Idea: Equipment based skills and skill checks

[ferratus]

This isn't always true, though. Any game can have someone who manages to score more wealth than the other players. Especially if we stop acting like wealth just magically spreads out to equalize itself among groups. Expecting everybody in the same adventuring party to have the same amount of wealth is artificial and boring, not to mention wholly unrealistic.

Okay, but he'll have more equipment anyway because he is richer. In D&D Next people are still using ability scores to make skill checks. So this particular problem, if it is a problem for you, is already a problem. A specific background will make you better at it, it is true, but so will a better ability score.

Base +3, max +7. With flat math and the DC's they have set, this isn't even close to a problem anymore.

Base +3, max +8 (stat 20). Okay, but if everyone is doing ability checks anyway, what is the problem of doing it a little easier with equipment? You guys are bringing out the horror of everyone being able to do everything, and then you give an example of how everyone can do everything. It would be easier though, if the spread was -1 to +5, rather than -1 to +8. For those skill checks that bring the game to halt when they are failed, and are skills you have to do as a group, that those who have -1 to succeed can find a way to improve their chances to succeed.

Not to mention, with skills based on items instead, you get the situation where the brilliant merchant haggler suddenly forgets how to talk to people because his stall/wagon got destroyed.

No, that would be ridiculous. You simply don't get a token payment gold, like your old profession skill used to give you in 3.5. Your wagon was your vending stall and stock after all.

Why would a wagon make you better at talking generally?

 

[ferratus]

Seems like its setting the abstraction point for skills in the wrong place. If being able to buy a dog were able to grant skill in animal handling rich men wouldn't strap dogs to the top of their cars.

The dog went into the carrier didn't it?

Yeah, people can buy equipment that they don't know how to use too. But...

1) If they don't know how to use it, they generally won't use it.
2) If they do use it, they gradually learn how to use it to get the job done to the best of their ability.

In other words, Mitt Romney failed a wisdom check. It wasn't the case that he didn't know how to use a dog kennel or strap that kennel to the roof of his car.

Incompetence is better modeled by failing a skill check, rather than saying you know nothing about it in the first place, as if a set of lockpicks dropped out of the sky from Mars.

 

[Gryph]

I'll try again without cheap jokes.

Too me, it makes sense that the only guy who carries lockpicks is the guy who knows how to use them. The causal relationship "feels" right. I bought them because I know how to use them and I expect to use them on this adventure.

I don't think the obverse chain of events "feels" right. I expect to need lockpicks on this adventure, I could afford to buy a set, so I must know how to use them.

The second chain just feels inverted and somewhat counter-intuitive.

 

[DogBackward]

Okay, but he'll have more equipment anyway because he is richer. In D&D Next people are still using ability scores to make skill checks. So this particular problem, if it is a problem for you, is already a problem.

No, it's not, because items are not currently tied to skill bonuses. You can't just run off and buy a bunch of magic items anymore, so why would it make sense to start allowing people to run off and buy "skill ranks"?

Base +3, max +8 (stat 20).

Actually, you can increase your skill bonus in a single skill by +1 each even level. So you can have a maximum skill bonus of +7, which added to your maximum ability bonus of +5 would give you a final total maximum of +12. But the maximum for the actual skill bonus itself is +7.

Okay, but if everyone is doing ability checks anyway, what is the problem of doing it a little easier with equipment? You guys are bringing out the horror of everyone being able to do everything, and then you give an example of how everyone can do everything.

No, we're giving examples about how anybody can learn to do [any[/i]thing. If skills are just tied to equipment, then anybody with money can be great at everything, while tying skills to backgrounds means that you can only excel at the things you trained in, instead of just whatever you feel like buying.

 

[FinalSonicX]

Oh no, not a party of locksmiths. That's the most broken build of all.

Listen, the reason why people buy equipment is that they want to use it. If they want to use it, they learn how to use it. In your example, everyone in the party wanted to learn how to pick locks either because

a) they found it a skill worth learning to be a well-rounded dungeoneer or
b) they want to be a thieves' guild.

The reason why I buy the greatsword for my wizard is because I want to use it

In a system where all it takes to be proficient at something is to buy the necessary tools and said tools are fairly cheap, the optimal choice (aka the choice everyone ends up taking once they realize the benefits) is to buy a set of tools for every task and either haul it around or keep it in a cart or something. To me, that breaks a great deal of immersion and it just feels absurd. If characters want to be skilled at a wide variety of things, then they can be if they work it into their character concept. But let's not say "you're skilled at a lot of things because you bought a lot of equipment".

There is nothing wrong with either scenario. In fact, in the oldest days of OD&D solitary adventurers often knew every skill. That's how you could have a 1 on 1 game session with the DM. With limited skills you need 4 or 5 players to cover the bases.

Honestly this depends on the implementation of a skills system. Depending on race/class choice in my homebrew, a single player can cover all the necessary bases if that's something they want to do. That doesn't mean that the items make it work, it's the character's skill.

Everyone knowing the same trained skill isn't going to break the game, because you can usually succeed if one person knows the skill. So what's wrong with having a little bit of redundancy, especially since the person with the highest applicable ability score is probably going to be delegated to do the job anyway.

because if this line of reasoning is applied to all skills, skills lose meaning in my mind. I'm a locksmith because I have a set of picks? Am I a scholar because I own a few books? Am I an expert warrior because I have a sword?

The logic makes little sense to me. If we're going to throw our hands up in the air and let anyone do anything with the investment of a few coins, I'd rather go full rules-light and just let people describe what their characters are good at and why and just roll with it as a group.

One 2e session I had a thief who couldn't come. Since I use secondary skills and not proficiencies, and because my thief skills are ability checks (my own house rules) the ranger pulled out a set of lockpicks and picked the locks. I was flummoxed that he was doing this for a bit, but he explained that he had learned how to do it by watching the thief. My 4e "say yes" training kicked in, and he picked the lock. Later I thought it over, and I thought that was fantastic. Why shouldn't higher level adventurers learn from each other and become more well-rounded players? The guy with the high dex score came back next session, and he became the party safecracker again. Nothing broke because the ranger showed a talent for picking locks.

I don't see any kind of issue with this scenario except that the ranger should probably be less proficient at the task than the rogue, since the rogue has had a ton more practice and real-world experience.

Yeah, but passing skill checks won't break the system. There is literally no case in which the party passing a lot of skill checks will break the game. It just means that party members will do more things as a group, like riding horses in a calvary unit, playing the politics of intrigue at court, or sneaking as a group.

I think I'd disagree that everyone passing tons of skill checks will not break the game, as skill checks might be a dominant part of any given session depending on the circumstances. One can imagine that the ability to craft items based solely on owning the tools required to do so could create long-term problems.

I have my own solutions to the party wanting to do things as a group. I see no reason to ask for ride checks every 5 seconds just because the party wants to ride on some horses. I also don't see why people who want to be involved in intrigue at court can't simply do so. they may not be as successful as the person who has been investing their character concept into such a task, but I do not overly penalize them.

All things which you pretty much kick out of the game unnecessarily in the name of balance.

Well, I never "kicked" anything "out of the game" since it was never in the game to begin with. Your idea is a proposal to solve a particular problem. In my eyes it is not the "optimal" solution. Here's my approach if someone wants to do something like pick a lock: do you know how to do that, and if you do, why? If they can provide a reasonable explanation, then they can go ahead and try and we'll let their stats and such determine the outcome. I follow a similar line of reasoning with almost any attempt at anything.

 

[ferratus]

SOCIAL SKILLS

A lot of people think social skills are what you really need a skill system for. This is patently false, and I will show how opposed Charisma vs. Intelligence and Wisdom rolls are better.

By having skill checks for things like Bluff or Diplomacy, you pretty much increase the spread of stats again. So instead of -1 to +5 (as you would get with a simple ability check), you have have -1 to +8. It is that much more likely then that you would have a party "face" in a skill system to do all the interactions with NPC's, because she is the most likely to succeed. At that point, everyone else is bored stiff.

If a party member dumped his Charisma stat, he is probably not that interested in doing diplomacy, bluff, collecting followers, or playing politics. But if the party, and their DM, want to do a intrigue heavy game, you can generally put a mediocre skill in Cha. You might still have a party face, but the spread is even better, something like +2 to +5.

With a mere +3 difference, the bard can still shine as the party face, but people can still contribute, or influence others when the bard is doing something else.

That +3 could also be made up for with a bit of equipment. Your dwarf might not have a Charisma bonus, but maybe he can use his blacksmith shop to forge an impressive looking noble signet ring that grants him a bonus to diplomacy. The thief can forge documents to grant him a bonus to bluff. They can either close the gap with the bard if they need to, or boost her up even higher.

With a skill system though, they spent their limited slots on dungeoneering survival, so their options are likewise limited. They are stuck drinking beer and playing videogames while the DM and the party bard have a one on one session for awhile.

It is of course ridiculous that you have to choose between diplomacy and swimming, bluff and falconry. A knight should be able to be just as effective on the battlefield, in athletic competitions, in hunting and campaigning, and in court... but he has to choose between being Lord Killmore and Lord Talkmore, instead of being good at both because it suits the game. He only gets to be both in OD&D and 1e.

 

[ferratus]

Too me, it makes sense that the only guy who carries lockpicks is the guy who knows how to use them. The causal relationship "feels" right. I bought them because I know how to use them and I expect to use them on this adventure

Which is what this is trying to model.

I don't think the obverse chain of events "feels" right. I expect to need lockpicks on this adventure, I could afford to buy a set, so I must know how to use them.

The second chain just feels inverted and somewhat counter-intuitive.

Well, you could put in a time requirement, but it just really isn't worth it. I would just assume the same thing as in 3e when you multiclass wizard. You had actually been studying magic for months before this (when the DM wasn't looking) and you have finally cast your first spell.

That mechanic makes just as much or just as little sense as just allowing people to use the equipment they buy.

 

[ferratus]

The reason why I buy the greatsword for my wizard is because I want to use it

Again, knock yourself out. You have no fighting styles, you have a strength of 9, and you have to give up your spell attack for that round. If you have a 15 strength, you still have no fighting styles, but you have a pretty good melee at will. Using a sword never bothered Gandalf.

In a system where all it takes to be proficient at something is to buy the necessary tools and said tools are fairly cheap, the optimal choice (aka the choice everyone ends up taking once they realize the benefits) is to buy a set of tools for every task and either haul it around or keep it in a cart or something. To me, that breaks a great deal of immersion and it just feels absurd.

What? Carting stuff around because you need it to do stuff is called provisions, supplies and well... equipment. In other words, a baggage train. If you want to do a lot of stuff that requires specialized equipment... you SHOULD have a baggage train.

Carrying everything around you could possibly need in a backpack because you ignore equipment in exchange for skills, now that is immersion breaking.

If characters want to be skilled at a wide variety of things, then they can be if they work it into their character concept. But let's not say "you're skilled at a lot of things because you bought a lot of equipment".

Which is a sucker's game, because combat feats keep you alive and skill feats don't.

because if this line of reasoning is applied to all skills, skills lose meaning in my mind. I'm a locksmith because I have a set of picks? Am I a scholar because I own a few books? Am I an expert warrior because I have a sword?

Yes, and yes. No, because you have no strength score and you haven't spent your class abilities or feats on combat stuff. Also your strength or dexterity sucks, which is why you became a wizard.

I don't see any kind of issue with this scenario except that the ranger should probably be less proficient at the task than the rogue, since the rogue has had a ton more practice and real-world experience.

He practiced when I wasn't looking, in the party downtime while they healed up or spent their money from the last adventure.

I think I'd disagree that everyone passing tons of skill checks will not break the game, as skill checks might be a dominant part of any given session depending on the circumstances.

It just means they will succeed at their mundane goals. But everyone failing skill checks breaks the game even more, and it breaks it all the time. Nobody bothers to sneak in low level new-school D&D games. Doesn't that bother you? Here they are, bottom of the food chain, but because only one guy can make stealth checks they crash through everything anyway. Doesn't it bother you that fighters have to choose between being good at fighters and being good at everything else?

One can imagine that the ability to craft items based solely on owning the tools required to do so could create long-term problems.

If you can imagine it, then you can give me examples.

I have my own solutions to the party wanting to do things as a group. I see no reason to ask for ride checks every 5 seconds just because the party wants to ride on some horses. I also don't see why people who want to be involved in intrigue at court can't simply do so. they may not be as successful as the person who has been investing their character concept into such a task, but I do not overly penalize them.

So you just handwave skills away entirely and give them the chance to succeed. Okay, but that's not more immersive than simply saying that people know how to do what they want to do. In fact, that's exactly the same thing.

Well, I never "kicked" anything "out of the game" since it was never in the game to begin with. Your idea is a proposal to solve a particular problem. In my eyes it is not the "optimal" solution. Here's my approach if someone wants to do something like pick a lock: do you know how to do that, and if you do, why? If they can provide a reasonable explanation, then they can go ahead and try and we'll let their stats and such determine the outcome. I follow a similar line of reasoning with almost any attempt at anything.

Then why are you fightin with me? You've just conceeded everything, because that's exactly the system I'm describing. Someone has a reasonable explanation of why they can pick locks, they buy lockpicks, and they pick the lock. Someone has a reasonable explanation for owning a blacksmith shop, they buy a blacksmith shop, and they make items from iron.

 

[FinalSonicX]

What? Carting stuff around because you need it to do stuff is called provisions, supplies and well... equipment. In other words, a baggage train. If you want to do a lot of stuff that requires specialized equipment... you SHOULD have a baggage train.

Carrying everything around you could possibly need in a backpack because you ignore equipment in exchange for skills, now that is immersion breaking.

In a game in which the bag of holding, tenser's floating disk, and other bulk/weight nullifying spells and items did not exist, I'd be inclined to agree. But as it stands, these are pretty classic parts of D&D. Besides, a caravan filled with tool kits solves the issue mostly at low levels anyway, and I see no reason why it would be immersion breaking other than the fact that no individual or group should be so multi-talented without extensive training.

Which is a sucker's game, because combat feats keep you alive and skill feats don't.

I strongly disagree. In a world where failing to represent yourself well in front of the king or when on trial can land you in jail or on the gallows, skills can keep you alive just as well as combat can. You can't always fight your way out of anything, just as you cannot usually fight your way past a deadly trap. This is partially a game design issue, but it is also a GM issue that will vary by group and campaign.

It just means they will succeed at their mundane goals. But everyone failing skill checks breaks the game even more, and it breaks it all the time. Nobody bothers to sneak in low level new-school D&D games. Doesn't that bother you? Here they are, bottom of the food chain, but because only one guy can make stealth checks they crash through everything anyway. Doesn't it bother you that fighters have to choose between being good at fighters and being good at everything else?

Plenty of players sneak in low-level D&D games, at least in my experience. It bothers me that fighters have to choose between being good fighters and good at skills, so that's why I homebrew. In my homebrew I have solutions for group sneak and other assorted issues. In my current game, there's a warrior in the group that's a semi-proficient engineer and is reasonably good at picking locks and disarming traps. He's been rather useful to the party so far.

If you can imagine it, then you can give me examples.

If magical item crafting were permitted and being skilled at something requires no skill beyond owning the tools, then a wizard or equivalent character could craft magical items without needing to sacrifice any other part of their character. A person with an alchemist kit somehow knows what kind of poison was on that dart and also the anti-toxin. Just off the top of my head.

So you just handwave skills away entirely and give them the chance to succeed. Okay, but that's not more immersive than simply saying that people know how to do what they want to do. In fact, that's exactly the same thing.

I don't hand-wave skills away entirely, I allow anyone to try anything. Attempting to accomplish a complex task without prior training or experience does not usually end well, however. If someone's trying to pick a lock and it's their first time then they're going to do rather poorly. That's why I prefer systems with skill ranks and such. They can justify to me that they grew up on the streets and learned to jimmy locks, but since we began play it looks like they hadn't invested any points and thus logically we assume they haven't practiced since they were young.

Then why are you fightin with me? You've just conceeded everything, because that's exactly the system I'm describing. Someone has a reasonable explanation of why they can pick locks, they buy lockpicks, and they pick the lock. Someone has a reasonable explanation for owning a blacksmith shop, they buy a blacksmith shop, and they make items from iron.

Well first off I'm not fighting with you. I'm arguing against your proposed line of reasoning. Your line of reasoning is my line of reasoning but reversed. Instead of saying "I'm a locksmith therefore I have some picks", you say "I have some picks therefore I am a locksmith". I object to it because it's backwards and attempting to codify it into rules would cause all kinds of believability issues for me.

 

[ferratus]

LORE SKILLS

Lore skills are a new school innovation. You had Spellcraft and other knowledge based proficiencies in 2e, but for the most part they don't do what knowledge skills do in 3e.

Before 3e, if you wanted to know something, you consulted a Sage. However, wizards and clerics started wondering why they didn't know some of this lore. Aren't they learned men themelves? Thus, the knowledge skill was born... and drove all the mystery out of the game.

But there is a happy medium, and that solution is equipment. Namely books. If having books and reading them doesn't make you a great sage,I don't know what does.

Some books will grant a +1 to intelligence checks to do a bit of lore involving that subject generally. Some books are bestiaries that tell you what to know about a creature or a collection of creatures. Some books will be one or the other, some will be both, and some of them will contain spells. For example the Draconomicon might describe different types of dragons and their habits and contain some dragon themed spells.

These books can be purchased but often require information of a similar value in return or they are very expensive. You can also do quests for sages to get a particular tome, or you can find them preserved in old tombs or ruins.