Looking for alternate skill rules for D&D

[Dragonmarked DM]

I'm creating a new campaign and have been looking into alternate ways to do the skill system. It's not that I don't like the way the system works, but I'd like for the characters to be a little more difined through the skill selections they take. I would like something that is a little more indepth and expands the small skill selection (IMO) that exist in the current game. Being from the AD&D days, I sometimes miss something like (but not exactly like) the profiency system.

 

[tjoneslo]

What areas are you looking to expand the skill list?

One suggestion might be to remove the BAB, and add a selection of "weapon skills", which is used instead of BAB to attack with. So, for example, you would have the skills: One handed swords, two handed swords, polearms, axes, daggers, bows, crossbows, and exotic weapon. When a character has a 10 skill ranks in axes, he has a "BAB" of +10 for using axes in combat. In compensation I would give Fighers 2 to 4 more skill points per level, and bump everyone (including the fighters) up 2 points per level.

Other suggestions: Expand the craft and knowlege skills.

But just having more skills won't help if the players don't use them. You will need to make sure that if there are more and varied skills, they get used frequently.

 

[Quickleaf]

For weapons, I agree BAB should be linked to a skill not your character level. I would also suggest you check out WoodElf's alternative weapon proficiency system - it just rocks! In addition, why not make Combat Manuever into a skill? Ranks in Combat Manuever allow a PC to offset penalties usually associated with a particular move, e.g. disarm, feint (replacing Bluff), mounted shot, etc.

Another thing to consider is whether certain feats will give access to exclusive skills (like in ArsMagica). Possibilities include Weather Sense, Dowsing, Scry, or even Literacy if literate characters are rare outside the nobility. For example, by taking the Scry feat, your character can now gain ranks in the Scry skill as if it were a class skill.

Another idea discussed on these boards is to divide a skill into three parts (like Feng Shui). Take Ride for example. Ride (Dex) determines your ability on horseback. Ride (Cha) determines your contacts in the horse world, including furriers, stablehands, breeders, etc. Ride (Int) details your knowledge of various breeds, evaluating a healthy horse, recognizing famous horses/riders, knowledge of horseback contests, etc. So the Cha-modified ability represents contacts, and the Int-modified ability represents knowledge pertaining to the skill. This requires a bit of work, and may be difficult to apply to skills like Gather Information. (I am working up a document to explain how all PHB skills would look in this skills system)

My last idea is specialization. Whenever a player takes a skill, have them declare a specialization appropriate to the skill. Whenever attempting to use the skill in their specialization, they gain +1 on the skill check. This provides more customized characters, at the cost of extra book-keeping.
Here are some examples for the Ride skill: Riding unsaddled mounts, griffons, sharp turns, jumping, spurring to greater speed (racing), mounted combat, tricks, distance travel, mounting/dismounting, falling off horse, etc.

 

[Dragonmarked DM]

I like the idea of using skill checks for the various weapons and have gave some thought to the idea of getting rid of the BaB. Would it make since to instead of dishing out extra points for the fighter and other warrior like classes, to instead just give them a bonus to use those skills. Something like fighters recieve a +1 or +2 to any weapon related skills. It would have to take some consideration in order to not make the class over or underpowered.

I always liked game systems that where skill based. I sometimes feel like the skills of 3.5 are the red headed step child of the game. We have a billion feats and prestige classes, but the skill list still consist of a small group of 35 or so skills that represent all a character knows.

 

[AeroDm]

I came up with this a while ago but never put much thought into it, maybe you'll like.

The concept is that a high level fighter should be good at climbing, jumping, swimming, whatever even without ranks. He should be innately superior to a low level fighter, and in ways more drastic than the increases in strength he will likely see.

All classes get base bonuses to skills depending on what that class is good at. Although it doesn't work perfectly by any means, the saving throws are a good measure for what a class excells in. So Fortitude would be the physical skills, Reflex would be the agility skills, and Will would be the mental skills. All classes get the base saving throw bonuses to these skills.

You would remove the x4 skill points at 1st level and then allow ranks to be purchased regularly (ranks max at level or 1/2 level for CC). I would also consider reducing the number of skill points each class gets.

The base save bonus + any ranks + stat + misc would then be the skilll modifier. It makes it so that a high level character is better at everything than a low level character, although a dexterous rogue who loves to hide (2 reflex + 4 stat + 4 ranks) will still be better than your average 20th level fighter (6 reflex).

 

[Quickleaf]

I think it's sufficient to treat the Combat skill as a class-skill for fighters, barbarians, rangers, monks, and paladins. For all others it is a cross-class skill. Skill points applied in Combat grant a corresponding bonus to attack rolls. Combat is a unique skill in that it is not modified by an ability score. At first level, the maximum Combat skill a PC fighter could have would be +4; the max for a non-combatant would be +2. In either case this would require spending 4 skill points. In this system it is possible for a fighter to be better at combat at the cost of other skill.

 

[Dragonmarked DM]

That actually does make since with the class vs cross class skills. I apprciate everyones suggestions. I'm starting to see some ideas take shape.

If you have one particualar skill that encompasses all of combat, then I could see 6 ranks in that skill providing the normal additional attack at +1 and so on. But if the system was divided into multiple types of attack skills such as say swords, axes, unarmed combat and so on instead of one all encompassing skill, what would be a way of doing multi attacks? Perhaps the rule of 6 ranks gaining the extra attack still, but only with the weapon type that the ranks were bought in? It does lend some realism to the fact the a weapon you train more with would be more likely to give you better combat skills as opposed to a weapon you rarely use. Would PC's view this rule as fair? From a DM's stand point it makes since.

 

[tjoneslo]

I can think of two ways of doing the multiple attacks. First would be to keep the second attack at -5, third at -10 and so on, as it exists now, based upon the skill ranks.

The second would be to add a new "Multi-attack" feat, which would allow the character two (or more, the feat would stack) attacks per round with a weapon skill or group of weapon skills. It would allow a second attack in a round at -5, redardless of skill ranks and other modifiers. If you use this, you may need to remove or modify some other feats.