Mike Mearl's on simplifying skills in D&D

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Hear, hear!

 

[Lanefan]

Yeah, because race/class restrictions, level limits, special abilities strictly bound to classes, and the like are all about creative freedom!

That's where changing the frame comes in.

IOW, I think yours is the most pie-in-the-sky, off the mark analogy evar.

At least, until my next one...

Lanefan

 

[Rasyr]

Personally, I would like the current d20 system far more if the combat and magic were reduced to skills - the former being opposed offensive / defensive skills, with armor as DR to cover instances where defense fails, and the latter as something akin to EoM,ME tweaked a bit with the idea of complex skill checks from UA for more potent / complex spells. In turn, there would need to be different skill pools for combat, magic, and general skills - each class having a variant number of each to reflect its roles, with Int based bonus skill points becoming more versatile due to being able to be assigned to any of the pools.

Needless to say, however, this would be a more complex and in some respects almost completely different system. Personally, I don't like the simplified skill system - or any simplified skill system. Combining Listen and Spot is often suggested, but I personally dislike such - perhaps because I wear glasses but have fine hearing.

Joe already mentioned it, bUt I feel that it bears repeating...

You are basically describing Rolemaster, or even HARP. Heck, I even did up a Damage Dice system for one EN World regular so that he could play HARP and still keep D&D style damage. (in this system, damage dice is determined by size of attack, and number of damage dice determined by how well you hit target (i.e. your roll minus foe's defenses = number of dice used - the better your roll, the more damage).

You can even find a link to HARP Lite in my sig, and on the HARP website, you can find guidelines for using HARP with a d20 rather than d100.

 

[buzz]

The "stacks of rulebooks" (sigh; has the game really come to that?)...

I owned stacks of rulebooks for OD&D, 1e, and 2e, too.

Regardless, maybe I wasn't making my point clear. Even if we're talking about one rulebook, where's my incentive to shell out any money at all for it if the rules boil down to, "Roll some dice when the GM tells you to, and then trust they'll have something interesting happen"? I can do that for free!

I don't know 3.5 well enough to answer this, but if what you say is true the days of micromanagement have (sadly) already arrived.

I don't see how not pulling a bait-and-switch situation like having the DM ignore your Jump check result in order to have you automatically fail to discern the illusion trap he railroaded you into has to do with micro/macro anything. Even 1e would have called total BS on that situation, if I remember the illusion rules right.

 

[sniffles]

For my own house rules, I added to the skill list (including weapon skills). Put me on the side of not liking Mearls' idea.


RC

I have to chime in with agreement. Having learned to roleplay in systems that have more skill choices than D&D, I like skills and feel that the current system doesn't offer enough class skills. For example, I think it's a crying shame that not all classes get at least one Knowledge skill.

I don't find the skill system as it stands cumbersome at all and wouldn't care to see it reduced or streamlined. I'd prefer to see it slightly expanded instead.

 

[Gentlegamer]

I'm for more skills . . . rolled into broader skills.

 

[Shadeydm]

One theme that I see over and over on the boards is players who feel that in all instances they should know exactly what number of the dice will spell sucess for any given action. When they arent handed these numbers on a silver platter then we see terms like DM Fiat tossed about. Stop for a minute and consider that you as a player are not privy to info on every existing circumstance that might influence the die roll nor should you be. This doesn't mean the DM is inventing rules as he goes along or trying to cheat you. It means the DM knows stuff you don't and shouldn't as a player.

*edited for spelling

 

[buzz]

Stop for a minute and consider that you as a player are not privy to info on every existing circumstance that might influence the die roll nor should you be. This doesn't mean the DM is inventing rules as he goes along or trying to cheat you. It means the DM knows stuff you don't and shouldn't as a player.

There's a difference between not being privy to info (a standard aspect of D&D), and there being no info to which to be privy. I don't see anyone here demanding that players be let in on every DC they have to hit, either.

 

[Psion]

One theme that I see over and over on the boards is players who feel that in all instances they should know exactly what number of the dice will spell sucess for any given action.

Over and over on the boards? What boards? These? Sounds like you are awfully familiar with someone with 3 posts.

I've never noted such a trend on these boards or in the game. A few players here and there who came from previous games where that was the rule... but they learn soon enough. As far as I've ever seen, the player reporting total and then the DM spelling out results is the norm.

 

[Lanefan]

I don't see how not pulling a bait-and-switch situation like having the DM ignore your Jump check result in order to have you automatically fail to discern the illusion trap he railroaded you into has to do with micro/macro anything. Even 1e would have called total BS on that situation, if I remember the illusion rules right.

If you had no reason to disbelieve the far side wasn't there, you'd behave as though it was there. Your buddies would almost certainly catch on, though, once you'd fallen right through it.

Lanefan