Looking to revamp the skill system!

[Treebore]

Your wrong as far as I know, otherwise why would they have Epic level rules in the 3.5 DMG, other thant to "update" the core rules of the 3.0 Epic Level Handbook. It also has to be core since there is no other WOTC book that gives the EPic Levels a comprehensive treatment. Plus I believe it has been stated to be a core book somewhere. Irregardless, if you run an epic Level game it is as core as you can get. So it wins by default if for no other reason.

 

[Nifft]

Quick comments:

1) DMG contains Epic stuff, so Epic is technically "Core".
1b) However, we're in House Rules, so "Core" shouldn't be an issue.

2) Setting DCs for Nifft's Scaling Skill System, Example 1: A specialized Rogue.
Assume Int 14, non-human (so 10 sp/level, 40 sp at 1st level).
Level 1: 10 skills at rank-4.
Level 5: 5 skills at rank-4, 5 skills at rank-8 (or 20 skills at rank-4, etc.).
Level 9: 5 skills at rank-4, 2 skills at rank-8, 3 skills at rank-12 (+1/level left over sp).
Level 13: 5 skills at rank-4, 2 skills at rank-8, 1 skill at rank-12, 2 skills at rank-16 (+2/level left over sp).
Level 17: 5 skills at rank-4, 2 skills at rank-8, 1 skill at rank-12, 2 skills at rank-20 (no left over sp).
Level 20: 5 skills at rank-4, 2 skills at rank-8, 1 skill at rank-12, 1 skill at rank-20, 1 skill at rank-23 (+4/level left over sp).

IMHO, it's not unreasonable to have one or two skills at level 13 with which you are simply better than everyone else. It's clearly a big deal to specialize this much. (In Core D&D, you'd get to "specialize" in 10 skills -- not quite the same thing.)


So, setting DCs: since skill ranks will on average be lower, you can get away with significantly lower DCs. For example, what was once a DC 94 check should now be a DC 34 check (!!!) (ranks for 84 skill points + 1d20). You can leverage the chart that I made for skill points -> ranks as a cheat sheet for old DC -> new DC -- just don't forget that DCs are always about 10 higher than the skill they're checking.

Since you specified that this is a low-magic setting, we don't have to worry too much about skill-enhancing magic items screwing up our calculations. My advice is to grant a few +2 to +4 skill boosting items, and charge a lot for them. That +2 and +4 are worth up to +14 and +28 skill points (at 17th level and up), so the bonuses clearly scale well in "Epic" rules.

So, my advice on skill items is divide the bonus by 5/2 and raise the price.

Let us know how your game goes! -- N

 

[Treebore]

The best house rules always account for all core rules.

 

[Bastoche]

Arguing for arguing's sake?

The original poster talks about a low magic system. Even in the non-epic scale, it's not even core-rules. And I wouldn't dare imagine how a low magic world would consider epic levels... But that's just me.

As an argument in regards to epic being core rule, on the WOTC forum, the epic forum is not in the core rules forum.

The best house-rules are only those suitable for your gaming group. It's not as if they were going to be published...

 

[Treebore]

Low magic is not inherently defined as non-epic. If a DM wants to make a house rule that doesn't account for Epic, that is fine. As you infer it is their game. However, if you want to solicit opinions in a public forum than all core rules should be considered, not assumed to be excluded simply because some, or even most, people don't do Epic Levels.

So if someone wants rules ideas that would only apply to their game, but not be useful to me, why should I even participate? Are people on these boards becoming as exclusionary as the people on WOTC's boards? This is supposed to be as inclusive a community as possible.

 

[Nifft]

The best house rules always account for all core rules.

Nope.

The best house rules always account for all the other rules in the campaign.

If you're not trying to publish something with WotC, you do not need to account for all WotC Core rules.

-- N

 

[A'koss]

Originally posted by Nifft:
Since you specified that this is a low-magic setting, we don't have to worry too much about skill-enhancing magic items screwing up our calculations. My advice is to grant a few +2 to +4 skill boosting items, and charge a lot for them. That +2 and +4 are worth up to +14 and +28 skill points (at 17th level and up), so the bonuses clearly scale well in "Epic" rules.

That's very much in line with what I was thinking as far skill-boost items are concerned. Although "cost" per se won't really be a problem... no mortal can actually craft a permanent magic item. And although you can find them (remnants from Ragnarok), they are usually too rare and too precious to sell. Those that do get sold...? Pretty much ad hoc - that is, whatever you can get for it.

Treebore, I should point out that my campaign house rules differ significantly from the core rules of 3e to accomodate the lower magic setting. Nifft pretty much hits it on the head regarding house rules - they only have to support the rules you are using. So essentially I'm just asking for help out of the goodness of people's hearts...

As far as Epic Level play goes, there is a 30 level mortal limit in our game. So yes, there is some EL considerations to be hammered out however many of the EL uses of skills will require some tweaking to bring them into line for our style of game. We all love high level play and the idea of almost superhuman use of skills, but we all agree that skills should not allow you to do the highly implausible or impossible - walking on clouds or turning a hostile foe into a friend willing to lay down his life for you with a few well chosen words, for example.

We've been using Open-ended Rolls (Roll a N20, roll again and add it to the total) almost as long as we've been playing 3e so we do need to address what high DC rolls can do. If anyone has any thoughts on the matter, feel free to share! (Nifft, you got started here, keep going! )

Cheers!

Akoss.

 

[Jondor_Battlehammer]

An experiment I plan on running in my game is...

Class and Cross Class cost 1/1.

Class skills have a rank cap of (level +4)
Cross Class have a cap of (level.)

Starting skill points are 5 x base skill points.

Base skill points are as class +2.

Thus a Fighter could have high ranks in Spot and Hide, but they will be lower than a Rogue's (+4 ranks), and be working off of traditionally weak scores for the Fighter, while traditionally strong scores for the Rogue.

I'm still consider what, if anything, to do about cross classes.