[D&D Design Discussion] Preserving the "Sweet Spot"

[Wulf Ratbane]

I wish to revise and extend my thoughts on skills.

1) Max rank is equal to character level.

2) You do not receive x4 skill points at first level.

These two things are related. I was wondering why 1st level characters get x4 skill points at first level. (In addition to just plain annoying me as an exception to the multiclassing rules...)

x4 skill points at first level could be designed for one of two things:

a) It could be necessary to bootstrap the character with an extra +3 above and beyond his level and ability modifier, in order to put certain DCs into reach, or

b) It was hoped that the players would use the x4 skill points to broaden the skill base. Of course, that's not what generally happens in practice-- players tend to keep their skills maxxed and not diversify much with extra skill points.

3) Every class receives 2 more skill points than normal-- so the classes that normally get 2/level get 4/level, and rogues get 10/level. This will encourage a broader skill base.

4) Skill rank costs go up at higher ranks. Ranks 1-5 are bought 1:1. Ranks 6-10 cost 2 skill points. Ranks 11-15 cost 3 skill points. Ranks 16-20 costs 4 skill points.

5) Cross class skills? Not sure yet.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

Interesting ideas. Some questions...

1) Max rank is equal to character level.

Any modification to how much ability scores affect skills?

4) Skill rank costs go up at higher ranks. Ranks 1-5 are bought 1:1. Ranks 6-10 cost 2 skill points. Ranks 11-15 cost 3 skill points. Ranks 16-20 costs 4 skill points.

Increasing costs will make ability score improvements that much more attractive.

 

[Slobber Monster]

I wish to revise and extend my thoughts on skills.

1) Max rank is equal to character level.

2) You do not receive x4 skill points at first level.

These two things are related. I was wondering why 1st level characters get x4 skill points at first level. (In addition to just plain annoying me as an exception to the multiclassing rules...)

x4 skill points at first level could be designed for one of two things:

a) It could be necessary to bootstrap the character with an extra +3 above and beyond his level and ability modifier, in order to put certain DCs into reach, or

b) It was hoped that the players would use the x4 skill points to broaden the skill base. Of course, that's not what generally happens in practice-- players tend to keep their skills maxxed and not diversify much with extra skill points.

The whole point of x4 skills and the level +3 cap is to allow 1st level characters to be competent at their core skills compared to an untrained person. Even then the difference between zero ranks and four ranks is only 20%. A person who is "good" at what they do should have at _least_ this much advantage on an ameteur. Failing to max (or nearly max) your core skills is a silly decision, both strategically and from a role-playing perspective. I think your change might be workable if you also granted to everyone at first level a free +2/+2 skill feat (e.g. Alertness) or a free Skill Focus.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

The whole point of x4 skills and the level +3 cap is to allow 1st level characters to be competent at their core skills compared to an untrained person. Even then the difference between zero ranks and four ranks is only 20%. A person who is "good" at what they do should have at _least_ this much advantage on an ameteur. Failing to max (or nearly max) your core skills is a silly decision, both strategically and from a role-playing perspective. I think your change might be workable if you also granted to everyone at first level a free +2/+2 skill feat (e.g. Alertness) or a free Skill Focus.

That's a Simulationist argument more than a Gamist one, although I see your point.

Anyhow, I was thinking Action Points. (But then I just love APs.)

I have more to say.

Having done the math with skills, now let's look at some other things that normally scale at a 1:1 ratio with character level, BAB and caster level.

I need to enlist the aid of someone better than me at formatting text, but here are the GOOD, AVERAGE, and POOR tables for levels 1-20, with the same escalating "costs" at 6-10, 11-15, and 16-20.

Seriously, don't even look unless you can help me format a table.

[sblock]
Character Level base Good base Average base Poor
1 1 1 0.75 0 0.5 0
2 2 2 1.5 1 1 1
3 3 3 2.25 2 1.5 1
4 4 4 3 3 2 2
5 5 5 3.75 3 2.5 2
6 5.5 5 4.125 4 2.75 2
7 6 6 4.5 4 3 3
8 6.5 6 4.875 4 3.25 3
9 7 7 5.25 5 3.5 3
10 7.5 7 5.625 5 3.75 3
11 7.833333333 7 5.875 5 3.916666667 3
12 8.166666667 8 6.125 6 4.083333333 4
13 8.5 8 6.375 6 4.25 4
14 8.833333333 8 6.625 6 4.416666667 4
15 9.166666667 9 6.875 6 4.583333333 4
16 9.416666667 9 7.0625 7 4.708333333 4
17 9.666666667 9 7.25 7 4.833333333 4
18 9.916666667 9 7.4375 7 4.958333333 4
19 10.16666667 10 7.625 7 5.083333333 5
20 10.41666667 10 7.8125 7 5.208333333 5[/sblock]

So this offers the normal BAB progression from 1-5, then slows it down at 6-10 by half, 11-15 by one-third, and 16-20 by one-fourth. Again, same rate that skill ranks are slowed.

And I'd do the same thing with caster level, dividing classes up into Good (bard, cleric, druid, wiz, sor), Average (paladin, ranger), and Poor (barbarian, fighter, monk, rogue)-- off the top of my head. Caster level would be additive in the same way as BAB.

I gotta be honest, I'm not even sure what I'm looking at here. Just thinking out loud.

 

[Henry]

trying:

That's a Simulationist argument more than a Gamist one, although I see your point.

Anyhow, I was thinking Action Points. (But then I just love APs.)

I have more to say.

Having done the math with skills, now let's look at some other things that normally scale at a 1:1 ratio with character level, BAB and caster level.

I need to enlist the aid of someone better than me at formatting text, but here are the GOOD, AVERAGE, and POOR tables for levels 1-20, with the same escalating "costs" at 6-10, 11-15, and 16-20.

Seriously, don't even look unless you can help me format a table.

[sblock]

Character Level	Base	Good	base	Average		base	Poor
1		1	1	0.75	0		0.5	0
2		2	2	1.5	1		1	1
3		3	3	2.25	2		1.5	1
4		4	4	3	3		2	2
5		5	5	3.75	3		2.5	2
6		5.5	5	4.125	4		2.75	2
7		6	6	4.5	4		3	3
8		6.5	6	4.875	4		3.25	3
9		7	7	5.25	5		3.5	3
10		7.5	7	5.625	5		3.75	3
11		7.8333	7	5.875	5		3.9166	3
12		8.1666	8	6.125	6		4.0833	4
13		8.5	8	6.375	6		4.25	4
14		8.8333	8	6.625	6		4.4166	4
15		9.1666	9	6.875	6		4.58333	4
16		9.4166	9	7.0625	7		4.70833	4
17		9.6666	9	7.25	7		4.83333	4
18		9.91666	9	7.4375	7		4.9583	4
19		10.1666	10	7.625	7		5.0833	5
20		10.4166	10	7.8125	7		5.2083	5

[/sblock]

So this offers the normal BAB progression from 1-5, then slows it down at 6-10 by half, 11-15 by one-third, and 16-20 by one-fourth. Again, same rate that skill ranks are slowed.

And I'd do the same thing with caster level, dividing classes up into Good (bard, cleric, druid, wiz, sor), Average (paladin, ranger), and Poor (barbarian, fighter, monk, rogue)-- off the top of my head. Caster level would be additive in the same way as BAB.

I gotta be honest, I'm not even sure what I'm looking at here. Just thinking out loud.

 

[Slobber Monster]

That's a Simulationist argument more than a Gamist one, although I see your point.

I may have inadvertently presented it that way, but I have gamist interests at heart. If you flatten the first level skills too much then the skill guy doesn't get to meaningfully differentiate himself from the rest of the group. If a character is only 5-10% better at something than everyone else then it's pretty hard to notice unless it's something that comes into play all the time - like BAB.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Would probably work if you just truncated all the decimals down to 2 places. Thanks.

One instant (big) problem I am seeing is that if the bonuses are additive, it's better to multiclass! You're better off as a Wiz10/Sor10 (caster level 7+7=14) than a Wiz20.

Yeah, problem...

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

I may have inadvertently presented it that way, but I have gamist interests at heart. If you flatten the first level skills too much then the skill guy doesn't get to meaningfully differentiate himself from the rest of the group. If a character is only 5-10% better at something than everyone else then it's pretty hard to notice unless it's something that comes into play all the time - like BAB.

Ah, now I got you.

It might be easier to impose a flat -2 "untrained" penalty than to give a free feat.

And of course there are still some skills that can't be used untrained at all.

 

[Henry]

Wulf, check my post above - I think I got your table correct, but I truncated the repeating decimals to save column space. In the future, the {CODE} square bracket vbulletin tag is a handy tool, and formatting it in a fixed width font like in notepad using courier new or System font, is a good way to go with tables.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

One instant (big) problem I am seeing is that if the bonuses are additive, it's better to multiclass! You're better off as a Wiz10/Sor10 (caster level 7+7=14) than a Wiz20.

Yeah, problem...

Why add the caster levels if they cast spells from different selections? Why consider caster levels like bonuses? I'm assuming one wouldn't add bard caster level with wizard caster level to get the result. Or add cleric with wizard... I'm a little