Why isn't base attack a skill?

[Acid_crash]

I'd rather have the skill system use combat skills and non-combat skills along with each class having a Base Combat Bonus, which would be used for both offense and defense.

Take the Feat groups from Unearthed Arcana, make each a seperate skill. Give each class both regular skill points and combat skill points.

AND do away with your Strength and Dexterity adding to combat attack and defense rolls.

 

[Rasyr]

Not neccessarily one lump sum, but actual discreet stages (like learning a programming language or almost anything else). D&D does not follow this paradigm of teaching in increments (and it is basically too complex and large to be considered easy to learn in one lump sum). Meddling Kids is a small enough and focused enough game that it can be learned in one lump sum.

By your comments, you are taking a game that is not an entry level game and turning it into one, by limiting what you introduce and when. That is an entirely different thing than if the game itself were actually an entry level game.

In short, you are following the same premise originally set forth in the D&D boxed sets of 20+ years ago, introducing things one step at a time. You are turning something that is not an entry level game into an entry level game by how and when you introduce things. The term applies to how the game was designed, not how you use it.

This is not to say that D&D could not be an entry level game, only that it is not setup or designed as one in the form of the three core books.

And yes, by my definition, there are very few "entry level games", and that is one of the problems facing this hobby.

The D&D Basic boxed set currently on the market may fit with then the "entry level game" definition, but I would have to go back and look at it again to see if it really does or not.

 

[swrushing]

[/QUOTE]

By your comments, you are taking a game that is not an entry level game and turning it into one, by limiting what you introduce and when. That is an entirely different thing than if the game itself were actually an entry level game.

Actually, i think the criteria of "can be used as a entry level game" or " has been used easily as an entry level game" or "many people use it successfully as an entry level game even without actual training by more experienced players" to all be good indicators of a game being an actual in practice "entry level game". They make up a practical definitioon of what an "entry level game" is.

In short, you are following the same premise originally set forth in the D&D boxed sets of 20+ years ago, introducing things one step at a time. You are turning something that is not an entry level game into an entry level game by how and when you introduce things. The term applies to how the game was designed, not how you use it.

I would be the designers would describe DND 3.0 as designed to be an entry level game. matter of fact, i seem to recall that as a design goal.

This is not to say that D&D could not be an entry level game, only that it is not setup or designed as one in the form of the three core books.

So you keep saying, but, i gotta say, the fact that it is used as such, successfully, a lot, seems to keep flying in the face of your claim.

Ok, so assuming you agree that people, maybe even quite a few people, do in practice successfully use DND 3.0 etc as an entry level game, which seems to be real world practical evidence that it is such, what evidence do you have to support your claim that it isn't?

And yes, by my definition, there are very few "entry level games", and that is one of the problems facing this hobby.

Actually, the fact that "your definition" isn't represented a lot in the industry might be an indication of a problem with your definition as opposed to a problem with the industry.

and, frankly, DND does from what i have seen lend itself in design well to piecemeal presentation. At lower levels, much of the complexity is minimized. No PrCs, few feats, class abilities rather simple, class archtypes pretty obvious and locked in... etc. Sure, the various options such as sunder and grapple and such are all there but they appear more rarely, with the basic low level monsters being pretty straight forward bruisers.

As you advance, the capabilities of your characters and your adversaries bring these other facets more into play. This is a steady progression of complexity, almost, but not quite, what i would call discrete.

that appears to be intentional in design, not accidental, not coincidental.

but this is clearly not something we will agree on.

 

[Rasyr]

Quite true, we clearly do not agree on this issue

Your definition tends to incorporate gateway and entry-level into a single definition. While the two are not mutually exclusive, it is my opinion that while D&D fits the gateway definition, it does not (and has not) fit the entry-level description, with the exception of the old BD&D boxed sets (the current D&D Basic boxed set MAY fit this description as well, but I am unsure).

While it may lend itself to piecemeal presentation, the books themselves are not written that way. Limited modularity does not equal "entry-level" to me.

I guess that we will just have to agree to disagree.

And my apologizes to everybody for our inadvertant hijacking of the thread for our discussion, taking it so far off from the original topic.

 

[mattcolville]

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.

Wouldn't making it a core skill for fighting style classes and a cross class skill for most other classes keep the general flow? It would also encourage multi-classing as you could still buy up a skill once you multi-classed into it like you can with other skills as maximum skill is based on total character level, not total class level.

It would be, in my judgement, broken to make Fighting a skill, since then the fighting classes would have to max it out. It's bad design to create a choice that some players HAVE to make. Then it stops being a choice for them. A wizard can certainly choose to ignore spellcraft without interfering with his ability cast spells, but a fighter would not be able to do the same thing with Fighting.

It was, I think, a brilliant little piece of design to take what, looking at the framework of the game, should certainly be a skill, and special-case it.

Now, if we were talking about a game like Star Trek, where fighting is not that important to anyone, yes, it would be a skill.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Q: Why isn't base attack a skill?
A: Designer's whim.

Look, you could make BAB/BDB a skill- you could make almost anything except spells into skills.

But if you did, you'd have to find a way to balance the skill points of the various classes in such a way that the various Fighter Classes still excel at combat, the Rogues still learn all their underhanded tricks, and so forth...

Unless you went with a straight point-buy system, like HERO or (ugh) GURPS.

 

[Ranger REG]

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

D&D is the easiest to get into RPG hobby. Of course, there are uppity snob gamers who would consider D&D to be too dumbed down for their base level of competency.

It has to do with being an accessible game.

Accessible to who? You, exclusively?

I mean, if you're offering a variant rules, fine. But I don't see any reason to make the core [standard] rules look like a RM clone. If I want a complex skill system, I'd play RoleMaster.

 

[Psion]

Accessible to who? You, exclusively?

No, not to me exclusively, and I don't know where you get that.

To the average gamer.

I mean, if you're offering a variant rules, fine. But I don't see any reason to make the core [standard] rules look like a RM clone. If I want a complex skill system, I'd play RoleMaster.

We aren't in disagreement on this point.

 

[Rasyr]

Look, you could make BAB/BDB a skill- you could make almost anything except spells into skills.

Umm... Spells could be done as a skill as well. I can actually think of several different ways to handle it. Some good, some bad, and some just different from the current way, but it can be done.

Heck, I once wrote an article which makes spll casting into a skill much like BAB.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

While that may be true, Rasyr, I just balk at making the truly supernatural into a skill...

Talents & Feats and most class abilities- the merely odd & unusual- I have no problems with.

But things that involve the arcane or divine just don't fit my definition of "skill."