Mike Mearl's on simplifying skills in D&D

[I'm A Banana]

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 might even get rid of all 'trained only' skills, so that all skills can be used 'untrained'.

I'm not going to do it, but if I wanted to, that is the way I'd probably go about it.

This is pretty much exactly what FFZ does to simplify the skills.

This, plus combining a good chunk of them into 1 super-skill.

 

[glass]

Mike, your willingness to participate here is much appreciated.

Seconded.

While I wouldn't want your idea implemented in a future edition D&D (except perhaps as an optional variant in UA), I appreciate your 'thinking outloud', and I wouldn't want you to take my comments as indicating otherwise. I was just surprised that you mentioned stunt systems, when you had designed two yourself.

OTOH, I would very much like to see IH-style skill groups (or something very much like them) in the next edition of D&D when it arrives in 2012!


glass.

 

[AFGNCAAP]

I think the skill system should stick around, though I do think that the list of skills could be condensed somewhat.

I think a general Notice skill (instead of seperate Search/Spot/Listen checks) may work. I could see feats being adapted to provide bonuses in certain areas (like a +4 to spot, listen, or smell something)--it'd be a conditional modifier, which would be no different than the conditional modifiers to skills as they are right now (like the dwarf's Appraise bonus on metal or stone items only, for example).

Also, a general Stealth skill (that combines Hide and Move Silently) also seems feasible, also using conditional modifiers for certain areas, as well.

I'd argue that Spellcraft and Knowledge (arcana) should be combined into one skill (and similarly, Psicraft and Knowledge [psionics]), esp. since both are Int-based skills. If you want to still have soem distinction between knowing magic traditions & knowing how magic works, then grant spellcasters only a class ability to apply their Knowledge (arcana) skill for Spellcraft-like checks (sorta similar to the rogue's trapfinding class ability, in essence)--heck, call the class ability Spellcraft; do the same for Knowledge (psionics) with psychics, as well (calling their class ability Psicraft).

In addition, why not have a general Use Odd Device skill (which could cover Use Magic Device and Use Psionic Device, as well as possibly for using any other intricate device [other than weapons])? It'd be a way for characters to "use that weird doohickey" in any event, whether it's a magic item, a psionic item, an artificer's complex device, an artifact, or even a stray piece of high-tech equipment.

Open Lock and Disable Device could be fused into one skill, Manipulate Device. However, I could see these staying seperate, esp. due to synergy bonuses from other skills (like specific Craft skills).

If you really want to, why not go with an Interact skill that takes over the functions of Bluff, Diplomacy, Gather Information, Intimidate, and maybe even Handle Animal. Once again, conditional modifiers can apply in different areas (like a druid's/ranger's Wild Empathy bonuses/abilities only applying to Interact skill checks with animals). But, I could easily see these skills staying seperate.

But, at the very least, I could go with Notice (instead of Listen, Search, & Spot), Stealth (instead of Hide & Move Silently), and Knowledge (arcana) (instead of Knowledge [arcana] & Spellcraft).

 

[Klaus]

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. 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. 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.

 

[JoeGKushner]

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?

Wreck the signal to noise ratio? Man, I didn't know it was that fragile!

It seems a COMPLETE turn about face from a guy who wrote multiple sub skill systems. Iron Heroes and Iron Might have some similiarites but are different enough that both warrent mention.

Sorry if you don't like a few people bringing it up in relation to this 'NEW' idea of yours.

We now return you to your signal to noise ratio.

 

[Herobizkit]

I'll probably get a lot of calls of "boo-urns" for this one, but I kind of like the way the Shadowrun game handles their skills. IIRC, you can choose any skill (you're not limited by your "class") and, at the expense of doing poorly in other skills in your field, you can get a concentration (for +2) and even specialize (+4) in a particular skill.

IDHTBIFOM (and as such I'm grossly generalizing), but take Athletics for example, and say you had a skill rank of 4. If one were to take a concentration in Acrobatics, they'd get a +2 to Acrobatics but a -2 to anything else listed as a potential concentration (possibilities are listed under each general skill). If, for sake of demonstration, a player picked a "specialization" in Tightrope walking, they'd have a +4 to Tightrope walk but a -4 to other non-concentrated fields.

So, with a skill rank of 4, a player would have 6 (4+2) skill ranks in Acrobatics, a 8 (4+4) in Tightrope walking, and a rank 0 in anything else generally related to Athletics. By the same token, a character who does not concentrate or specialize gets a flat 4 ranks in anything remotely related to Athletics. Why one would choose to concentrate/specialize is completely up to the player's and/or DM's gaming style.

That, and the True20 way of doing skills also rocks.

 

[Pielorinho]

I could see a similar idea with sneaking. Just have one person roll once for the entire party, then have everyone separately modify that one roll for individual hide and move silently (producing two separate numbers per player). Thus we reduce the ever-growing chance of one of the ninjas rolling a '1' on one of the scores, even if all the other ninjas get high rolls.

Spycraft has an interesting mechanic here: I think it's called Team Checks. If the whole group is trying to do exactly the same thing, then the GM decides: can the weakest link in the chain doom the group, or does only one person need to succeed for the whole group to succeed? The GM has that person (the least or the most competent) roll and apply their modifiers; that determines success for the whole group.

For example, a group of goblins are sneaking up to our campsite while we eat dinner. The most observant member of our group makes a team check: if even one person notices the sneaks, she can alert everyone else, and it's as if everyone succeeds. Meanwhile, the klutziest goblin makes their team's check: if just one goblin trips over a log and cusses up a storm, then the PCs will hear them and the ambush will be ruined.

I kinda like it.

Daniel

 

[buzz]

Spycraft has an interesting mechanic here...

Spycraft has LOTS of interesting mechanics. It and IH are the games I cite the most when people talk about improving D&D.

 

[Thurbane]

What is it with Mike Mearl?

Nice to see Mike dumming down the game again.

Perhaps if Mike gets his way, D&D 4E will be like this:

Everyone has Skill, Stamina and Luck. The only dice in the game are 2d6. Monsters only have 2 stats.

 

[buzz]

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".

True, Klaus. But my point is, is this a meaningful difference in play? I think the "special effect" of their keen senses isn't really relevant. High levels in either skill will get them to the same end-goal, and being sneaky in general always requires maxing out the two "sneak" skills. IOW, while splitting them might make some real-world sense, I don't think it really makes game sense.

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. 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.

Well, this I agree with, which is why, despite my undying love for Mearls, I don't really like his idea. I'd never merge Intimidate and Diplomacy.

Two ideas I mentioned on Mearls' blog to make skills more fun:

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.