design of the game was probably a back to the dungeon, highly combat filled class based game.

Feats, skills, and spells are a way to tweak the character you have to get them to reflect something a little more unique. But ultimately, the characterisics of a character are very influenced by their class. Which is good, as it does make things a bit harder to mess up. And believe me, I know one guy who would try and make a fighter, but would not buy up his bab or hitpoints very high.

In the end, it's a simplification in the system that allows you to make some assumptions about the abilities of the characters in the game.

swrushing said:

I disagree.

it can be called an "entry level game" because in practice that is precisely what it is.

Click to expand...

I think what we have here is a disagreement on the definitions of terms.

By "entry level game", I mean a game that is very easy to teach to new gamers (not new players who have played other games, but new to RPGing altogether).

However, please note that I did say that D&D was a "gateway game". It is more accessible, and has the largest and most well known reputation among rpgs. This means that it is most often the first game a new gamer plays.

To be perfectly clear, I am saying, that by my definitions (listed above), D&D is a gateway game, it is not an entry level game.

Your definition of "entry level game" seems to match my definition of "gateway game", but not my definition of "entry level game".

swrushing said:

While "alll of the rules" can be seen as daunting, many simply are ignored in the early stages as people play the main stuff... characters, monsters, basic combat... and play that fine. they add in stuff as they go along. The infamous 2000+ feats doesn't get in the way to newcomers since they don't run into them until many purchases down the road. You take the basic three books and its fairly easy to "just get playin'" and have fun, and the niggly bits will come out as you gain experience, not right away.

Click to expand...

Heck, all the rules in just the core 3 books can seem confusing and daunting. By your own statement, many of those rules are ignored in early stages. That alone prevents D&D from being an "entry level game" by MY definition. If a person has to ignore core rules and add them to their game as they learn the rules, then it fails the "entry level game" test.

The best entry level game that I have ever seen came out only last year, and it goes by the name of "Meddling Kids".

Rasyr said:

I think what we have here is a disagreement on the definitions of terms.

Click to expand...

In part, certainly.

Rasyr said:

By "entry level game", I mean a game that is very easy to teach to new gamers (not new players who have played other games, but new to RPGing altogether).

Click to expand...

Indeed, so do I. My last DND game included a "new to rpgs at all" player, whon had never gamed before, either RPGs or minis.

She caught on just fine.

Two of the other players, had not gamed in decades. They caught on just fine too.

Two of the others, had experience with gaming but not with DnD 3.0 or D20. They were hunky dorey.

The last was somewhat experienced at DND 3.0

he was fine too.

A friend taught his kids, ages 9-13 to play using dnd 3.0

etc...

In practice, I have myself seen it and used it and found it easy to teach to people new to gaming.

hence, by MY definition, and the one you state above, it *is* an entry level game.

Rasyr said:

However, please note that I did say that D&D was a "gateway game". It is more accessible, and has the largest and most well known reputation among rpgs. This means that it is most often the first game a new gamer plays.

To be perfectly clear, I am saying, that by my definitions (listed above), D&D is a gateway game, it is not an entry level game.

Click to expand...

yet by that same definition given above, it is both to me. They are not exclusive.

Rasyr said:

Your definition of "entry level game" seems to match my definition of "gateway game", but not my definition of "entry level game".

Click to expand...

nope. it isn both. they aren't exclusive terms, even by your definition.

Rasyr said:

Heck, all the rules in just the core 3 books can seem confusing and daunting. By your own statement, many of those rules are ignored in early stages. That alone prevents D&D from being an "entry level game" by MY definition. If a person has to ignore core rules and add them to their game as they learn the rules, then it fails the "entry level game" test.

Click to expand...

ahhhh!!! eureka!!!!

so now we have the additional requirement.

A game has to be taught all at once in a lump sum in order to be entry level.

gotcha.

thats where our definitions part company.

see, having taught this and that not related to gaming over the years including tutoring in college and teaching professionally OFTEN to "newbies" in whatever field, I can tell you that practically nothing is taught that way in practice. If that requirement, learn it all in one lump, were mandated for "entry level training" then there would be no "entry level training" anywhere because thats just not how things are taught or learned in practice.

You start with simplified examples covering small core and critical elements and then over time add the exceptional elements and the rare cases.

this is most especially the case in entry level training, where you do not expect a familiarity to begin with.

So, yeah, once you add that requirement, DND doesn't meet your new damands But by adding that requirement, you have practically eliminated most every game and if you apply it beyond 'net discussion of dnd, you have eliminated practically every "entry level training" class taught. Its taken "entry level game" to a point so rare and vacant as to be meaningless.

your additional requirement might be fine in your theory, but it just ain't gonna be that useful in practice.

but, we do now see where our definitions cross.