Moving everything to skills -- BaB, saves, and armor class

[Pbartender]

Simple Blade Profiency
Martial Blade Proficiency (prereq: simple slashing proficiency)

That helps me update some of the classes in a better way too. Clerics, for example, could have simple proficiency in all of the types.

Do you think this makes the martial proficiency feats too powerful though? I don't really think so, because you only really use one weapon of each type anyway so it's not much of a difference whether you gain proficiency in one weapon or a group.

I'd still keep exotic weapons on a weapon by weapon basis instead of a group though.

I think you are making this a little more complicated than it needs to be. I'd thought about doing just this several months ago (though I never quite actually wrote it down and fleshed it out). Here's what I came up with...

Combat skills:
There are five basic combat skills...
Melee (Str)
Ranged (Dex)
Grapple (Str)
Dodge (Dex)
Parry (Str)

Melee and Ranged: These would work similar to the Craft, Knowledge, or Profession skills. The two skills encompass several weapon categories, each treated as a seperate skill: Melee (axes), Melee (clubs), Melee (knives), Melee (spears), Melee (swords), Melee (unarmed), Ranged (bows), Ranged (crossbows), Ranged (thrown). Any specific Exotic Weapon makes up its own specific category. They are non-exclusive, cross-class skills and are all usable untrained. Taking a Weapon Proficiency feat for a particular category (or specific Exotic weapon) makes that skill a class skill.

Grapple: As the Ranged and Melee skills, but only a single skill. It replaces the "Grapple Check" roll when grappling.

Dodge: One of two basic defense skills. Dodge is the art of getting out of the way. It replaces normal AC in every way. It can be used against any attack.

Parry: The other mode of defense. The best defense is a good offense. Parry replaces Dex with Str, but would carry some restrictions. 1. You must have a melee weapon or shield (or Improved Unarmed Strike) ready in order to Parry. 2. You cannot use Parry against ranged attacks (unless you have the Deflect Arrows feat).

During a normal attack, the attacker would use the appropriate attack skill in an opposed check against the defender's Dodge or Parry skill. If the attacker wins, he hits and deals damage. If the Defender wins, the attack misses.

In this sort of rule-set, I'd make Armor provide DR, and larger shields give a bonus to Parry.

I did test it out a little, and it works moderately well. You can be excellent at a single weapon, good at a few, or competent at many. Plus, non-warriors can aleays take cross-class ranks in weapons, or use them (poorly) untrained.

You just need to make certain everyone is getting the right number of skill points. But if you use a single-class (essentially a classless) D20 system, it'd probably work out just fine.

 

[kenjib]

Nice and clean pbartender.

What do you think about adding Will, Fortitude, and Reflex to that list of combat skills? For magic, the casters uses a spellcasting skill (either one per school or just straight spellcraft) to oppose these rolls.

Also, you don't think there is a need for a medium skill progression in between cross-class and class?

 

[ichabod]

This can work, but watch out. The more things you can buy with one set of points, the more the system is open to abuse. Making sure you have max ranks for the new uses for skill points would be necessary. However, you'd still have to watch out for things like rogues who dump all their skill points into BAB and saves, and become rather nasty combat machines.

 

[Pbartender]

Nice and clean pbartender.

Thanks. I always like keeping new rules as simple and as similar to the old rules as possible.

What do you think about adding Will, Fortitude, and Reflex to that list of combat skills?

I don't think I'd call them combat skills, but yes, they could just as easily be made into skills.

For magic, the casters uses a spellcasting skill (either one per school or just straight spellcraft) to oppose these rolls.

I've thought about a feat/skill based magic system (split Spellcraft into magic schools in a similar manner to Craft, Profession, Knowledge, etc...), but haven't yet figured out a good way to set DCs for casting spells. Although having the skill roll determine the spell DC could work... Especially if the Saves were skills.

Also, you don't think there is a need for a medium skill progression in between cross-class and class?

No. Remember, you will have to invest skill points into the skills to be good at them, so they will be self-regulating. A good warrior will have a lot of ranks in several attacks and defenses, but little elsewhere. A mage will spend all his skill points in magic-based skills and saving throws. And a rogue might only be good at one or two weapons, saving his skills for sneaking and picking locks. Plus you will have the usual maximum ranks per level... Character level + 3.

Ichabod -- It is my experience that anyone can abuse any system, given time... Don't forget that there is always the DM's fiat to say 'no'.

Personally, I hate legislating against stupidity. It demeans everyone involved.

 

[kenjib]

No. Remember, you will have to invest skill points into the skills to be good at them, so they will be self-regulating. A good warrior will have a lot of ranks in several attacks and defenses, but little elsewhere. A mage will spend all his skill points in magic-based skills and saving throws. And a rogue might only be good at one or two weapons, saving his skills for sneaking and picking locks. Plus you will have the usual maximum ranks per level... Character level + 3.

Regarding the rogue, why does he need to be good at more than one or two weapons?

Let's say you are playing a rogue. First off, what weapon skills do they get as class skills? Let's say they just get knives and crossbows, and dodge is also a class skill. Okay, so if they take one feat they can use a greatsword as well as a fighter. Not only do they get proficiency for that feat, but they also effectively get full fighter BaB progression. They can also use dodge to be almost as good defensively (just less DR from armor). It seems like they would be too effective without some way of capturing the effect that rogue BaB vs. fighter BaB captures.

It's worse with a cleric since they can wear any armor. Do they start out with blunt weapons? A cleric will be just as good as a fighter at fighting. The only balance will be the fighter's bonus feats versus the cleric's spells and other abilities, which is heavily tilted toward the cleric IMO. Their offensive and defensive capability otherwise will be similar.

I think it's too easy to be very good at offense. You don't think so?

 

[SylverFlame]

If your system gets to a "fully-fleshed" point then classes will eventually become redundant. I have a rogue who can kill a dragon in one turn (I actually saw it done in 2e, in fact, I did it). Well my fighter dumped a lot of points in stealth skills and makes a great assassin with his moderate attack abilities.

So what comes next? Axe the classes and instead go with a fully costomizable skill system where the player has full control over the character's abilities. THen the nature of your games will determine the players skill choices.

High combat games? Everyone focuses on combat. Espionage and assassination game? Then everyone builds up stealth. Really cool because your characters will always get the stuff they want.

Also, to control magic you just require a feat or hefty one time skill cost to gain access to the skill. That means you can have the great-sword toting, plate mail clad, magician tank you've always dreamed of!

I REALLY like where this HR is going. Keep up the good work.

 

[Pbartender]

Kenjib - No... because its even easier to be good at defense, since there are only two skills, as opposed to the dozen or so attack skills.

At any rate, will a rogue or a cleric want to use up a precious feat and skill points to get good at another weapon?

And besides, with this sort of system, who needs classes? It would be quite easily to move to a classless (or single class, which is essentially the same thing) system.

SF - No said it was perfect or even well play tested yet. It's an idea. The regulation to it is that you need to use up feats and skill points to get good at anything. If you want to be the best at one thing, you have to be crummy at everything else. If want to be competent at everything, you'll never be great at anything.

It'd be similar to the old WEG d6-style games.

And don't forget. Anything the PCs can do, so can the NPCs and monsters. That dragon would necessarily be using the same skill/feat system.

 

[kenjib]

First draft. What do you think?

 

[kenjib]

Michael Sorensen,

I got your email, but your return address appeared to be invalid. Could you email me again with the right reply address?

 

[thullgrim]

This is alot like Rolemaster. In RM classes determine the cost (measured in development points) of a given skill. Classes are also representative of a characters natural talents. I could be gifted fighter but have studied other things as well, and though I managed to learn how to cast spells, it was very difficult (more points).

RM handles weapons by categories, 1-handed slashing, 1-handed concussion, 2-handed, missile, polearm...but I think breaking them up the way Ice Wind Dale II does would also work.