Enlightened Grognard: Reducing the Skill List

[amnuxoll]

If you're one of the majority of folks who think that the skill system in 3.5e has too many skills, I'd like your input on what changes you think are good ones to reduce the number of skills in the game.

Thanks,
:AMN:

 

[Celebrim]

If you're one of the majority of folks who think that the skill system in 3.5e has too many skills...

I'm actually in the minority that thinks it has too few skills. However, I think that some of the skills it has aren't coherent and that it doesn't have enough skills which are explicitly 'active' - meaning that the player can choose to use them to perform actions rather than merely as a result of a 'skill challenge' of some sort. Also, I think that 'epic skill use' was reserved for too high of a level of skill, and that by level 15 a character has skill that would in this world be considered supernatural or superhuman and hense ought to be allowed to do superhuman things.

Tumble is a good example of an 'active' skill. A player can use it in a wide variaty of situations that are likely to come up in any combat. Use Magic device is another good 'active' skill. Balance is a relatively passive skill though, since its utility (as written) depends almost solely on the DM providing balance challenges. The same is true of Appraisal. I'm not saying that balance is a bad skill, but the system needs more skills like Tumble with active uses.

IMO, the general answer to your question is this: you should bundle passive skills with active skills to make a single strong skill if you don't foresee yourself (as the DM) regularly calling for the passive skill as a challenge. If you don't want to regularly call for an appraisal check before telling the character what the item is made of and what it is worth then by all means, bundle appraisal with something else because its a pointless skill.

So, the specific answer to your question is, "Do what works for you." I don't think there is a right and wrong answer here, and while I haven't done much of the above options personally, I do think that they are mostly reasonable and for the most part wouldn't think badly of a DM that implemented any or all of them if it suited their campaign.

That said, if you were to radically reduce the size of the skill list, I think you'd risking making intelligence a dump stat.

I'd like your input on what changes you think are good ones to reduce the number of skills in the game.

Thanks,
:AMN:

Of the above, the only three I really don't approve of are 'concentration + survival' = 'endurance', because it turns every spell caster into a master of wilderness survival, 'use magic device' to anything else because UMD is a powerful class feature and not a mundane skill, and 'tumble = feats' because I very much disapprove of 'gate' feats that restrict player options until you take the feat. Pretty much anything that you right as a 'feat' that gives you some new option should be written into a skill as a skill usage instead. Feats should enhance your chance of success; they shouldn't act as shackles in disguise by implying that anyone without the feat can't attempt the stunt.

However, the only two I voted for are 'forgery = craft' and 'Gather Information = other social skills'.

Gather Information got dropped from my game very early on because it definately seemed to overlap with the other social skills. I basically said that if you want to gather information, you choose an approach (diplomacy, bluff, or intimidate) and then tried to use it to gether information. I much prefered the option to RP out such scenes rather than handwave them with a skill check.

Forgery is one I've been wrestling with for a long time. I want to drop it, but don't like the craft skills well enough. Still, anyone with sufficient craft ought to be able to forge a fake whatever in their particular craft. In fact, in many crafts making inexpensive versions of high quality goods for customers with less income is part of the normal job description. This can be true of even craftsman working for the very wealthy, because even the very wealthy can be on a budget and want to own something that appears far more ostentatious and valuable than it really is.

 

[Ashtagon]

My main problem with the skills system is that it doesn't cover a broad enough field of human expertise. There are vast areas which simply have no appropriate skill defined. Sure, the skills that are defined are fine for combat uses. But I think skills should really be defining what your character does when he isn't busy killing things.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I'm all for skill consolidation. When two different skills serve the same purpose (bluff/disguise, Hide/MS, etc.), consolidation is logical. When a skill doesn't see use (Use Rope, Appraise) it doesn't need to exist.

Climb, Jump, and Swim are all separate in my mind, as are Balance and Escape Artist (I could see dumping Tumble one way or another). Ride and Handle Animal are totally separate.

I don't see removing Gather Info; I see this used a lot. If anything, I'd add a Research (Int) like some other d20 games to complement it. Likewise, UMD is a legit skill IMO.

I would prefer a deeper language system rather than consolidating it-Kingdoms of Kalamar does this well.

My main problem with the skills system is that it doesn't cover a broad enough field of human expertise. There are vast areas which simply have no appropriate skill defined. Sure, the skills that are defined are fine for combat uses. But I think skills should really be defining what your character does when he isn't busy killing things.

I also tend to agree with this. I'm glad they standardized knowledge skills, but there are wide swaths of knowledge which are ignored. I'm sure that's just the beginning.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

Voted for perception, stealth, and disguise --> bluff. The ones involving folding a skill into a split skill, like appraise into knowledge, seem like they're just passing the buck rather than reducing the skills. Now instead of Forgery as its own skill, you just have a craft (forgery)? Or would it be like...to make a fake sword, you'd use craft weapon, except as a fake, the materials would be cheaper and DC lower? Just seems strange, maybe it'd work...

Tumble is good on its own, otherwise I din't mind acrobatics. But it's too good with tumble. Concentration also needs no help to be useful. The athletics skills...I don't know. They're situationally useful enough I hesitate to group them all in one. They're also so very disparate. I can imagine lots of good swimmers who can't climb or jump well. Jump and climb seem semi-related, maybe just package those two. They also tend to become less useful with flight later on. Swim remains useful much longer if you're near water.

 

[Hrothgar Rannúlfr]

I'm actually in the minority that thinks it has too few skills.

But, you're not alone. I honestly think that a lot of feats should have been bonuses to augment skills.

I don't think I'd combine skills any further than they are in the 3.5 SRD.

 

[Celebrim]

I'm all for skill consolidation. When two different skills serve the same purpose (bluff/disguise, Hide/MS, etc.)

I don't see them however as serving the same purpose, though I admit that the disguise/bluff skill divide isn't as coherent as I would like. For one thing, you can roll disguise on behalf of someone else (to disguise them), but you can't really bluff on behalf of someone else. So we might imagine someone who is a great actor (bluff) who depends on a great makeup artist (disguise) to aid him in his work. In general, I believe that the divide between bluff and disguise ought to be mental/physical. You use diguise in all physical situations of deceit and bluff in all mental/social ones. To that end, under my rules 'feint' is undertaken with a diguise check - not a bluff check - in that a 'fient' is a physical motion you are trying to sell, not a verbal claim.

I've wrestled back and forth over whether 'Forgery' ought to be bundled in with disguise because it is a physical deception or with 'Craft' because it the product of craftsmanship. I've at the moment landed on craft, where crafting a forged document involves Craft (Caligraphy) or making a fake necklace involves Craft (Jewelry). An argument can be made though that 'Forgery' ought to be a modifier to your craft check, made with disguise - representing particular skill at deceptive craft. However, that awaits a more robust set of craft rules that I've never gotten around to making.

consolidation is logical. When a skill doesn't see use (Use Rope, Appraise) it doesn't need to exist.

Use Rope is the edge case here because its so narrow, but whether 'Appraise' gets used is entirely a matter of DM preference. Arguably for most campaigns 'Appraise' ought to be used all the time. For example, I'm not sure how you would know a masterwork sword from a regular sword (and thus be able to even buy one) unless you could appraise it.

Climb, Jump, and Swim are all separate in my mind, as are Balance and Escape Artist (I could see dumping Tumble one way or another). Ride and Handle Animal are totally separate.

All opinions though. The main thing is that however you divide the skills makes sense for how often they would be used in your campaign.

I don't see removing Gather Info; I see this used a lot.

Whereas, I don't see it used at all, but could imagine it being used if the DM had a certain sort of style (namely, that he liked handwaving interaction with minor offstage NPCs).

If anything, I'd add a Research (Int) like some other d20 games to complement it.

I think Research is a legitimate skill, but the problem I have with it is that in my campaign large libraries are so relatively rare that I can't imagine Research being any more useful than Use Rope. In a campaign where libraries and such are common and accessible to the public, then I can definately see adding Research in as an option. For my part, the utility of breaking it out into a separate skill doesn't seem to be there, so I keep it bundled with 'Knowledge' (that is to say, you roll a check against your own knowledge of the subject to research it in a library).

I also tend to agree with this. I'm glad they standardized knowledge skills, but there are wide swaths of knowledge which are ignored. I'm sure that's just the beginning.

Conversely, I've actually consolidated knowledge skills into extremely broad catagories because I thought there were too many of them. The problem you run into with highly specialized knowledge is that if you try to make a skill for every legitimate speciality, you quickly run into the problem you have in GURPS (or Chaosium CoC using all the introduced skills) where skills or so narrow that the end result is everyone is incompotent at most everything. In GURPS they try to solve this with a system of complex defaults from similar skills, but this just gets to be really confusing and clunky.

The available fields of study in Knowledge for my campaign are:

Arcana – magic, the physical world, magical creatures, and the supernatural
Architecture and Engineering – buildings, construction, machinery, and technology
Arts and Literature – artists, criticism, folk lore, poety, and romance
Computation and Ledgers – accounting, finance, logistics, and mathimatics
Customs and Heraldy – culture, etiquette, manners, living rulers and the nobility
Geology and Mining – excavation, geology, hydrology, and minerals
History and Geography – events, people, and places
Law – legal theory and practice
Nature – animals, plants, meteorology, and oceanology
The Planes – realms beyond our own
Religion and Philosophy – cults, deities, myths, organized religion, and theology
Riddles and Enigmas – games and puzzles

 

[Ahnehnois]

I don't see them however as serving the same purpose, though I admit that the disguise/bluff skill divide isn't as coherent as I would like.

I agree the fundamental divide seems to be between physical disguise and acting. If so, I'd propose making Disguise a Craft skill and moving the accompanying deception to Bluff.

whether 'Appraise' gets used is entirely a matter of DM preference...
Whereas, I don't see [Gather Info] used at all, but could imagine it being used if the DM had a certain sort of style (namely, that he liked handwaving interaction with minor offstage NPCs).

Appraise is something I don't use hardly at all; I figure the IMO/IME is implied for these types of posts. In both cases, I'm assuming a style. I want my D&D game to be about getting the loot, not selling it, and about using the information, not gathering it. Thus, I see Appraise as unnecessary (fold into Profession or a Knowledge [Math] type skill) and Gather Info as necessary (to avoid dragging down the action with minor NPC conversations).

Similarly, I find Jump, Climb, and Swim conducive to action (especially in my seafaring campaign) and want them kept separate because they're important to me. Obviously, YMMV.

I think Research is a legitimate skill, but the problem I have with it is that in my campaign large libraries are so relatively rare that I can't imagine Research being any more useful than Use Rope.

I agree. I'd rather have skills be generic. If there are no libraries, no one takes Research (just as if you are running a desertbound game, no one takes Swim). But have the skill exist in case it's needed (I've run games where it was and games where it wasn't).

In GURPS they try to solve this with a system of complex defaults from similar skills, but this just gets to be really confusing and clunky.

The Cortex system (and others I'm sure) have a really nice way of handling this: trees. The first few points in a skill (any skill) are generic, and go into a standardized category. At higher levels, you have to pick more and more specialized versions of the skill and can pretty much invent them as you go. The equivalent would be a D&D cleric who has some general knowledge of religon, but a lot of knowledge of *his* religion or a rogue with Knowledge (Local) covering his city but special expertise in the black market/underground. I would like to have this sort of thing in D&D for Knowledge skills but haven't figured out the right implementation yet. Certainly others have tried.

 

[ValhallaGH]

That said, if you were to radically reduce the size of the skill list, I think you'd risking making intelligence a dump stat.

I keep hearing this concern. Yet, as long as there are at least 15 'good' skills, no PC race and class character can possibly have them all maxed out. And I don't see an issue with a brilliant Fighter being able to have about half of the 'good' skills, or a smart Rogue being able to have most of them. If Indiana Jones has taught us anything, a successful adventurer needs a wide variety of skills (and don't look at the divine artifacts being opened).
Any ability score with a +1 or higher is not a dump stat. +0 isn't a dump stat by my standards, but I'll grant that tastes vary.

By 'good' I mean skills that come up about once a session (or more) and who's success either advances the PC's plans meaningfully or makes survival / success much more likely. Tumble, Use Magic Device, Hide / Move Silently, Climb, Jump, Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate, Disable Device, and Search all fall into this category, since they can dramatically improve the PC's situation when used with some planning or creativity.
Balance, Spot / Listen, Knowledge (any), and Perform seem to come up a lot but are fairly reactive and don't (usually) have much of a direct impact.

 

[Eldritch_Lord]

The way I generally handle skill consolidation in my games is twofold: multiple ability associations and a Background skill.

Take the Bluff/Disguise example, for instance. In my system, those are both a part of the Deception skill, along with Intimidate and Sleight of Hand, but you use your Cha modifier for social Deception checks (Bluff/Intimidate) and your Dex modifier for physical Deception checks (Disguise/Sleight of Hand/feinting). Of course, I've made more extensive changes than just rolling four skills together--just rolling those four skills into one and using the relevant ability for subskills would give waaay too much weight to one skill--but the concept, I believe, is sound.

To solve the whole knowledge base issue, I've created a Background skill which is at its most basic level Knowledge + Craft + Profession rolled into one skill. Let's say you take Background (Blacksmith). You can use those ranks for a lot of Knowledge checks relating to blacksmithing (the equivalent of Knowledge (Metallurgy) to determine the composition of various iron alloys, Knowledge (Architecture) for statues/doors/etc. made of iron, and so on), a lot of Craft checks (the equivalent of Craft (Weaponsmithing) and the like for crafting items a blacksmith usually makes), and basic Profession (Smith) checks for the miscellaneous "a smith would be able to do/know this" stuff.

It gives you the benefits of all three skills in one in exchange for applying only to a very specialized subset of them; you could have a Background of a priest of one particular religion and know a lot about that one, but someone with Knowledge (Religions) would know more about all religions in general, at the cost of having to sink ranks into Profession or Craft if they want to perform rituals or make holy items. You want to be good with numbers and money? Background (Accountant) or (Bursar) works, or (Merchant) in a pinch. You want to be an expert on the nobility and history? Background (Squire) or (Herald) or similar works. And so on and so forth; if you want to cover an area of expertise that a knowledge skill doesn't really cover, pick an appropriate Background and we'll work out the details.