• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

Marionnen's Musings: Skills? What Skills?

airwalkrr

Adventurer
A post about drastically simplifying skills.

In my quest for a simpler version of D&D 3.5, I have been thinking about skills. Skills in 3.5 are cool. But really there is a lot of complication in them when you think about it. Class skills, cross-class skills, synergy bonuses, maximum ranks, taking 10, taking 20, etc. It is something that has been difficult for me to explain to new players in the past. Unlike the relatively simple skill system used in Palladium games (which I only use as a comparison because I know it well), learning the ins and outs of the D&D 3.5 skill system is something that can truly take years to master. This is just a game for goodness sakes! While I appreciate the realism that complexity can simulate, I am finding myself more and more attracted to simple fun. So what can be done to make skills simpler? Getting rid of them would be a start. This is the just the beginning of the genesis of an idea so bear with me. I hope to develop this out a little more thoroughly over time.

As I discussed in Featless?, sometimes the simplest way to deal with a complex system is to just get rid of it. If you can find a way to do so while preserving the balance of the game and not requiring a massive re-write of the entire 3.5 library, then I think that is the ideal. Now when I say get rid of of skills, what I am really talking about is the fiddly bits, namely the stuff it takes to figure out what your bonus is, i.e. the math. I think it would be nice to be able to quickly calculate your character's bonus for something that could be considered a skill without needing half your character sheet to show all your math. So join me in a little thought experiment. What if there were only six skills and each of them corresponded to an ability score?

The Strength skill would encompass climbing, jumping, swimming, breaking down doors, bending open bars, and anything of that nature. The Dexterity skill would involve sneaking around, picking locks, balancing on precarious surfaces, tumbling past your opponents, and so on. Constitution would include not just the Concentration skill (which you might be surprised to learn comes into play for more characters than just spellcasters), but also checks against fatigue as well as starvation and thirst. You get the picture. As a rule of thumb, use the ability score associated with the 3.5 skill list as a guideline for what skill belongs where. If a skill is associated with an ability score, it falls under that ability score's skill.

So how would we determine what skills your character has and what your bonus is? This part is a little trickier if you want to preserve balance and probably requires some thought, but I think a good way to determine how many skills your character has would be to take the base number of skill points received at each level and divide by two. Thus a fighter would receive one skill, a druid would receive two, a ranger three, a rogue four, and so on. What about bonus skills for a high Intelligence? Well I haven't thought that far ahead yet, but for now let's work on the assumption that Intelligence is its own reward and not worry about that (perhaps a topic for a future blog post).

I can hear the arguments against this now. "Way overpowered!" Well maybe. But let's consider that there has been a general trend in the d20-based gaming market recently towards hefty consolidation of skills. Pathfinder and 4th edition both have considerably smaller lists of skills than 3.5, and many people like those skill systems quite a lot for this very reason. Does this go too far? I don't know. As I said this is just the beginning of an idea. We'll see where it goes.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

One of my biggest issues with most skill-systems is the reasoning behind any particular skill being based off a particular score. Climbing, Jumping and Swimming could all be DEX in some situations as well as STR.

Fighter's have limited uses as it is(in 3.5), and already get pretty weak amounts of skill-points(in 3.5). Making them even more niche would be....problematic IMO. To be honest, I don't even see why having "class skills" would be necessary. An Urban Ranger might know as much about forests and beasts as a barbarian knows about stealth and trickery. You don't even need skill-points, if you need the DC to gradually increase, give players a 1/2 level bonus to their skill-check. If you absolutely MUST have "class skills", let the player give you a reasonable argument on why their character knows X better than they know Y in the given situation. If the player developed a creative backstory for their character and their argument reasonably ties in to it(ie: I was raised by wolves therefore I should get a +2 bonus to nature checks), then leave that up to the DM's discretion. A +2 bonus is unlikely to make or break most rolls.
 

I've been using the Pathfinder system in my current 3.5e campaign (including dropping Synergy bonuses). It works really well.

To the OP: if you're going to do this and get rid of feat choices, and the various other simplifications you've been talking about, I have to ask: is 3.5e really the best choice for you? Perhaps one of the retro-clones, or "Savage Worlds", or... might be a better fit?
 


One of my biggest issues with most skill-systems is the reasoning behind any particular skill being based off a particular score. Climbing, Jumping and Swimming could all be DEX in some situations as well as STR.
One of the nifty things about the system I propose is that as long as the player can persuade the DM that the check he is attempting is based on his skill, he gets to use the skill. You needn't be weighed down by the skills as written. They are merely a guideline. Perhaps the Swim check is really more about navigating a tricky current. Viola! It becomes a Dex check. Maybe a Bluff check requires outsmarting an opponent rather than having a good poker face. Viola! It becomes an Int check. It is flexible, encourages players to think of creative ways to use their skills rather than being defaulted into one mode for a skill. In my current 3.5 campaign, I already use the variant from the DMG for different ability scores tied to different skills depending on the situation. A classic example is Strength-based Intimidate, in which you make an impressive display of strength to show your foe how much you could hurt him... if you so desired. :)
Fighter's have limited uses as it is(in 3.5), and already get pretty weak amounts of skill-points(in 3.5). Making them even more niche would be....problematic IMO.
Agreed. At least with this rule, you could have a fighter sage, a fighter with Int as his skill. Or you could have a wizard athlete. I've always thought cross-class penalties to be harsh.
To be honest, I don't even see why having "class skills" would be necessary. An Urban Ranger might know as much about forests and beasts as a barbarian knows about stealth and trickery. You don't even need skill-points, if you need the DC to gradually increase, give players a 1/2 level bonus to their skill-check. If you absolutely MUST have "class skills", let the player give you a reasonable argument on why their character knows X better than they know Y in the given situation. If the player developed a creative backstory for their character and their argument reasonably ties in to it(ie: I was raised by wolves therefore I should get a +2 bonus to nature checks), then leave that up to the DM's discretion. A +2 bonus is unlikely to make or break most rolls.
Sounds like 4e, which didn't have a terrible skill system, but was seriously lacking in choice. I think there needs to be a higher threshold than a "reasonable argument" to get a skill though. Skills are part of game balance. A rogue doesn't get a high hit die and more than one good save or good weapon proficiencies because he is a skill guy.
I've been using the Pathfinder system in my current 3.5e campaign (including dropping Synergy bonuses). It works really well.

To the OP: if you're going to do this and get rid of feat choices, and the various other simplifications you've been talking about, I have to ask: is 3.5e really the best choice for you? Perhaps one of the retro-clones, or "Savage Worlds", or... might be a better fit?
I've considered it. Heck, 1st edition AD&D is really my favorite system. But I still find 3.5 to be the easiest to run because of the way the mechanics of the system are unified. Retro-clones just tend to be a little too rules light and vague at times, not to mention a general lack of internally consistent mechanics.
 

If skills are tied to an ability score then players will be lobbying to use their best score instead of the one tied to the skill. This system doesn't account for actual training and substitutes natural ability.

Simplifying the application of skills would serve me better IMO. (Static DC's and no synergies unless permitted by DM fiat) Cut out corner cases that, while realistic (or verisimilitude-inous?), bog down play with minutia that is unlikely to alter outcomes in a significant manner. My example of useless minutia would be diagonal movement in 3.e. It could be simplified and still preserve it's effect. No need to push it to the point of square fireballs.

For a sill based example the hide skill would be so much easier if the DC was the same all the time. It would only need the caveat that you couldn't hide while being observed. Moving silently is useful but it is very different from hiding and should not be rolled into one skill. It wouldn't eliminate the need for spot or listen but it would negate the need for many rolls. Moving silently could then be used against tremor sense. Silence is, well silent.
 

If you've read anything I've written in rules discussions, you know that I'm a rules guy. Give me written rules, every time.

Now all rules need the guiding hand of the DM, but the RAW have to give the DM some guidelines too. If we reduce every rule to "Ask the DM", then we have to presume that every DM starts off with the same understanding of the game that we have. And you know that that's not the case.

Now maybe you want "Skill Groups", where general packages of skills can be paid for.

Think "Athletics": A skill group that includes running, jumping, climbing, swimming etc.

Or "Nimbleness": a skill group that includes balance, tumbling, jump, etc.
"Scholar" would include a set number of Knowledge skills (probably 5).

Certain professional packages might be available as well, such as Herbalist, Farmer or Blacksmith.

The number of skills each group would include should be the same across the board, again 5 seems like a good number.

Now that doesn't mean that you couldn't specialize in certain areas by adding to the individual skills within any group, and as shown, some skills could occur in more than one group. It would also be subject to to cross-class rules and penalties. Base cost might be three, with cross class being five or six. (Special note: If your total skill points per level are less than three, you can buy an in-class group level anyway by spending all the skill points you get on it.)

This could take the place of synergy bonuses. You don't get bonuses to Diplomacy if you're good at Bluff, but you can buy them together at a discount.

The "Pay the minimum" rule would help de-marginalize the Fighter by giving him a functional minimum of five points per level, if and only if he buys a group.

Just a thought.
 

If skills are tied to an ability score then players will be lobbying to use their best score instead of the one tied to the skill. This system doesn't account for actual training and substitutes natural ability.

Simplifying the application of skills would serve me better IMO. (Static DC's and no synergies unless permitted by DM fiat) Cut out corner cases that, while realistic (or verisimilitude-inous?), bog down play with minutia that is unlikely to alter outcomes in a significant manner. My example of useless minutia would be diagonal movement in 3.e. It could be simplified and still preserve it's effect. No need to push it to the point of square fireballs.

For a sill based example the hide skill would be so much easier if the DC was the same all the time. It would only need the caveat that you couldn't hide while being observed. Moving silently is useful but it is very different from hiding and should not be rolled into one skill. It wouldn't eliminate the need for spot or listen but it would negate the need for many rolls. Moving silently could then be used against tremor sense. Silence is, well silent.
How very old-school of you. :) I don't like the idea of static DCs for things like sneaking around though. It makes sense for things like balancing on a tight rope. But it ought to be much more difficult to sneak up on a dragon than a troll. What I already do in my campaign is set a DC equal to 10 + the monster's Spot or Listen check. It removes a bit of the dice rolling without really changing the odds in the long run.
If you've read anything I've written in rules discussions, you know that I'm a rules guy. Give me written rules, every time.

Now all rules need the guiding hand of the DM, but the RAW have to give the DM some guidelines too. If we reduce every rule to "Ask the DM", then we have to presume that every DM starts off with the same understanding of the game that we have. And you know that that's not the case.

Now maybe you want "Skill Groups", where general packages of skills can be paid for.

Think "Athletics": A skill group that includes running, jumping, climbing, swimming etc.

Or "Nimbleness": a skill group that includes balance, tumbling, jump, etc.
"Scholar" would include a set number of Knowledge skills (probably 5).

Certain professional packages might be available as well, such as Herbalist, Farmer or Blacksmith.

The number of skills each group would include should be the same across the board, again 5 seems like a good number.

Now that doesn't mean that you couldn't specialize in certain areas by adding to the individual skills within any group, and as shown, some skills could occur in more than one group. It would also be subject to to cross-class rules and penalties. Base cost might be three, with cross class being five or six. (Special note: If your total skill points per level are less than three, you can buy an in-class group level anyway by spending all the skill points you get on it.)

This could take the place of synergy bonuses. You don't get bonuses to Diplomacy if you're good at Bluff, but you can buy them together at a discount.

The "Pay the minimum" rule would help de-marginalize the Fighter by giving him a functional minimum of five points per level, if and only if he buys a group.

Just a thought.
Now this, I like. The skill packages idea is intriguing at the least. I believe that may be the subject of a future blog my good [MENTION=6669384]Greenfield[/MENTION].
 


Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top