Game design question - removing skill rank caps.

[RangerWickett]

As a hypothetical, what if you removed the level-based limit on how many skill ranks you can have in a given skill, but raised the cost of each skill rank, so that, say, 1-5 is 1 apiece, 6-10 is 2 apiece, and so on? I personally think such a system would require too much book-keeping, and would not really benefit anyone except those who want to make one-trick ponies. What do you think?

 

[DanMcS]

Didn't alternity have a skill system very much like this originally? Uncapped ranks, but escalating costs, though each skill cost a different base amount now that I think about it. They errattaed it out to a flat cost per skill rank (which still varied by skill) as being too much of a PITA to deal with and not really adding anything to the game.

In D&D, it would work, might be a bit of record-keeping hassle and players would probably be hacked off that beyond a certain level of skill, it became as cost-effective to go cross-class as to increase their specialty. Would definitely impact rogues the most; sneaking wouldn't suffer too much because spot and listen would be similarly hurt, but disable device and search DCs would get disproportionately harder at high DCs.

Skill-boosting items would be more in demand, I'd think, too.

 

[JimAde]

More generally, I think the problem is that the cost for useful levels of skill would rise with your character level, while the availability of skill points would not. Nobody would ever have over, say, 10 ranks in any skill. If the cost was a sliding scale based on your character level it would be better. Basically make them pay extra for ranks higher than the RAW would allow. That way it's possible to exceed the limits, but most characters will look much like the standard picture.

 

[Sigurd]

I think that would have a very negative affect.


Most players don't have enough survival skills as it is. They take only combat oriented skills and force the narrative to house and feed them. The skills points are relatively few and they don't put points in 'fluff' skills that might round out their character. If you remove the level based cap I think you'll see that characters become more like combat robots with unbelievable cobat skills but no life skills.

 

[Cabral]

In addition, for characters who do have a lot of skill points, it could make available Prestige Classes before they were intended (or balanced).

 

[RandomUsernamehmimo71]

I think it's an idea which could be useful for exactly the reason that some people don't like it

What it would do is force people to spread out, while allowing flexibility.

They take only combat oriented skills and force the narrative to house and feed them. The skills points are relatively few and they don't put points in 'fluff' skills that might round out their character. If you remove the level based cap I think you'll see that characters become more like combat robots with unbelievable cobat skills but no life skills.

I think a system like this actually encourages the exact opposite effect; Consider for example a character with a high number of ranks in a traditionally useful skill, say, Spot.
Under a tiered pricing structure without caps, Yes, they COULD dump more points into Spot, increasing from 10-12 ranks. But for the same price, they could bring a new skill, such as Survival, from 0 to 5 ranks.
The 2 additional ranks in Spot aren't going to be as useful as the 5 ranks Survival to most people.. So the characters are highly encouraged to spread out.

More generally, I think the problem is that the cost for useful levels of skill would rise with your character level, while the availability of skill points would not. Nobody would ever have over, say, 10 ranks in any skill. If the cost was a sliding scale based on your character level it would be better.

By saying that people wouldn't have more than 10 ranks in a skill, you're agreeing that they'd spread out

But I don't think that most people stopping at about 10 ranks is a bad thing for a lot of campaigns. What it does is to average the curve a bit. There are fewer Savants, who are good at exactly one thing. While there can still be some, just like in Life, it encourages a more normal distribution.

What's also nice about it is that it makes the difference in power between high and low level characters less Visable. Instead of a 20th level character always having 23 ranks in skills, they are encouraged to take a breadth of skills instead, and only have 23 ranks in one or two skills, even if they are a rogue.

I agree that Record keeping would be an issue; Maybe theyre's some clever way of dealing with that. But I think that the general idea adds an awful lot to gameplay.






Basically, There are two concerns- One is that people would Hyper-specialize, and put everything into one place.
The second concern is that people wouldn't develop their skills higher than level X.

It seems that these are almost contridictary concerns

Either uncapping skill levels by itself, or having tiered pricing for skills would be difficult. But doing both together have a natural tendency to balance each other.

 

[Shadeus]

I agree with e1ven. I means the 15th-level rogue who would normally have 8+ skills (or so) with 18 ranks in each instead would have a lot few ranks in more skills. You might have one or two skills that a skills monkey would want to waste the points on but that's it. It also really makes it rough on fighters, clerics, etc. who only get 2 skill points a round and Int is often a dump stat for those classes.

In addition, you may need to play with the skill DCs as well. For example, It will be very difficult to remove magical traps unless this happens to be a skill a rogue specializes in.

 

[Cabral]

What you may want to consider is keeping the max ranks and skill costs as is and instead allow your players to buy skill bonuses with skill points on increasing scale. +1 1pt, +2 3pts, +3 5pts, etc (so a +3 would cost 1+3+5 =9 pts)

That way, you won't have Assassins at 4th level, Dragon Disciples at 3rd, Horizon Walkers at 3rd level, and Shadow Dancers at 4th/5th ...

 

[elrobey]

not sure what you are trying to accomplish.

try this: keep the caps, but make them soft caps, not hard ones.

in other words:

PREMIUM RANKS. You can have ranks in a skill above what would otherwise be your maximum number of ranks. A rank above the maximum is known as a "premium rank". In any particular skill, the first three premium ranks come at double cost, the second three premium ranks come at triple cost, and so on.

When your maximum goes up by one (e.g., because you have gone up a level), one premium rank automatically converts to a regular rank, and you get back the premium investment (typically, one skill point) to re-spend.

EXAMPLE: Joe F1 buys 5 ranks in Climb -- 4 regular ranks (total cost 4 skill points), and 1 premium rank (total cost 2 skill points). When he advances to F2, the 5th rank in Climb converts to a regular rank, and he gets back one skill point to re-spend.

If you use premium ranks, you can get rid of all the Skill Focus feats and all the +2/+2 skill boost feats. Just allow any character to liquidate a feat into 5 skill points (or 6, if you want to be generous).

The disadvantage of premium ranks vs. a skill boost feat is that you don't end up with quite as big a bonus. One advantage, though, is that you are getting actual ranks, which can count towards synergy bonus minimums or feat prerequisites or prestige class prerequisites or whatever. Another advantage is that it is much more flexible over time -- you aren't stuck forever with a skill boost feat; as you gain levels you can recoup, reinvest, and (if desired) redirect the skill points you spend on premium ranks.

 

[Nifft]

Why do both? Encourage diversity by leaving the caps in place, but scaling the costs anyway.

(However... if you do this, give PCs more skill points, somewhere around +50% to +100%.)

Scaling costs means that skill checks can be lower (and still provide a challenge), and Skill Focus is actually a good deal at high level. You'll need to 'nerf' some magic items which give silly bonuses -- a +1 is actually worth something, +10 is horridly overpowered.

Basically, scaling costs means that a wall that's hard to climb at 1st level is still non-trivial at 10th level, but everyone in the party could have some climb ranks by 10th level.


So, my suggestions in a nutshell:

1/ Scale the cost of each rank to equal 1+rank/4 (so, rank 1-4 = 1 point each, 5-8 = 2 points each, etc.)

2/ Give a cumulative Synergy bonus of +1 at 5, 9, 13, 17, etc. ranks, since those ranks where the price jumps show dedication.

3/ Lower skill DCs to a bell curve.

4/ Give more total skill points to PCs. One idea I had was to NOT give 4x skill points at 1st level, but simply give 2x skill points EVERY level instead. No more special bonus if you take Rogue as your 1st class level instead of Wizard -- feels more organic IMHO.

-- N