Are Skills Mechanically Important in d20?

[Psion]

I'd have to agree. The skills that have a direct impact on combat or magic have very defined in ability and scope (penalties for range with Listen and Spot checks, tumble mods due to circumstances, etc). Those that don't generally have there beneifts limited to a single line of description.

But consider this: that makes them the ruling ability outside of combat.

And IME, they are.

From the SRD, concerning Gather Information:

If you want to find out about a specific rumor, or a specific item, or obtain a map, or do something else along those lines, the DC for the check is 15 to 25, or even higher.

I don't think we need to bring up the tables on the Concentration or Jump skill descriptions . Even the Hide and MS skills go into detail for using the skills while sniping or moving.

Gather information is the sort of skill I frequently see given lavish attention in adventures. Which speaks to the broad area it covers. A few lines could not possibly cover all the situations that could come up in adventures that would require you to hunt down information.

 

[Storyteller01]

Gather information is the sort of skill I frequently see given lavish attention in adventures. Which speaks to the broad area it covers. A few lines could not possibly cover all the situations that could come up in adventures that would require you to hunt down information.

Agreed, but it seems that the authors could have given greater detail, or at least the same detail used with the bardic knowledge ability (which is essentially a faster version of GI).

And let's not forget Augury, commune, legend lore, scry...

 

[Silveras]

As a DM I haven't called for a skill check in the last year that I can remember in my high level game. I find them generally unnecessary mechanically and distracting when running a game. Maybe I had the arcane trickster rolling a disable device check for a DC 35 magic trap, but he gets those easy.

For a while when I started DMing 3e I tried applying the skill checks as written in the srd but it was annoying (one party member with a +23 listen, others with +2) and often led to wierd situations (with diplomacy, et al.) where results were completely contrary to how things were being roleplayed and leading to forced unnatural interactions with NPCs.

I was forcing the game to fit these poor mechanics for no real benefit to the game. This It was unpleasant as a DM. was backwards to how things should be. Mechanics should benefit the game or not be used.

Then I decided I would eyeball the PCs stats and skills, consider their characterization of the character and adjudicate most skill type things on the fly unless there was significant physical mechanical effects like feinting, tumbling, or concentration (but by 15th level all the casters autosuccess defensive casting so no roll was needed).
So the dwarven cleric of a knowledge god who comes from a smithing background got a lot of google information on wierd metal blades (arsenic bronze) used by ancient cultists that they found. No skill checks, I decided it was appropriate and cool so he got the info. It added to the game and we then moved on to more explorations and physical investigations.

For some things like searches I did a take 10 calculation and used that for my secret checks. Made adjudicating swifter and not usually something where dice rolling adds to the game more than a good description and having them react to the results does.

I've been happier DMing the game and it has run great. There is plenty of investigation, NPC interaction, non combat activity, and combat.

I reiterate IMO & IME skills are largely unnecessary mechanically for D&D.

This seems to me more a matter of play style than the mechanics. You still use the skill mechanics, you just dispense with the rolls except when they are NOT automatically successful, or otherwise add an element of risk to the game. That some skill checks become unnecessary as the PCs rise in levels does not make the mechanic less worthwhile or necessary; the lack of commensurate challenges does.

If anything, it sounds to me that your point is not that Skills themselves are not mechanically important, rather that you don't find Skill RANKS that mechanically important.

 

[Voadam]

This seems to me more a matter of play style than the mechanics. You still use the skill mechanics, you just dispense with the rolls except when they are NOT automatically successful, or otherwise add an element of risk to the game. That some skill checks become unnecessary as the PCs rise in levels does not make the mechanic less worthwhile or necessary; the lack of commensurate challenges does.

If anything, it sounds to me that your point is not that Skills themselves are not mechanically important, rather that you don't find Skill RANKS that mechanically important.

What knowledge skill applies to information about non magical red metal blades? history because it is from an earlier metal age? I'm sure the cleric did not have that skill. What would be the DC for info on obscure metals that have not been used for ages?

I simply decided as a cleric of a knowledge god, and having a smithing background it was appropriate for his character to know it, so I gave him info on the blades and the historical use of the metal.

It allowed the introduction of cool info, made the character choices and background relevant, and added value to the game. By the rules I don't hink he had any ranks in any relevant knowledge skills so would not even get a check.

I don't even look at the diplomacy chart when running social encounters.

If skills were removed from the game entirely my games would not be significantly impacted.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

It is purely a gaming style issue - As DM I call on a lot more skill checks than I do combat rolls. I like town adventures and intrigue/mysteries much more than having the PCs kill things and take their stuff. Whole sessions will go by without combat.

The Auld Grump

 

[cuteasaurus]

Players agonize over what feats to take or spells to learn, not what to invest skill points in.

Hey now...that's not true for all of us...I spend a LOT of time agonizing over where to put skill points and I usually play characters with high Int just to max out how many I get...

 

[harmyn]

I like and use skills, but they feel very much tacked on to the system. They in part evolved out of the old Thieves' Abilities of previous editions combined with Non-Weapon Proficiencies that were meant to give characters a little extra flavor. My biggest issue though is the fact that the DC's are all over the place. Most skills have their own special DC's that apply to a given target number and the numbers seldom seem to make very much sense when comparing how various difficulties relate in comparison of difficulty.

If skills were meant to be a more important and less secondary aspect they would have given more skill points to all. Even 2 more points for each class is a very reasonable thing. But that's just my random bit of thinking there.

 

[Bran Blackbyrd]

In the end skills are only as important as your DM makes them.
I feel that they are important. As a player I spend a lot of time choosing my skills. As a DM I try to think up ways for the players to use skills and how the skills relate to each challenge I create.

 

[Silveras]

What knowledge skill applies to information about non magical red metal blades? history because it is from an earlier metal age? I'm sure the cleric did not have that skill. What would be the DC for info on obscure metals that have not been used for ages?

I simply decided as a cleric of a knowledge god, and having a smithing background it was appropriate for his character to know it, so I gave him info on the blades and the historical use of the metal.

It allowed the introduction of cool info, made the character choices and background relevant, and added value to the game. By the rules I don't hink he had any ranks in any relevant knowledge skills so would not even get a check.

I don't even look at the diplomacy chart when running social encounters.

If skills were removed from the game entirely my games would not be significantly impacted.

And that's ALL about the style of how you run your games.

In my games, PCs who don't have at least SOMEWHAT rounded skills selections are in trouble. Since I do a lot of overland journeys, Handle Animal, Spot, Listen, Ride, and Swim tend to be important. Characters who tend to over-specialize tend to die. That's also all about style.

When it comes to knowledge, I would consider it poor role-playing for the PC not to invest skill points in at least one area of Knowledge if s/he is a Cleric of the god of Knowledge. Poor choice on the PCs part; s/he has to live with the consequences, like not having a helpful piece of information. The DC is not that high, depending on how exacting the piece of information is (use of an obscure metal: probably DC 15 in general history, 12 if you use a Knowledge (war) skill, maybe 10 or 12 in Knowledge (arcana) if the metal had magical properties). Likewise not having at least a rank or two in Craft (Blacksmith) to reflect that background (in which case I'd say the PC has at least a chance of knowing how to work the metal, though not necessarily what significance it might have).

And the two go together... by not making the social or knowledge skill choices relevant, that encourages people to put their skill points into combat skills because there is no trade-off embodied in that choice. As a result, a larger proportion of the party has very good modifiers to combat-related skills, making them seem pointless to roll, because all the modifiers are good enough to beat almost all DCs.

That's not a problem with the mechanics; it is a choice about how to use them, or not.