Incenjucar
Legend
It's a bit clunky, but what if ability score bonuses only counted for half until you were trained in a skill? Call it Talent vs. Potential.
Design and Development: Skills
- Thread starter UngeheuerLich
- Start date
Its a bit hard to determine how much I would like this system with such a small sample size. However, I will admit that I am actually in favor of more complexity (or rather more specialization) in skills as opposed to the simplification of the system. So I could maybe get on board with what he is saying if you add in the talent system so that somebody who wanted to get really good at say, climbing, would be able to do so (albeit likely at a cost somewhere else). My personal opinion is that 4ed still doesn't quite get skills right as for those who are trained in a skill, there is really very little difference between them (you are either good at diplomacy, average, or bad), with really very little ability to become amazing at it. (To be fair, this can be achieved somewhat through backgrounds, items, and skill focus and the system is not nearly as bad as I thought it was when 4ed was first released).
As for working for Mearls: I dunno, the way I see it, he's simply trying to open up a conversation with the fans (who ultimately are going to be the customers as well). I don't see it as necessarily micromanaging as much as "Hey guys, we have this idea here that goes something like this _____. Is this something that y'all would be interested in or does it suck donkey balls?" I see it as a way for them to get a quick reaction from the customer base on a broad idea. Obviously this won't be, or rather shouldn't be, the sole determining factor in future design, but I do think its a pretty good strategy. This particular article for instance is basically asking: "Do we even need skills in the game? If so, do you want them simplified or do you want a way to allow characters to become particularly good at a given skill? More complex system or less?"
As for working for Mearls: I dunno, the way I see it, he's simply trying to open up a conversation with the fans (who ultimately are going to be the customers as well). I don't see it as necessarily micromanaging as much as "Hey guys, we have this idea here that goes something like this _____. Is this something that y'all would be interested in or does it suck donkey balls?" I see it as a way for them to get a quick reaction from the customer base on a broad idea. Obviously this won't be, or rather shouldn't be, the sole determining factor in future design, but I do think its a pretty good strategy. This particular article for instance is basically asking: "Do we even need skills in the game? If so, do you want them simplified or do you want a way to allow characters to become particularly good at a given skill? More complex system or less?"
DracoSuave
First Post
Oh god, what has Mike Mearls ruined this time?
(goes to read an article about the examples of design that goes on behind the scenes)
Oh god, how is this forum over-reacting to things this time?
(reads the thread.)
There are two truths in the universe.
Mike Mearls ruins everything, and this forum overreacts to everything.
Non-playtest article is non-playtest. It's an example of a design type, and he's spitballing to see if that sort of design is pleasing to the audience or not. He's not making a new climb skill or changing the game.
(goes to read an article about the examples of design that goes on behind the scenes)
Oh god, how is this forum over-reacting to things this time?
(reads the thread.)
There are two truths in the universe.
Mike Mearls ruins everything, and this forum overreacts to everything.
Non-playtest article is non-playtest. It's an example of a design type, and he's spitballing to see if that sort of design is pleasing to the audience or not. He's not making a new climb skill or changing the game.
RangerWickett
Legend
I really liked it.
I'm not a fan. I didn't really get the skill-point vibe from it, though. I hated skill points in 3.x, but that wasn't because of the points themselves so much as the fact that not everyone got the same amount of points.
I prefer the 4E (and Saga Edition) method because it's simpler. This is just making it more complicated, and seems to be stepping on the toes of the skill utility (especially that spider climb talent).
I don't think it's inherently bad, as, unlike skill points, everyone has the same potential to train skills. But, it's just more complicated than the current system, which I really like.
I prefer the 4E (and Saga Edition) method because it's simpler. This is just making it more complicated, and seems to be stepping on the toes of the skill utility (especially that spider climb talent).
I don't think it's inherently bad, as, unlike skill points, everyone has the same potential to train skills. But, it's just more complicated than the current system, which I really like.
First, let me get a few things out of the way: 1) Skill points are bad and they shouldn't come back. 2) Lookup-tables should never be used for uncommon occurrences when a simple linear rule will do. (Both of these points are based on time and effort vs. enjoyment; I hope I never spend 2 hours allocating skill points for a 10th level character, only to never roll 90% of them at any climactic point ever throughout the campaign, or have an exciting moment bog down as we do a roll-call lookup of everyone's strength.)
That said, I like the _idea_ of doing something more interesting with skills, just like I love the _idea_ now of feats (and also skill powers and knacks) that let you longjump w/o a running start, or never roll less than 7 on athletics and acrobatics, or calm down animals. I still end up taking skill-focus instead (or, let's be honest, a non-skill feat), but I love the _idea_.
4e did a lot right with letting you forget what wasn't important to your character. Dwarves AC bonus vs. giants, for example, was left out because it was a detail that usually didn't matter, cluttered up the races list of benefits, and was often forgotten. So, gone. But if it's important to YOUR character, hey, take a feat.
I think skills are the same way. The base rules should be SUPER SIMPLE for each skill, but for the skills that are important to YOUR character, you should have a way to make them be awesome. I guess you could rip out the "choose skills" step of character creation and replace it entirely with stuff like that. But I have a feeling that the easiest way to do this is better and more feats, skill powers, knacks and themes: more, and better, of what's already there.
Just please, PLEASE, keep the _base_ system super-simple (no skill points, no lookup tables), so the 90% of characters that aren't climbing-monkeys can get by easily while the other 10% get their moment in the spotlight.
That said, I like the _idea_ of doing something more interesting with skills, just like I love the _idea_ now of feats (and also skill powers and knacks) that let you longjump w/o a running start, or never roll less than 7 on athletics and acrobatics, or calm down animals. I still end up taking skill-focus instead (or, let's be honest, a non-skill feat), but I love the _idea_.
4e did a lot right with letting you forget what wasn't important to your character. Dwarves AC bonus vs. giants, for example, was left out because it was a detail that usually didn't matter, cluttered up the races list of benefits, and was often forgotten. So, gone. But if it's important to YOUR character, hey, take a feat.
I think skills are the same way. The base rules should be SUPER SIMPLE for each skill, but for the skills that are important to YOUR character, you should have a way to make them be awesome. I guess you could rip out the "choose skills" step of character creation and replace it entirely with stuff like that. But I have a feeling that the easiest way to do this is better and more feats, skill powers, knacks and themes: more, and better, of what's already there.
Just please, PLEASE, keep the _base_ system super-simple (no skill points, no lookup tables), so the 90% of characters that aren't climbing-monkeys can get by easily while the other 10% get their moment in the spotlight.
Me personally, I actually liked skill points, but then, I also always started my campaigns (and characters at level 1) and so allocating the points wasn't that big of a deal for me so I can see the frustration there.
What I really like from your post though is the idea of keeping the core relatively simple, but allowing for customization and/or more complexity through feats, powers, etc. Your comparison to dwarves vs. giants was spot on and provides interesting food for thought. Come to think of it, its one of the reasons I like dwarves in 4ed so much because they have such great feat support (well that and my runepriest has such poor feat support for his class that dwarven feats became his class feats
). The only potential issue I might have is trying to find a way in which to make skill-based feats or powers as appealing as the combat based ones. Obviously much of this will be a matter of personal preference. Those who like to get into the skilled aspects more than the combat aspect already have the ability to do so. The key though is you don't want to feel as though you are potentially harming your party by taking a skill-based feat or power over a combat based one. Currently I think 4ed often suffers from this as taking a Utility power for instance that grants the party a bonus to a particular skill for a round doesn't seem nearly as appealing as say a utility power that lets you heal a dying ally.
Potentially this could be addressed by separating the skill feats or talents from the regular feat pool and simply saying "every X levels you gain a skill feat" but then I think you come back to being close to a skill point system. Ultimately of course, all of this eventually falls on the shoulders of the DM to make it such that the players feel as though their choices matter. Nothing is worse than training in Endurance and then almost never making an endurance check simply because the DM never provides the opportunity for it. That type of situation makes it feel as though the player made a poor choice at character gen.
occam
Hero
I appreciate the noodling about simplification, but I'm not a fan of the climb speed table, nor of the emphasis on Strength for jumping (despite the callouts to other abilities for certain circumstances).
Those are nitpicks, though. The main thing I don't get is why one would even call this a skill. Just turn the talents into feats and begone with skills, since that's how they work. Why create some alternate feat-like mechanic with a different name?
Of course, that would just contribute to the massive feat sprawl we already face, which is a whole 'nother problem.
Those are nitpicks, though. The main thing I don't get is why one would even call this a skill. Just turn the talents into feats and begone with skills, since that's how they work. Why create some alternate feat-like mechanic with a different name?
Of course, that would just contribute to the massive feat sprawl we already face, which is a whole 'nother problem.
ki11erDM
Explorer
Was not into his description of a simple stat based skill system until this article. After he showed the 3 levels of complexity I absolutely love it. I want a simple skill system I can make as complicated as I want, as a DM. I would be happy to have a well play tested version of that as the skill system in 4.75e…
ki11erDM
Explorer
I really think he is just using that as an example in a void. Maybe there would be Skill feats and Combat feats that you get at different levels. Odd for one even for another. That way if you were a super combat heavy group and did not care about skills you could just drop that part.
He is just showing us how it would work in general.
Similar Threads
