Are Skills Mechanically Important in d20?

[the Jester]

I think it basically depends on how much the dm uses skill checks. In my campaign, I'd say skills are huge.

 

[Voadam]

Examples please? Are you talking about core stuff, or expansion/supplement stuff?

Quasqueton

In addition to the gestalt prison break one I gave above I'll give you a different one from my experience. Playing in Ashy's Oathbound pbp here. High stats, lower gp/magic for levels. We interacted with NPCs, we learned things about the setting and its politics, we got involved and chose sides in conflicts, we had combats. Mechanically the factors that came into play were what races we chose, what our combat abilities were, what our class abilities were, and what (less than default starting) stuff and magic we had and how we used them.

Basically D&D but lower gp and magic than default.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Examples please? Are you talking about core stuff, or expansion/supplement stuff?

Quasqueton

Overshadowing does not necessarily mean "the spell replaces the skill check, and is better" the way invisibility is. This makes it difficult to come up with examples other than to say "so-and-so ability" came up more often than "so-and-so skill".

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

For me skills help to define what makes my character unique. They help build the character's background and personality. I agree that skills, on average, are secondary to the class and combat skills and magic, but I think they are important in making the game richer. I also agree that in some ways they seem to be tacked on to the rest of the D&D mechanics, but I think that is because to change the combat and class skills to something more "skill based" would change the flavor too much.

The flip-side, and this is just as aggravating, at least to me, is when players use these skills and say things like "I bluff him," rolling the dice and expending a minimum of brain cells on what their character is saying. Or coming up with something half-assed and saying "but my character has a +10 to diplomacy, so it works."

There's a balance there somewhere between players putting the work into the role-playing aspect (a clever, or at least believable, bluff) and using the mechanic to enhance (or hamper) the character's performance within the game.

Quoted for truth.

 

[DamionW]

The flip-side, and this is just as aggravating, at least to me, is when players use these skills and say things like "I bluff him," rolling the dice and expending a minimum of brain cells on what their character is saying. Or coming up with something half-assed and saying "but my character has a +10 to diplomacy, so it works."

There's a balance there somewhere between players putting the work into the role-playing aspect (a clever, or at least believable, bluff) and using the mechanic to enhance (or hamper) the character's performance within the game.

My argument is that that +10 diplomacy usually comes at the expense of combat ability, and if you've spent that many ranks in it, you're probably gearing your character towards that ability. I rarely see someone who has 10+ ranks in bluff, but who wouldn't be reduced to charred rubble in a fight. So if as a GM you don't depend the outcome of the fighters bonus feats on how well he can portray those actual maneuvers in real life, why depend the social character's player on how well he can portray those skills in real life? To do so demeans that player's character concept in comparison to a combat character. Yes a general plan of attack with those social skills should be needed (convinving a guard you're a cleaning man is different than saying you're the King of Spain), but to make it circumstance dependent on how well the player, not character, role-plays his discussion makes the skills worthless. I find that immensely frustrating and biased to munchkin playing, even when as I said you claim to prefer less combat in the games you run.

I've heard parties lament when someone plays a rogue and dumps all their points into bluff, intimidate, and diplomacy instead of tumbling and sneaking. "What good are you as a rogue?" Rogues are solely to open doors and sneak attack in their opinion. Well part of the new third edition design is to include the charlitain as a concept for a rogue and not just the burglar. So where is the leniency for that character concept if you extract social interactions away from the mechanics and base it on RPing?

 

[Quasqueton]

Overshadowing does not necessarily mean "the spell replaces the skill check, and is better" the way invisibility is. This makes it difficult to come up with examples other than to say "so-and-so ability" came up more often than "so-and-so skill".

OK. That does seem to be more in line with what Voadam is talking about, reading his two "examples". I thought he was meaning situations like invisibility > Hide. What he actually meant is as you say, "'so-and-so ability' came up more often than 'so-and-so skill." But in this meaning, "overshadow" is a inaccurate term.

Quasqueton

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

I wouldn't say that skills specifically are vital to D&D. I think it's important that there's a good system for resolving non-combat-related actions. Castles & Crusades is a prime example of that.

However, I think one of 3e's strengths is the ability to use skills to customize a character to fit your vision. If I want to make a bard that is more of an actor, I can do that, rather than being stuck with a wandering minstrel. If I want to play a shady dwarven merchant, I can use the skill system to make a rogue that isn't a burglar.

 

[Henry]

Examples please? Are you talking about core stuff, or expansion/supplement stuff?

Quasqueton

I do know of some examples.

The obvious ones:

Invisibility vs. the hide skill
Charm Person vs. Diplomacy
'Disguise Self vs. Disguise
Feather fall vs. the fall reduction aspect of tumble
Spider Climb vs. Climb

Even in these examples, however, they only overshadow the skills in a transitive way, because they aren't permanent solutions to the kinds of quandries that skills can solve. A person Charmed will be likely hostile if he discovers he's been charmed, unlike winning them over with diplomacy, tumble fixes more than just falls, disguises don't detect as magical, invisibility wears off unlike a skillful hider, etc.

 

[WayneLigon]

They are usually vital to the games I've played in or run. To me, it doesn't matter at all if the player is good at bluffing or diplomacy: if your character has a 9 Charisma and no ranks in bluff, then he kind of sucks at it unless the person he's dealing with also sucks at it.

There are a number of things the class abilities don't cover: the main one being the knowledge skills.

 

[AIM-54]

My argument is that that +10 diplomacy usually comes at the expense of combat ability, and if you've spent that many ranks in it, you're probably gearing your character towards that ability. I rarely see someone who has 10+ ranks in bluff, but who wouldn't be reduced to charred rubble in a fight. So if as a GM you don't depend the outcome of the fighters bonus feats on how well he can portray those actual maneuvers in real life, why depend the social character's player on how well he can portray those skills in real life? To do so demeans that player's character concept in comparison to a combat character. Yes a general plan of attack with those social skills should be needed (convinving a guard you're a cleaning man is different than saying you're the King of Spain), but to make it circumstance dependent on how well the player, not character, role-plays his discussion makes the skills worthless. I find that immensely frustrating and biased to munchkin playing, even when as I said you claim to prefer less combat in the games you run.

I've heard parties lament when someone plays a rogue and dumps all their points into bluff, intimidate, and diplomacy instead of tumbling and sneaking. "What good are you as a rogue?" Rogues are solely to open doors and sneak attack in their opinion. Well part of the new third edition design is to include the charlitain as a concept for a rogue and not just the burglar. So where is the leniency for that character concept if you extract social interactions away from the mechanics and base it on RPing?

I'm not sure we're as far away on this as it seems. But, I don't think having a high diplomacy or bluff takes much away from combat power except where: class choice limits combat power (ie bard), putting a high attribute point in Charisma leaves other attributes significantly lower (and even that can be ameliorated by class and feat choice), or the character focuses spell choice on non-combat related spells. Heck, Bluff can even be used in combat, IIRC to gain an advantage. With a +10 diplomacy, one hasn't necessarily sacrificed any combat power. Even if it's a cross-class skill, all you've sacrificed is skill points that could have been used elsewhere and those are mostly for non-combat situations anyway.

I'm not sure where you got the idea that I like less combat in my games, as anyone who's ever played with me can be sure to attest, I like combat and lots of it. But I also like a good social combat (bluff vs diplomacy etc), though I generally don't play that kind of character,and a good social combat does not exist of simply opposed rolls. I agree that good RP should not be the sole determination of how a social skill is resolved, but if you are playing a role-playing game and not a miniature wargame, then RP has a role in social situations. I am not averse to small bonuses being added for clever role-playing (or penalties, for that matter, if the lack of social graces is well portrayed). The mechanic, for fairness sake, should be the ultimate determiner. But there is, in my view, nothing worse than players replacing role-playing with a skill check or arguing with a DM when a blatantly ridiculous bluff fails despite having a well endowed bluff check.