Mike Mearl's on simplifying skills in D&D

[Glyfair]

I know Mike has gotten a lot of flak from a certain segment of the ENWorld users. However, I think this idea of his, from his blog will get more support from that segment than many others.

Ditch all skills that can be used untrained.

Everything that doesn't match a remaining skill is now an attribute check. Cut every class's skill ranks in half. When you buy a skill, you buy the right to make checks using its relevant attribute. Don't keep track of ranks. You get access to a new skill at levels 5, 10, 15, and 20.

An attribute check is d20 + the relevant ability score (not the modifier; the entire score).

DCs range from 10 to 30 for most tasks, with 5 point increments. The (DC - the ability score + 1) times 5 is the chance of success. Some checks are opposed, just as per the rules now.

Everything else is up to the DM.

My thinking behind this is that a skill system is only as interesting as the players and DM want to make it. Adding more rules to the D&D skill system, such as for stunts, doesn't make it more interesting. It just bloats the system. These rules allow a DM and players to find their own level of importance for skills.

These rules don't tell you what you can do with them. They just provide a framework for doing stuff.

I think it's an interesting idea in principle, but I think the details need a lot of work and tweaking to be functional.

 

[GoodKingJayIII]

Yeah, I read that a few days ago. It's an interesting idea, but I'd have to see him flesh it out before I gave it more thought. As it stands it sounds way too simple.

Thing is, he already kinda did this with Iron Heroes. Skill Groups are a great idea, probably something I'd like to see in future supplements and editions of the game. Retains versatility and simplifies the system a great deal.

 

[delericho]

Not for me, thanks. The current system models the career diplomat, the guy who's just likeable, and the people who are somewhere in between. Mike's suggestion... does not.

 

[Garnfellow]

I like the basic thrust of his suggestion -- simplifying and consolidating the skills system, which to me is the one piece of 3.x that still needs serious work. Oh, there are plenty of things to tweak, but skills alone are the subsystem I would want to see drastically revised. Sure, it's a heck of a lot better than 2e's Non-Weapon Proficiency system, which was a lot better than nothing -- but the bang for your buck in terms of tracking all those skill points just isn't there. Even John Cooper doesn't generally bother trying to calculate skill points in his reviews.

Many of the OGL games already seem to be moving toward a simpler, grainier skill system. AE combines several skills, like Hide/Move Silently and Listen/Spot, as does True20. And as has been pointed out, Mearls has already come close to this with Iron Heroes skill groups.

 

[glass]

Adding more rules to the D&D skill system, such as for stunts, doesn't make it more interesting. It just bloats the system. These rules allow a DM and players to find their own level of importance for skills.

This from the guy who wrote Iron Heroes?


glass.

 

[Cam Banks]

I wonder how often Mike gets people adding in apostrophes in his last name?

Cheers,
Cam

 

[Psion]

Hate it.

I think the skill system in d20 is underplayed and I typically award more points.

The adoption of a real skill system (vice the laughable proficiency system) is one of the main things I liked about 3e when it came along. This looks like it reverts down that route.

I want D&D to be more than a dungeon crawl game.

Of course, I suspect the C&C fans will be along any time to crow about how their system already does this.

 

[Psion]

Many of the OGL games already seem to be moving toward a simpler, grainier skill system. AE combines several skills, like Hide/Move Silently and Listen/Spot, as does True20.

That's a far cry from scrapping skills and just using stats.

Some might call it throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Of course, I suspect the C&C fans will be along any time to crow about how their system already does this.

I thought it sounded familiar. C&C basically does something along these lines, doesn't it?

 

[GlassJaw]

I don't like it either, at all actually.

Crunchy bits aside, my main problem with it is that it doesn't differentiate between someone who has natural talent bu no formal training versus someone who not naturally gifted at something but has trained extensively.

It also doesn't account for varying levels or train or ability.

I really don't like the all-or-nothing approach to skills. Varying degrees of ability must be taken into account.