D&D 3E/3.5 the 3e skill system

[Jd Smith1]

I quit D&D/D20 after 1e, and did not return until 5e.

I like 5e, but I was thumbing through the various editions which I had missed, and I was struck by the way it seemed to do more than 5es, especially in the way it allowed you to customize your character.


How was it in actual gameplay?

 

[Dragongrief]

It worked pretty well at low levels (1-5ish), but at higher levels turned into success/failure based on whether you maxed out the skill or not. Being "decent" at a skill generally wasn't a good option unless you were unnaturally lucky with rolls.

A maxed out character could, on certain skills, have a +30 bonus IIRC.

 

[billd91]

It worked pretty well at low levels (1-5ish), but at higher levels turned into success/failure based on whether you maxed out the skill or not. Being "decent" at a skill generally wasn't a good option unless you were unnaturally lucky with rolls.

Yeah, in many cases it need up being “go big or go home”. For example, stealthy types (NPC or monster) maxed their stealthy skills, so PCs had to max out their perceptive skills. Anyone who was investing in them cross-class was largely wasting their skill ranks since they were just going to fall behind anyway.

There were some cases in which you could reasonably stop investing in a skill and get a reasonable use out of them. But not that many, and certainly not once the design idea popped up that target DCs should advance with the PC’s level in order to extend the “sweet spot” and have similar challenges throughout all levels of play for all skills.

 

[Leatherhead]

The 3.x skill system had more granularity, but that doesn't mean you could actually do more. In practice it meant there were far more ways to mess it up. Especially when talking about books printed later in the edition's lifespan.

First Problem: System Mastery. Some skills were virtually useless, especially when compared to others. You had "fluff" skills like Profession alongside game changers like Use Magic Device, and skills that were point sink requirements for your class to even function properly like Spellcraft on Wizards.

Second Problem: Cross Class skills. You spend all the points for half the effect, hard regulating you to be second fiddle no matter how many points you sink into being different than the average Fighter. Also creates a headache whenever you try and build a character with multiclassing, or the Prestige classes, which is what everyone wanted to do.

Third Problem: INT bonus to skill points. If your character became smarter, they got more skill points. The reverse was also true, if you were a dumb character, you didn't know how to do anything except for like 1 skill. Additionally, putting one skill point in a new skill isn't going to do anything for you other than enable to you fail the "Must be Trained" checks. You need to invest so much of your character into a skill in order to be good at it. This leads into the next problem.

Fourth Problem: Bonus Stacking. I can't even list all the different ways you can modify your skill check by using a wide array of different factors such as; Spells, Psionics, Pure dumb Luck, taking a vow of poverty, sacrificing a goat, having cancer, and receiving a friendly pat on the back. It got out of hand. Heck, the standard DC table in that system goes up to 40 for a reason.

Fifth Problem: Spells and especially custom Magic Item Crafting largely surpassed the mundane skill system anyway. Why hide when you can turn invisible? Why jump when you can fly? Why pick a lock when you could Knock?

Sixth Problem: Skill Requirements. You had to pay for cool Feats and Prestige Classes by spending an arbitrary amount of skill points on things, that may not be directly related to your character. For instance, to be a Duelist, you needed to be level 6, have 3 points in perform and 5 points in tumble. Why specifically those numbers in those skills? Nobody knows.

Many people were quite glad when the system didn't make it back into 4e or 5e.

 

[Jd Smith1]

Interesting.

I still think they went too far the other way in 5e, and reduced the skills into irrelevance.

My search for a better skill system will have to move on.

 

[Horwath]

this in not a problem of skill system but of d20.

in 3E(and in any other edition) you needed to "pump" up the numbers you do not fail because of bad d20 roll.
My biggest beef with d20 is that 1,10 and 20 have the same chance of turning up.

3d6 is much better and then few +1s in skills over few level means a lot more.

maybe better approach to skills and keeping d20 would be giving advantage to trained skill rolls and with expertise 3d20 "take highest"

another approach could be with adding "floor" to d20.

I.E. if you have proficiency in skill any roll below 5 is counted as 5, and if you have expertise any roll below 8 is counted as 8. That means that with +2 proficiency bonus your minimal check is 7 plus ability mod with normal skill proficiency and 12 plus ability mod with expertise.
Average and max checks remain the same, but for trained people you prevent blunders with easy/normal tasks.

you still need +3 ability bonus at start to have DC 10 an auto success for normal proficiency and DC15 for expertise.

 

[Dioltach]

My biggest issue with skills in 3.x is that skills are the Rogue's "special ability", but they depend heavily on the extra skill points at 1st level. If your first level of Rogue isn't your first character level, you'll never make up the difference.

 

[Shiroiken]

Conceptually the system was great, but the implementation was horribly flawed. There was a playtest version in D&D Next that wasn't too bad, but was eventually dropped. It could be added into the final version of 5E, with a few small modifications.

You get a number of skill points equal to the number of skills you have at level 1, and you get an equal number when your proficiency modifier goes up (levels 5, 9, 13, and 17). The first skill point grants +2, while each additional skill point adds +1 (max Proficiency mod). This allows a level of granularity, but does have the incentive to become a "Jack of all trades" by taking each skill at level 1, as the benefit is higher.

 

[dave2008]

Interesting.

I still think they went too far the other way in 5e, and reduced the skills into irrelevance.

My search for a better skill system will have to move on.

What are you looking for in a skill system. There are lots out there. If you give us an idea of what your looking for it might be easier for someone to suggest a skill system from another game or how to modify the 5e system to suite your needs.

 

[Jd Smith1]

Conceptually the system was great, but the implementation was horribly flawed. There was a playtest version in D&D Next that wasn't too bad, but was eventually dropped. It could be added into the final version of 5E, with a few small modifications.

You get a number of skill points equal to the number of skills you have at level 1, and you get an equal number when your proficiency modifier goes up (levels 5, 9, 13, and 17). The first skill point grants +2, while each additional skill point adds +1 (max Proficiency mod). This allows a level of granularity, but does have the incentive to become a "Jack of all trades" by taking each skill at level 1, as the benefit is higher.

I like that.