Mike Mearl's on simplifying skills in D&D

[Cam Banks]

1. (From SWd20): No fixed synergy bonuses. If you have 5 ranks in a skill that, in a given situation, seems complementary to you and the DM, you get a +2 to the primary skill.

2. No fixed ability associations. E.g., depending on the situation, sometimes I should be using Cha with Intimidate, and sometimes I should be using Str. The DMG mentions this, but I'd prefer it be made more overt. Spycraft sort of does this.

It occurs to me that we might benefit from identifying which skills a character has 5 ranks in from those that it doesn't, outside of simply listing the skill ranks. This is critical for stat blocks, since those don't usually provide the ranks, just the bonuses. Many RPGs use simplistic terminology to describe proficiency, and we could do the same here; maybe any skill that you have 5 or more ranks in, you have achieved Expert proficiency. You can then create higher levels of proficiency, at each 5-rank break point (or 10-ranks, if that's too much), at which level the synergy bonus increases by +1. So, somebody with 10 ranks (or 15 ranks, if you go with 10-rank intervals) gives a +3 synergy bonus, etc.

Cheers,
Cam

 

[Psion]

1. (From SWd20): No fixed synergy bonuses. If you have 5 ranks in a skill that, in a given situation, seems complementary to you and the DM, you get a +2 to the primary skill.

This is my strong preference, because tracking permanent synergy bonus is a chargen tracking headache and a potential rules abuse to boot, with very little return in play value. Too bad most character generators support this.

I find the spycraft variant superior here as well. Spycraft bases your synergy bonus on the ranks in the skill, but only counts the best one. So instead of having to track multiple synergy pairs, you only need to worry about the best synergy bonus for each skill. And it closes up rules abuses.

2. No fixed ability associations. E.g., depending on the situation, sometimes I should be using Cha with Intimidate, and sometimes I should be using Str. The DMG mentions this, but I'd prefer it be made more overt. Spycraft sort of does this.

Spycraft has skills with two abilities, it doesn't blow the field wide open.

Some games like MegaTraveller and World of Darkness freely associate any skill with any stat you feel is appropriate.

Perhaps that's part of why I find the attitude of inability to roll your own task DCs baffling. I cut my teeth on games where the GM was relied on to make up tasks on the fly.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

Nice to see Mike dumming down the game again.

When speaking of "dumbing down" anything, spelling can make or break your point...

 

[buzz]

It occurs to me that we might benefit from identifying which skills a character has 5 ranks in from those that it doesn't, outside of simply listing the skill ranks.

I dunno. I think it would be simpler to just list the actual ranks in a stat block, a la M&M2e.

 

[buzz]

I find the spycraft variant superior here as well. Spycraft bases your synergy bonus on the ranks in the skill, but only counts the best one. So instead of having to track multiple synergy pairs, you only need to worry about the best synergy bonus for each skill. And it closes up rules abuses.

To take a page from Burning Empires, you could allow applying one bonus from an applicable knowledge skill, and one from an applicable non-knowledge skill, for a max possible +4 to any given roll. That might be a bit much, btu at least ti allows for some variation, yet caps the total bonus.

Perhaps that's part of why I find the attitude of inability to roll your own task DCs baffling. I cut my teeth on games where the GM was relied on to make up tasks on the fly.

Ditto. Still, I can see WotC erring on the side of codification, as they've said before that this makes life easier for newbie DMs. It also helps avoid situations where the DM sets an arbitrarily high DC for a task just because they want to force a failure, even though the same task may have been easier in another situation.

But, yeah. I think it would be simple enough to have a section for each skill that briefly summarizes "other stuff you could do with this skill, and appropriate DC ranges".

 

[Pielorinho]

TWEET!

Moderator's Notes:

Discussing the mechanics of this proposal is totally acceptable. Referring to someone's posts as crap, or to someone's ideas as "dumming down the game," or otherwise discussing anything in an incivil, impolite, or disrespectful manner is NOT acceptable.

Picture us mods, lurking in the background, swinging little three-day banhammers, with the bigger ones ready at hand. We're serious about this.

Daniel

 

[Baumi]

I think Skills are unnecessary complicated. They are always boring on level up's (upgrading the same again...) and difficult to explain to a new player. Besides Feats and Classes are much more important to define a Character (besides Rogues) .. most Charakters have always the same Skills anyway (I'm sure hat 9 out of 10 Mages take Concentration, Knowledge(arcana) and Spellcraft).

Another reason why I dislike the Skillsystem at the moment is because it is one of the hardest (and most boring) things to do for an NPC (espacially if you need one quick).

Anyway, I would really like a simplified skill system and Mearl's Idea Sound very interesting to me.

P.S.: The untrained Skills are: Decipher Script; Disable Device; Handle Animal; Knowledge; Open Lock; Profession; Sleight of Hand; Spellcraft; Tumble; Use Magic Device

 

[Gentlegamer]

The primary thrust of the idea is the idea that, by adding more flexibility to the system, you might encourage people to become more creative in play.

Exactly! In my experience, the more comprehensive rules there are, the more players tend to conceptualize their in game actions in terms of those rules.

"Why didn't you try to trip that orc sneaking past you?"

"I don't have that feat."

 

[Klaus]

I think Skills are unnecessary complicated. They are always boring on level up's (upgrading the same again...) and difficult to explain to a new player. Besides Feats and Classes are much more important to define a Character (besides Rogues) .. most Charakters have always the same Skills anyway (I'm sure hat 9 out of 10 Mages take Concentration, Knowledge(arcana) and Spellcraft).

Another reason why I dislike the Skillsystem at the moment is because it is one of the hardest (and most boring) things to do for an NPC (espacially if you need one quick).

Anyway, I would really like a simplified skill system and Mearl's Idea Sound very interesting to me.

P.S.: The untrained Skills are: Decipher Script; Disable Device; Handle Animal; Knowledge; Open Lock; Profession; Sleight of Hand; Spellcraft; Tumble; Use Magic Device

If by "untrained skills" you mean "trained only", then yes, those are the ones.

Two things I do on character sheets I make that I don't know why WotC doesn't do in theirs:

1 - Instead of having a box to check when a skill is "class" or "cross-class", I leave a space to note which class has that skill as a class skill (so a Rogue/Fighter can put "R" in front of Hide, "F" in front of Ride, "R/F" in front of Climb and "X" in front of Spellcraft, to note it as a "cross-class" skill).

2 - Instead of marking skills that can be used Untrained, I mark the skills that are Trained Only (with a superscripted "T"), since they are the minority.

 

[Gentlegamer]

If we roll Spot and Listen into a single skill, there'll be no difference between, say, a hawk and a bat. It'll be just "Tiny flying thing with a keen sense". One of the advantages of the current skill list is that it can mechanically reflect different archetypes or conditions.

Not so! For example, if the party is invisible, the referee will reduce or eliminate the hawk's ability to detect them from distance, while the bat will have no problem. Similarly, if a character rolls in the pig trough, he may be able to throw off the pursuit of the rabid dog ("Notice" skill with large scent component).

If Intimidate and Diplomacy are rolled into a single skill, there's no mechanical difference between a mean-looking half-orc bruiser and a suave and honey-tongued half-elf ambassador.

Does there need to be a mechanical difference? The core result is to get the other character to do what you want. A basic "Persuasion" skill would fit both circumstances. The difference would be in what the opposing character is more susceptible to, as determined by the referee.

We'd be back in 1e and 2e territory, where a knight and a swashbuckler were both Fighters and had no mechanical difference to reflect their fluff.

I think this comment ventures more into the territory of the combat system. Outside of combat, even under simplified skills, the knight will have horsemanship and "chivalry" based skills, and the swashbuckler "Acrobatics" (for tumbling and swinging on chandaliers).