Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Narrative Space Options for non-spellcasters
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Ahnehnois" data-source="post: 6147427" data-attributes="member: 17106"><p>The M&M idea is similar to what BSG and Serenity do, and I'm a big fan of that philosophy. Let the DM give the players something as well as take away.</p><p></p><p>Agreed. The way skills are allocated was really cool when 3.0 came out, but it needs a major revision to give players more (as opposed to the direction many post-3e games have taken in giving them less). I'm not really in favor of skill consolidation, but I do think characters are skill-starved.</p><p></p><p>***</p><p></p><p>I think the big-picture solution to this issue (and a lot of others) is to put all action resolution under one structure. Instead of having one set of math for skills, another for attacks, another for saves, etc., have one mathematical standard. Instead of skills, feats, class abilities, powers, etc., have one way of distributing scalable abilities. The best existing approach, and the example I'll use, is 3e skills.</p><p></p><p>So, say that your attack roll, your save, your diplomacy, and your magic were all represented by a skill bonus, which you paid skill points for, and which is rolled against a DC or an opposed roll. Then it becomes easier to balance the <em>game</em> (as opposed to trying to whac-a-mole problematic PC abilities).</p><p></p><p>Let's say that there's one skill for Diplomacy, and one for Enchantment. Clearly, the Enchantment skill can do things that Diplomacy cannot. But now you can look at them side by side. And you can change them as needed, so both are appealing game options, and both work in simulating what they're suppose to simulate. Maybe you shift the DC's to make it clear that it's easier to talk to people than to charm or compel them. Maybe you split Enchantment into multiple skills so casters pay more. Maybe you restrict access to those skills by requiring feats or other prerequisites. Maybe you limit the use of Enchantment per time through some quasi-Vancian model (knowing that you would never do that to Diplomacy). Maybe you have the magical abilities drain the caster's life force. There's all kinds of options.</p><p></p><p>You still have the basic reality that some skills can do things that are better than others. Just as Use Magic Device is better than Craft (Basketweaving). But you can make them at least as balanced as the existing skill system. It's clear what each skill can do and what the number next to it means. And who complains about that?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ahnehnois, post: 6147427, member: 17106"] The M&M idea is similar to what BSG and Serenity do, and I'm a big fan of that philosophy. Let the DM give the players something as well as take away. Agreed. The way skills are allocated was really cool when 3.0 came out, but it needs a major revision to give players more (as opposed to the direction many post-3e games have taken in giving them less). I'm not really in favor of skill consolidation, but I do think characters are skill-starved. *** I think the big-picture solution to this issue (and a lot of others) is to put all action resolution under one structure. Instead of having one set of math for skills, another for attacks, another for saves, etc., have one mathematical standard. Instead of skills, feats, class abilities, powers, etc., have one way of distributing scalable abilities. The best existing approach, and the example I'll use, is 3e skills. So, say that your attack roll, your save, your diplomacy, and your magic were all represented by a skill bonus, which you paid skill points for, and which is rolled against a DC or an opposed roll. Then it becomes easier to balance the [I]game[/I] (as opposed to trying to whac-a-mole problematic PC abilities). Let's say that there's one skill for Diplomacy, and one for Enchantment. Clearly, the Enchantment skill can do things that Diplomacy cannot. But now you can look at them side by side. And you can change them as needed, so both are appealing game options, and both work in simulating what they're suppose to simulate. Maybe you shift the DC's to make it clear that it's easier to talk to people than to charm or compel them. Maybe you split Enchantment into multiple skills so casters pay more. Maybe you restrict access to those skills by requiring feats or other prerequisites. Maybe you limit the use of Enchantment per time through some quasi-Vancian model (knowing that you would never do that to Diplomacy). Maybe you have the magical abilities drain the caster's life force. There's all kinds of options. You still have the basic reality that some skills can do things that are better than others. Just as Use Magic Device is better than Craft (Basketweaving). But you can make them at least as balanced as the existing skill system. It's clear what each skill can do and what the number next to it means. And who complains about that? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Narrative Space Options for non-spellcasters
Top