Crazy Jerome
First Post
For attacks and damage, it probably won't help. You'd need a different attack or damage system or both to make switching from labels to numbers useful, and neither of those things are likely to accomplish much in a system that uses AC and hit points.
See, with attacks and damage, I guess I agree with Abdul's later answer--it is complicated enough for what D&D is trying to model. So leave it alone. We already have three raw dimensions: attack, damage, and conditions. And then we have a wealth of gaming tradition that builds up around that (not least of all magic), that makes those three sufficient for an abstract system. (Note that the 4 defenses in 4E dont' add another dimension to attack, but they are a reasonable short and coherent way to enrich the attack dimension itself. We get the same effect in other aspects, though I can certainly sympathize with the thought that the conditions are too nitpicky and too long a list.)
It is difficult to say exactly what a better skill system would be like, which embodied that same richness. I can throw out ideas for examples, but not having the working system and play experience with it to back it up, my examples will necessarily be highly faulty. (Every time I do, I get the same treatment that, well, Mike and Montes' columns are getting--people focus on the examples instead of the idea they are trying to convey.
)But I do disagree with Abdul that D&D doesn't need a similar level of richness in its skills. Ideally, it need not be terribly complex. After all, there is nothing terribly complex about attacks, damage, and conditions (conceptually) either. (There is bloat, but this isn't the same thing as complexity.)
Here are some of the problems that are caused in the skill system by putting everything into one dimension, and having all inputs reduce down into the d20 roll. The skill challenge mitigates this somewhat, but it is a kludge. At heart, this is part of why skill challenges are hard to communicate:
1. To keep game handling, character generation, and range of results under control, extremely artifical boundaries must be placed on stacking. 3E failed in these boundaries somewhat, which is why derived skill values went berserk. 4E handled this problem by ... not solving the root cause, but by placing fairly strict boundaries. Such boundaries have unwanted side effects. (Your dog bites the mailman every morning. You solve this using a 6 foot logging chain and a giant tree. it solves the problem for the mailman, but isn't idea for youl.)
2. Success is binary. By itself, this isn't a huge problem. Attacks are binary after all. The problem is, that the success also relates to the strength of the effect and any special conditions applied. And anything else we want to model about the skill effort. The skill system tries to finesse this with floating difficulties and sleight of hand. How long does it take to do something? There are a few examples and suggestions, but this is mainly fiat.
3. The mechanics are skewed versus many player sensibilities of how things ought to work in the game world. Whether the d20 range being too wide, the early ability mods being too high, training meaning too much or too little--it is simply and somehow felt off. Again, not a problem in and of itself--someone will feel this way no matter what you do--but you can't fix this with circumstance bonuses or other mods. There aren't enough levers to play with to move the sensibility where you want it.
4. People get unhappy with the granularity. Again, people will be unhappy no matter what. Some people want extremely fine, others would be happy with it even coarser than 4E. Perhaps Dex skills effectively collapse into a Dex check. It is difficult to adjust granularity. You probably can't make a system that will satisfy the full range of preferences here. That's no reason not to build in a bit of movement on either side of where ever it is decided to center it.
Now, just as a rough example, and one that I don't advocate, you could do a straight parallel with combat. You've got:
Check: Same d20 roll as now, with mods--did I succeed or not. Success is not final, anymore than hitting the monster automatically kills it. But I get some success if I make the roll.
Effect: Analogous to damage, what did I get from that success. I was able to sneak that far, or pick that many tumblers, or recall 2 historical facts, or gain a major concession in the talks.
Special conditons: I temporarily change the circumstances of the check, which matters for what follows. Not only did I gain a concession, the baron was charmed by my introduction of my friend and took both of us for a tour. A sound I made while sneaking distracted a guard, given my friends a better shot.
You can't have rules for all that, at that level of detail. That way lies madness that would give pause to even the most rabid 3E simulation fans.
I believe this is the type of complication that Abdul fears I advocate moving towards?What you can have is a framework to manage that. Perhaps this is an extension of a better skill challenge framework, or perhaps it is something else. Labels on difficulty is one possible piece of such a framework.
What does an "expert" sneak task require? Well, I'll need to at least have a decent shot at making some expert checks (however that is accomplished). The range of results will need to be within my realm of reasonable capabilities. Shifting my journeyman rank up to expert by cleverness for the check, I might get lucky sneaking past one guard for a short distance. I probably won't get lucky sneaking past 8 guards between the front gate and the keep door, even in the darkness, unless I can find a way to shift the rank up to expert for the results. (I'll leave why player cleverness here would be different for those situations as an exercise for the reader. Surely that is obvious.) Special conditions? Those are for when I come up with something really odd that the DM judges out to be useful somehow, but don't necessarily change the raw situation that much. I didn't find a way to manage 8 guards, but bluffing the first one got him to take along two of his buddies.
Remember, please treat this as a poor example of the kind of things I mean could be explored.
What about when you just want a simple check, much like you do now? There is nothing special about the lock, and all you want to know is can the character pick it quickly? It's an expert lock, the character has a certain skill adjusted for whatever they say (if anything). They roll, and any possible effect is good enough. Special likely don't apply. Boom, you're done! If you want to play all your skill checks this way, or in a series like the current skill challenge? Go ahead. All you've got weighing you down compared to now is a simple label. Cross out expert on your sheet and put in a number.
Out of the four listed problem, probably the least obvious way in which they are helped by such a solution is the first one, boundaries. Consider elven boots in such a system. They could add to the check. Or they might instead give you a bonus rank on results. You can sneak in most of the same situations you always did, but now you can handle more complications. But even better for something as neat as elven boots is special conditions. You don't have to make it over-powered to feel worthwhile (you are completely silent and never roll, no matter what). Nor do you limit it to a +2 or +5 or +10 or whatever crude boundary limit sneaky magic is allowed to get. No, you get something like, "On a failure, the foes that perceive you must make an insight check versus the same DC, or mistake your tread for that of an animal." The orcs are looking for a deer or a bear now instead of an elf. What can you get out of that? Up to you!
Last edited:
