A new skill system

[Kerrick]

Let me preface this by saying I don't consider this to be a "serious idea" - it's more something I thought up and figured I'd toss out there for the hell of it.

I've been playing Oblivion for awhile now - a couple years, IIRC. I also bought Fallout when it came out and played it bit, then got bored with it and went back to Oblivion. I recently took a break from Oblivion and went back to (a heavily modded) Fallout).

The difference in levelling systems struck me: Oblivion uses a system whereby you choose seven skills, which are your "major" skills - kind of like class skills in D&D - and all the others are minor skills. You increase skills through use (each skill has an XP meter); every time you gain ten major skill increases, you gain a level. Stat increases are based on which skills you used. In Fallout, levelling works pretty much like D&D - you gain XP for killing stuff and finding locations, and you gain skill points each level that you can allocate.

As I was playing, I thought: Why not have a system whereby you gain levels only through XP as normal, and skills only through use? As it turns out, there are already several such systems for Oblivion (good for me), but I thought about porting this to D&D.

The concept is simple: 50 skill XP = 1 rank. XP is handled by the checks you make:

Difficulty	DC			Skill XP
Very Easy	Score - 10 or more	0
Easy  		Score - (6 to 9)	1
Average		Score - (0 to 5)	2
Tough 		Score + (1 to 5)	3
Challenging	Score + (6-10)		4
Formidable 	Score + (11-15)		5
Heroic		Score + (16-20)		6
Nearly		Score + 21 or more	7
  Impossible

So, for example, Kurth wants to make a Climb check. His Climb score is +6; the DC is 20, which makes it a Formidable check (+14). If he succeeds, he gets 5 skill XP. Note the ratings are based on total score, not ranks - this ensures someone can't have a ridiculously high score and still gain XP. The score used is the PC's score without temporary modifiers - circumstance, aid another, spells, bardic song, etc. This is why "nearly impossible" is listed.

The rest is equally simple - PCs keep their class skill lists, and start with their normal skill point allotment. The only difference is that they never gain more skill points from levelling. You could rule that cross-class skills require more XP to level, but I wouldn't bother. PrCs that have no level-based requirements beyond skill ranks (BAB, sneak attack dice, etc.) would need a little tweaking, and maybe a few other things would as well.


Pros

* The big one is that you can now properly model NPCs with huge skill scores that are only L1-2, like the master sage or master smith. (Yes, I know someone will point out that you could do that anyway, and that NPCs' skill scores are none of the players' business; I won't argue that point, because I agree. However, it also breaks the rules - I prefer to work within the framework of the rules; if you can break them any time you like, what's the point of using them at all?)

* Skill checks scale with level. That is, in order to keep gaining XP, you have to accomplish skill checks that are challenging. This may reduce the reliance on skill-boosting items and such, since they would largely become superfluous - if most skill checks are based on your score (no matter what it is), there's no real point to boosting it into the stratosphere.


Cons

*Bookkeeping. This system requires a lot of it, which pretty much makes it untenable for PnP (but great for computer games!)

*It requires the players to be honest (and, to a lesser degree, knowledgeable).

 

[Celebrim]

For a PnP game, the main problem you are going to encounter with a 'through use' model is that its very easy for the interprising player to provide for his character leveling treadmills that allow him to get his skills up to very high levels with essentially no risk.

Pretty much any physical skill lends itself to creating a simple challenge that can be repeated with essentially no risk. So the player can just say, "Before I start adventuring, I boost climb, swim, jump, balance, etc. to <an arbitrarily high level>. I've calculated that if I work 8 hours a day for 6 days a week..." And I'm pretty sure you could just hire a tutor to give you tests to treadmill knowledge skills. Craft skills might actually be among the most expensive to level up.

And even if the player does go adventuring, what you are going to get is alot of arbitrary skill usage. For example, under your system, my characters would always 'move silently' all the time. I'd be trying to use skills as often as possible just to hoard the XP.

Traditionally, 'through use' system like Chaosium CoC award skill XP only for overcoming challenges related to the adventure. It works well when your combat ability is also a skill.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Interesting idea, though I don't much like the implementation. Surprise, eh? We're all such stubborn, individualistic house-rulers around here. . .

Anyway, it's the fact that progress is to do with luck more than anything that bothers me. Or, that's one of the things.

For the sake of contributing more of a post, if not anything directly relevant -- my most recent house rules feature feats but no skill points, and practice/training rules for such, and with these it is also perfectly possible to have a level 1 master crafter or the like.

I guess, just thought I'd mention that I share the view that that is a good thing (to be able to model) even if our methods seem to vary considerably.

 

[nonsi256]

Here's how I see things . . .

You exercise skills to promote your goals. Every once in a while - during which your goals are reached - you gain new level-derived abilities. Through XP.

So you see, skill usage does earn you XP. You just don't quantify it per skill check, but rather via a larger picture.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Here's how I see things . . .

You exercise skills to promote your goals. Every once in a while - during which your goals are reached - you gain new level-derived abilities. Through XP.

So you see, skill usage does earn you XP. You just don't quantify it per skill check, but rather via a larger picture.

No.

It's well and truly divorced, no matter how abstractly one chooses to view it all.

 

[Kerrick]

I think he's talking about the D&D system, not mine. Skill XP should only be awarded when there's an actual reason to use it. I don't know if you're familiar with the optional XP systems in 2E, but they had something similar - fighters get 1 XP/HD of monsters killed, rogues get XP for performing their rogue skills (climb, hide/MS, pick pockets, open locks), clerics get XP for healing (IIRC), and wizards get XP for casting spells, etc. None of this XP mattered, however, unless there was a) a reason to do it; and b) any sort of challenge - i.e., there's a chance of failure, or it moved the adventure forward. Thus, the rogue couldn't just go climb every wall in sight to gain XP (I believe that was directly cited as an example, too).

 

[Bladesinger_Boy]

Any tweak or subsystem that allows more specialization into fewer things is not a step in the direction I think 3.5 should head. So this isn't exactly the useful from my standpoint.

 

[ValhallaGH]

Kerrick left a couple other potential Cons off his initial post.
*Incompetent Heroes - If you, or your players, don't make them use their skills regularly in difficult situations then they will rarely or never advance their skills, allowing for high-level heroes that have less than twenty total ranks in all of their skills, combined.

*Inconsistent Groups - What is a trivial challenge for one party member may be "heroic" for another, causing them to swiftly gain sxp, even though the DM didn't intend for anyone to gain from the encounter.

*Intentional Retardation - Unless sxp is tied to the skills that earned it, it is likely that some players will choose not to improve their most commonly used skills, allowing those skills to continue to gain sxp at a high rate, and then appling that experience to improving other, more rarely used but "more important" skills (ones that the player is less willing to risk failure on).

*DM Awareness - The DM has to pay a lot of attention to PC skill bonuses, and provide appropriately difficult skill checks for them. This is connected to the "inconsistent group" point.

 

[Kerrick]

Any tweak or subsystem that allows more specialization into fewer things is not a step in the direction I think 3.5 should head. So this isn't exactly the useful from my standpoint.

More specialization into fewer things?

Kerrick left a couple other potential Cons off his initial post.
*Incompetent Heroes - If you, or your players, don't make them use their skills regularly in difficult situations then they will rarely or never advance their skills, allowing for high-level heroes that have less than twenty total ranks in all of their skills, combined.

True. But then, isn't a common complaint about D&D how the PCs can routinely accomplish things that are superhuman by L10? (Note: This wasn't something I thought of until after I finished writing the rules, but it does address this point rather nicely.)

*Inconsistent Groups - What is a trivial challenge for one party member may be "heroic" for another, causing them to swiftly gain sxp, even though the DM didn't intend for anyone to gain from the encounter.

A minor point. It's similar to a level gap, really - you gain lots of XP at first, sure, but once you catch up, the XP slope flattens out.

*Intentional Retardation - Unless sxp is tied to the skills that earned it, it is likely that some players will choose not to improve their most commonly used skills, allowing those skills to continue to gain sxp at a high rate, and then appling that experience to improving other, more rarely used but "more important" skills (ones that the player is less willing to risk failure on).

That was assumed, but not stated - any SXP you gain apply to the appropriate skill only; it's not a pool.

*DM Awareness - The DM has to pay a lot of attention to PC skill bonuses, and provide appropriately difficult skill checks for them. This is connected to the "inconsistent group" point.

Not much moreso than now, IMO. I played a few sessions with a group recently, before I dropped out; we had a rogue who, at L9, could pull down 35-40 with perception and stealth skills consistently, while the rest of us had 15-20. The only difference now is that the rogue won't gain any XP for such high skills. There's a tradeoff - jack your skills up really high and advance very slowly (or not at all), or leave them at a more moderate level and get XP.

 

[ValhallaGH]

True. But then, isn't a common complaint about D&D how the PCs can routinely accomplish things that are superhuman by L10?

No.
Wait, people don't expect superhuman action from characters that can fly at will? Where do these crazy people come from and why don't they expect superhuman results from characters that routinely do superhuman things? Seriously, level 10 is filled with tail-kicking, demon-slaying, death-cheating superhero action. Anyone that wants merely mortal needs to confine themselves to levels 1-5.