BAB as a Skill

[Dremmen]

So trying to find the rules for a BAB that was split into Ranged and Melee AB, I came across this idea of making Attack bonus a skill. My first reaction was that this was a very broken idea - first level characters can have attack bonuses in the +5 or 6 range at first level with a decent ability modifier and putting all their skill points in there.

But then again, it makes perfect sense that if things like climbing, dancing, swimming are all skills, then should be combat. When you say someone is good at fighting, it is because they are skilled with their blade. So then I tried to think how to make it nonbroken to use skills. The only thing I could come up with is have Combat Skills taken as one would Weapon Focus. Therefore there is a skill for Dagger, a skill for Longsword, etc. A fighter that wants to be well rounded would have to take a few skills. Then again if he wants to be a swordmaster, he takes just the one. The Weapon Proficiencies given to your class determine which weapon skills you can take as class skills, while the rest are available as cross-class skills. What do you all think? That could lead to a Gandalf-like character that was still good fighting with his staff or sword, without having to multiclass.

 

[D.Shaffer]

I've toyed with the idea, but couldnt come up with a way to make it work without making it a 'special' skill anyways.

If I wanted to go this far into things and tried it again, I suspect I'd just use Mutants and Masterminds point system along with a ton of Masterminds Manual options and get rid of levels all together.

 

[DonTadow]

I've toyed with the idea, but couldnt come up with a way to make it work without making it a 'special' skill anyways.

If I wanted to go this far into things and tried it again, I suspect I'd just use Mutants and Masterminds point system along with a ton of Masterminds Manual options and get rid of levels all together.

I plan on using it in my next campaign. I found a really good book a few months ago called A skill for everything. YOu can buy it at rpgnow.com

http://www.rpgnow.com/product_info.php?products_id=20556&

It breaks down combat skills into five things. Melee, Touch, Ranged, and Trick. Each of the major classes are reassigned class combat skills.
The book also has a list of secondary skills that replace certain ability checks. These are also quite useful.

 

[trav_laney]

I plan on using it in my next campaign.

The biggest problem I see with it is, it makes rogues and bards (and even NPC experts) the best fighters in the game. With their high number of skill points per level, their attack bonuses would easily surpass every other class, especially the "martial" ones.

On the other hand, maybe it isn't really a "problem" at all. I suppose there is nothing wrong with a world full of swashbuckling, nimble fighters with elegant blades, instead of axe-wielding brutes in full plate. I guess it depends on your game style.

I'd say, make these combat "skills" restricted to the martial classes. They are considered class skills for the barbarian, fighter, ranger, paladin, and warrior, but are cross-class for everyone else (especially bards and rogues.)

This system would make humans better fighters than dwarves and half-orcs, with their +1 skill point per level. I'm not saying that this is a bad thing, but something you might want to take a closer look at based on your campaign style.

And eventually, you will have to rework each monster in the game to make it playable under the new system. As you probably already know, redoing the skills for any one particular monster is no small task. Even on a case-by-case basis, this could add hours of prep time to your adventures.

My two cents.

 

[Dremmen]

The biggest problem I see with it is, it makes rogues and bards (and even NPC experts) the best fighters in the game. With their high number of skill points per level, their attack bonuses would easily surpass every other class, especially the "martial" ones.

Yup, I've been thinking about that. I never did understand why there was a discrepancy in skill points per class. If Rob the Human becomes a wizard, or a rogue, or a fighter, why would he have less skill points? It would only be what skills he learns, rather than skill learning potential, that would change, i think.

I digress. I am thinking the way to fix this is to give all classes the same amount of skill points, with Int still modifying it. So yes, an intelligent fighter would be a better fighter over the long run. Actually simplify things, for once.

This system would make humans better fighters than dwarves and half-orcs, with their +1 skill point per level. I'm not saying that this is a bad thing, but something you might want to take a closer look at based on your campaign style.

The +1 skill point would give humans an advantage - but I'm okay with that. Its not huge, and humans need a little boost.

And eventually, you will have to rework each monster in the game to make it playable under the new system. As you probably already know, redoing the skills for any one particular monster is no small task. Even on a case-by-case basis, this could add hours of prep time to your adventures.

There are limits to the amount of fidgeting I'd do. I would not change monsters to this system, only NPCs and humanoid opponents important enough to warrant stats. Things that get pulled out of the MM stay as is. Will that make it easier or harder for the PCs I'm not sure, but I'll adjust CRs accordingly once I figure it out.

Also remember that what I'm proposing is not a single Combat Skill, but like Weapon Focus, a particular weapon skill. So if you want to dump all your skill points at say sword, then yes, you could be godly with that sword. But if you don't diversify, if you find yourself without a weapon and you pick up an axe, you are no better than anyone else. Most smart players will take a few with a bow, maybe a dagger and then sword and axe or something. It will be spread out. I really think it'll balance.

I don't know...is it worth it? Do you think it'll play smoothly?

 

[Arkhandus]

Dremmen:
That's because the different classes spend their time and training differently. Rogues have more time and practice to devote to miscellaneous stuff than other characters, whereas a Fighter devotes most of his time and training to combat, having very little time for other 'skills'. A wizard devotes much to learning magic, and has little time to spend on skills that don't pertain directly to wielding magic. Etc.

And it's part of their balance. You may have problems if you give all classes the same number of skill points, and take away BAB to boot. The skill-point advantage of Rogues is one of their main strengths (along with Sneak Attack), while the high BAB of Fighter-types is their main strength. You'd need to compensate warrior-types a bit, and rogue-types a bit. Otherwise the Rogue becomes just a flimsy Fighter with cowardly tactics instead of bonus feats, and nothin' much to show for his deficiency in HP.

As part of it, maybe classes with high BAB replace it with 1 free rank in each of two Combat skills at each level in those classes, but limited to Combat skills that are class skills for them? While classes with medium BAB replace it with 1 free rank in any Combat class skill at each level. I dunno.

 

[Dremmen]

Dremmen:
That's because the different classes spend their time and training differently. Rogues have more time and practice to devote to miscellaneous stuff than other characters, whereas a Fighter devotes most of his time and training to combat, having very little time for other 'skills'. A wizard devotes much to learning magic, and has little time to spend on skills that don't pertain directly to wielding magic. Etc..

I totally don't want to take away from any class, any more than I want to make a class uber. I think that giving the rogues the largest choice of class skills reflects this benefit that they have with skills enough. Fighters and mages have class skills relevant to what they do. So even if all three get the same skill points, it will still be the rogue that comes out with the most skills, and higher.

You'd need to compensate warrior-types a bit, and rogue-types a bit. Otherwise the Rogue becomes just a flimsy Fighter with cowardly tactics instead of bonus feats, and nothin' much to show for his deficiency in HP.

As part of it, maybe classes with high BAB replace it with 1 free rank in each of two Combat skills at each level in those classes, but limited to Combat skills that are class skills for them? While classes with medium BAB replace it with 1 free rank in any Combat class skill at each level. I dunno.

One advantage to fighters would be that the only class weapon skills a player would get would be the ones he has weapon proficiency for. So the fighter has most every weapon as a possible class skills, while the other classes get a subset. They also still get to specialize with a weapon. That being said, I'm not against the +1 skill point in a Combat class skill. that I think would be a moderated benefit. Good idea, I say.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Maybe giving all characters the same number of skill points while removing BAB might actually be able to balance everything out.

There are still some issues: Spellcasting should probably also need a skill, otherwise you would have spellcasters that fight as well as fighters or rogues and cast spells on top of it.

One of the main problems with using skills for different weapons is that it suddenly forces everyone to specialise in a single or only a few weapons and if he ever has to switch, he loses out considerably. I'd recommend against it.

A fix for this might be to remove weapon proficiencies and make them into special Skill Groups (aka Iron Heroes).
Skill Groups could be:
Class Specific: (Rogues can spend one skill point to gain a +1 rank in all Rogue weapons, the same for Wizards)
Simple Weapons: Spend one skill point to gain one rank in each Simple Weapon Skill.
Martial Weapons: Spend one skill point to gain one rank in all simple and martial weapons. (To avoid that fighters suddenly lose out if they switch from a martial to a simple weapon).

Unfortunately, an additional problem arises - why would anyone not maximize at least one weapon skill? Wouldn't that make all equally good in melee combat most the time? (Would this be actually be bad?)

I think such a system would probably work well with a game like Iron Heroes, where essentially everybody has good BAB, and classes mostly differentiate by their combat style. But D&D doesn't have so many differences.

 

[Dremmen]

There are still some issues: Spellcasting should probably also need a skill, otherwise you would have spellcasters that fight as well as fighters or rogues and cast spells on top of it..

Actually I was thinking of using True Sorcery, from Green Ronin, which has skill based casting, as well as a few mystical other skills that spellcasters would probably covet.

One of the main problems with using skills for different weapons is that it suddenly forces everyone to specialise in a single or only a few weapons and if he ever has to switch, he loses out considerably. I'd recommend against it.

I don't know if I'm convinced that this is a bad thing. An axe wield much different than a sword, and a spear is way different than a club, even if they are in the same category of weapons. Harsh as it is, I do think it realistic that characters would know a handful of familiar weapons, but not be competent with others. By the same token, should they have *some* level of competency with other weapons?...probably so. So it is a fault in the system, as you say. However, it is a sacrifice that comes with a benefit. Even a wizard can start a couple of skill points with his staff, while a fighter can start with the equivalent of +4 BAB with his sword!...at the cost of not being any good with other weapons.

So you are right, players would have only a handful of weapons they could use decently. At the same token, they'll probably be better with them than with anything else, and as long as they are at least proficient with other weapons, they at least won't get penalties with using them.

 

[AbeTheGnome]

I toyed with this idea for awhile, and it turned out to be a retooling of the entire system- more work than I was willing to put in. Basically, what I came up with was that each weapon group (from UA) would be a different skill: light blades, heavy blades, axes, bows, etc. Each school of magic would also be a different skill, and spellcasting would be skill-based, with no casting limits. The discrepancies in skill points between classes also bothered me after this change was made, because of the reasons discussed above. I considered adopting a completely classless system where each PC would receive X+INT skills per level ('X' being the same for each character), and all class features would be converted into feats, and giving one feat per level. Base saves were the thing that really hung me up. I considered giving one good save to each character, at their own discretion, but eventually I gave up. I think this system has merit, and I think it's do-able, but I won't be the one to do it. Like I said, it's a big undertaking.