Mike Mearl's on simplifying skills in D&D

[Psion]

That's exactly what I was thinking! Not only Iron Heroes, but Iron Might!

Now there's an astute observation. I didn't see IH as hard to use. But Iron Might, as much as I wanted to love it, proved to be one of those ideas that looked like it would be cool, but too hard to actually use.

 

[The_Universe]

I can't get behind the loss of granularity that mearls' LJ suggests. I don't mind simplifying the number of skills (make fewer skills do more things, a la True20), but this denies players the option of having a surprisingly diplomatic fighter (no doubt gained at the expense of his ability to climb and jump) or a an acrobatic wizard, or something. These small, skill-based character peculiarities are what make D&D classes archetypes, and not unbreakable molds.

Let's leave character choice in the game, eh?

 

[JoeGKushner]

Now there's an astute observation. I didn't see IH as hard to use. But Iron Might, as much as I wanted to love it, proved to be one of those ideas that looked like it would be cool, but too hard to actually use.

That's me man. I'm astute all over the place!

 

[buzz]

I bought IH soon after came out and only within the past few months has it really grown on me. Now I love it and would find it hard to go back to 3.5 without importing some of your design choices (namely skill groups and stunts). So I'm just curious how you feel the project turned out, and really how it relates to some of your current musings and ideas.

There's so many good ideas in IH that need to be in D&D it ain't even funny.

 

[Cam Banks]

Probably as often as Cam Banks (or should it be Bank's?).

It'll happen one of these days, I'm sure.

Cheers,
Cam

 

[mearls]

Slightly off topic. Mike, I'm curious how this quote relates to your IH experience. It's not immediately clear to me. Did you feel no one was there to hit you over the head and that you somehow botched the project? Did it open a lot of conceptual doors for you? Something else that's gone completely over my head?

I bought IH soon after came out and only within the past few months has it really grown on me. Now I love it and would find it hard to go back to 3.5 without importing some of your design choices (namely skill groups and stunts). So I'm just curious how you feel the project turned out, and really how it relates to some of your current musings and ideas.

I think the project turned out rather well, but there are several areas where it needed more work.

For instance, stunts, zones, and tokens all compete with each other in terms of cool stuff you can do. I think I would've looked to ways to make things more standardized across the different systems, and then worked to ensure that each one did different stuff. For example, maybe zones are always better than an attack or stunt you can do. Stunts tend to improve attacks, and so on. I tried to make them too separate, rather than taking a more global look at the game.

 

[mearls]

Mike, regardless of any acceptance or criticism you may receive, keep posting those Livejournals and Design articles where time permits. For one thing, it's always fun to see a creative mind at work, and for another, few enough people affiliated with WotC talk to us as it is.

I like interacting with people on the Internet, but I have a much thicker skin than most. The average designer has better things to do than try to carry on a conversation amidst crap like:

But I'll write a system system of stunts to pad it out and further complicate it myself!

On the other hand, who better to speak from experience?

Is there an unwritten law of the Internet that, if you can't contribute anything intelligent, you must do what you can to wreck the signal to noise ratio?

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

If I really wanted an ultra-simplified skill system, I'd do something like

Get (class determined) skills at 1st level. Use level+3 for checks on these, use half that for all other skills.

Get an additional skill from your class list every 'x' levels (5?), which gets promoted to 'level+3'

I like this better than the Mearls suggestion. It simplifies bookkeeping while still giving players option for choice -- though I like retaining skill points in principle because it allows purchasing capability in other skills at lower levels of performance.

I also like the suggestion of combining certain skills (e.g. Hide + Move Silently = Stealth, Spot + Listen = Perception, Climb + Swim+Jump = Athletics, etc). The skill system mostly needs minor refinement and tweaking to streamline it, though -- I don't feel it needs a top-to-bottom overhaul.

Some of the areas needing work, IMO:

- Simplified rules for determining DCs
- Handlig the "fixed DC = not challenging" problem
- Suggestions for handling cheeck not covreed by skills 9other than "create new skills")
- Dropping "half ranks"

 

[buzz]

Mike, your willingness to participate here is much appreciated. You are like unto a god to me! Keep the ideas coming!

 

[The_Gneech]

Sometimes I feel like the only person who wants MORE skills not less.

I like the skill system as is. . .

You're not the only one!

My only would-be tweak to the current skill system is more points all around!

-The Gneech