Open Skill System

[slwoyach]

I've put a lot of time and energy into attempts to improve the skill system, and the results are usually improvements (in my view at least) but are also much more complex than the rules in the PHB. So I've decided to go in the opposite direction and am contemplating using the following house rules, tell me what you think.

The entire skill section in the PHB can be thrown out. YOU define your skills as broadly or as narrowly as you want. Both Athletics and Jumping Over a 10 Year-Old Girl While Flapping My Arms are legitimate skills, though one will obviously be more useful than the other. Whenever you want to do something simply tell me what you want to accomplish and what skill you want to use. I will then decide what ability modifier you will use and set the DC based upon how well your skill fits the situation. As an example, the party needs a piece of information about Ancient Acheron. One member of the party has ranks in Knowledge and would like to make a check to see if he may already know the information. Since his skill is so broad I decide the DC will be 25, using Knowledge and Intelligence (obviously). The player rolls a 22 and fails. Another player's character has ranks in Knowledge (Acheron), since his skill is so narrowly focused I decide his DC is only 15. The player rolls an 18 and knows the information.

Players will either know or not know the DC based upon the situation. You can look at a chasm and get a pretty good guess at how difficult it would be to jump it.

 

[Celebrim]

I've put a lot of time and energy into attempts to improve the skill system, and the results are usually improvements (in my view at least) but are also much more complex than the rules in the PHB. So I've decided to go in the opposite direction and am contemplating using the following house rules, tell me what you think.

I think in the context of a simulationist game that the 'rules' you are using you risk making the game more difficult to play than if you didn't have rules at all. One big problem you are going to have is the player has no real grasp over the chance of failure. Another is that you are going to have to ad hoc everything. Another problem is that all your skills will be essentially passive skills - none of them do anything or grant any tangible benefit except what you decide they grant. The last problem is that your simple system is going to ultimately be simple only in as much as it has a large number of unwritten rules, which actually isn't very simple at all. More on this last one at the end.

To begin with, make the system even simplier. Also make the system more explicit and less dependent on DM fiat, both for your own sake (you won't have to make things up on the fly) and for the characters. These are however somewhat mutually conflicting goals.

No one has ranks in skills. Every 'skill' check is an ability check. So, there are know 'knowledge' skill checks. Any knowledge skill check is an Intelligence check.

All ability check DC's are as follows:

DC 15 = Easy
DC 20 = Normal
DC 25 = Hard
DC 30 = Normal limit of human skill
DC 40 = Superhuman feats

You get skills equal to the number of skill points the class gains per level. So for example, a Rogue gets 8 skills and a Fighter gets 2 skills. You gain 1 additional skill every 4 levels. You may optionally have modify some classes to as a class feature gain bonus skills. Rogue for example might gain a bonus skill at 2nd, 6th, 10th, 14th, and 18th.

Skills are of one of three categories:

General Training = +5 on skill check
Specific Training = +10 on skill check
Narrow Specialty = +15 on skill checks

You decide ahead of time which class a chosen skill falls into.

General Training: Sneaky, Atheletic, Educated, Alert, Disciplined, Boy Scout Stuff, Tradesman, Sailor, Savoir Faire, etc.
Specific Training: Move Silently, Jump, Open Lock, History, Meditation, Appraisal, Masonry, Metal Working, Dance, Gamble, etc.
Narrow Specialty: Broad Jump, Safecracker, Ancient Roman History, Hunt Deer, Paddle Canoe, Play Accordian, Ballet, Play Poker, Swordsmith, etc.

On the one hand, we've got a flexible system. You want to dance, roll Dexterity with an appropriate modifier. If you want to know something about the history of dance, roll Intelligence with an appropriate modifier.

However, you still have all sorts of problems. The biggest one is that even though my simpler system is now quite specific and more detailed, it's still not as simple as it looks. For example, when a player wants to jump across a pit, is it an intelligence check, dexterity check, or strength check? Hurry up and decide, the game is waiting on you. What did you decide? Strength? Is it going to be strength next time you have to decide, or will it be charisma next time? Guess what, you've now created an unwritten rule, "In order to jump a distance, make a strength check." Suppose we wanted to start listing the applicable attribute in alot of common situations? Well, obviously, we'd add a couple of pages to this post as we composed the list. Then the system wouldn't seem as simple any more.

But, the system still isn't simple if we don't list out these rulings, because even if we don't list them out, they are still there and players and the DM will still need to remember them (and if you forget, be sure that the player won't and will argue with you). Likewise, if you dont' spell it out, be sure that the player will argue that the applicable attribute in this case is the one that the player finds most favorable.

What if I want to use my atheletics to tumble through a square to avoid an AoO? Are you going to allow that? If so, then guess what, you've created another unwritten rule.

Another problem you are going to run into is versimilitude. Let's say I take a specific skill like 'Swordsmith'. Now, I run into a problem where I want to make a shield, an axe, or a horseshoe. You can either rule that I know nothing about making shields, axes, or horseshoes, or that I know enough about metal working that I can do one or more of the above with some lesser bonus. The latter seems realistic, but if you do this, congradulations, you've just created a ruling that makes it dumb to choose general skills, since you've shown that you are willing to allow me to successfully argue for free general skills based on specific training. Expect play to stop at every skill check while we argue over how applicable my specific skill is. We could solve this of course by making every skill purchased at 3 levels - general, specific, and specialty - but this would again make the simple system more complex.

PS: I'd like to see some of your existing improvements.

 

[slwoyach]

I like the basic concept of the general, specific, and normal skills; but I'm running E6 and I don't think it will really work well for that. And there isn't really enough control after first level; you can't set aside an old skill to concentrate on different skills.

The chasm's an easy answer, the character is jumping for distance so that would be strength. If a character must land on a specific spot that's dexterity. I can't really think of an instance where jump would use int, con, or cha but wis could be used if the character has to time a jump for some reason (actually I'd let a player choose between int and wis for that).

You could use athletics to tumble through a threatened square, but I would add 10 to the DC due to the extremely general nature of the skill. An agility skill would be between tumble and athletics in specificity so I'd only add 5.

I would also allow swordsmith to be used to make shields, but at an extreme DC penalty. A general blacksmith would have a smaller penalty than a swordsmith in that manner.

Some of the work I've done before has gotten really complex. One was proficiencies that cost a set number of skill points allowing general skills to be used in a more specific way. If you spent points for swimming you could use athletics to swim, if you spent points on weaponsmithing you could use blacksmithing to craft weapons, etc. A second system is actually fairly similar to what you suggested. A third system was similar to Alternity's system, broad skills cost 3 points per rank and covered large categories of skills and specialty skills cost 1 point per rank, and you couldn't have more ranks in a specialty skill than the attendant broad skill.

The net result of this has always been very large campaign guides that can get intimidating for players. When people see 30 pages in front of them my telling them that it's not as much as it seems doesn't seem to be too convincing.

 

[Celebrim]

I like the basic concept of the general, specific, and normal skills; but I'm running E6 and I don't think it will really work well for that.

I'm not familiar with E6 except in concept, but I don't understand why this should be a problem. Given the flat power curve assumed by E6, I don't see why skills that don't progress isn't perfect for it.

And there isn't really enough control after first level; you can't set aside an old skill to concentrate on different skills.

I'm not sure I understand this complaint either. You can't forget skills under the RAW either. And in this module, concentration on a skill is simply taking a different specialty.

For example, at first level I might have the skill, "Sneaky Stuff" as a general, and at a higher level I might take "Sleight of Hand" or "Tell Lies to Town Gaurds".

The chasm's an easy answer, the character is jumping for distance so that would be strength.

It was intended to be an easy answer. I think you are missing the point.

"The character is jumping for distance so that would be strength." is a rule. It's not a rule I wrote up into my skills description. It was a rule that was being assumed probably in no small part because we've got this huge metarule attached to our supposedly simplified skills: "Where the rules are unclear, they work like 3.X skills." This means that we're importing virtually the whole of the PH skill rules into our rules set by reference, so in fact our 'simplified skills' are actually more complex than the 3.X skills.

You could use athletics to tumble through a threatened square, but I would add 10 to the DC due to the extremely general nature of the skill. An agility skill would be between tumble and athletics in specificity so I'd only add 5.

Again, you are assuming the existance of the 3.X skills and all the rules associated with them in this answer. How would a player know that he could use 'Atheletics' or 'Tumble' to tumble through a threatened square? How would you know that that proposition was a valid one if you were familiar only with the simplified skill rules and not with 3.X? So again, we are only pretending that the rules here are simple. In fact, we'd like them to do all of that and everything the 3.X rules do.

I would also allow swordsmith to be used to make shields, but at an extreme DC penalty. A general blacksmith would have a smaller penalty than a swordsmith in that manner.

Right, so I'm making my character and I say to you, "Ok, I'm trying to decide whether to make my skill 'blacksmith', 'weaponsmith', or 'swordsmith'" and I can't decide which is more useful? What is my DC going to be like for making horseshoe's, shields, axes, and swords in each case?" Suppose you wanted to communicate the answer to this question (and others like it) to a player in the rules, so that it wouldn't keep coming up. Once you start getting into defaults, you might actually very quickly get into a system more complex than 3.X.

When people see 30 pages in front of them my telling them that it's not as much as it seems doesn't seem to be too convincing.

30 pages is nothing. If your rules are PH + 30 pages, that's not much at all. What's intimidating to me is when the rules are scattered across 25 supplements, all of which are considered legal in play. Having 30 pages of house rules seems like alot, until you compare it to having your house rules spread across 30 books which you reference and pretending that you then don't have alot of house rules.

 

[slwoyach]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your post. The way I read it you gain a set number of skills at 1st level, one more at 4th level, and that's it. So if your character decides to go in a new direction after 1st level you're limited to gaining 1 more skill ever.

The system is intended to be very simple and flexible. I'm including the PHB as a baseline specifically so players know about what to expect. They know what they can do with sleight of hand, so if they put points specifically into pick-pockets they know it'll be a little easier (but not a whole lot, as that's the main function of slight of hand.)

 

[Celebrim]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your post. The way I read it you gain a set number of skills at 1st level, one more at 4th level, and that's it. So if your character decides to go in a new direction after 1st level you're limited to gaining 1 more skill ever.

If I'd known you were going to use this for E6, I'd have suggested a smaller interval. Additionally, for E6 I'd suggest 6th level characters ought to be able to invest XP toward buying new skills just as they do with feats, perhaps simply with a feat like 'Skill Growth' that added a new skill.

I'm including the PHB as a baseline specifically so players know about what to expect. They know what they can do with sleight of hand, so if they put points specifically into pick-pockets they know it'll be a little easier.

This strongly encourages players to pick skills that match up with existing PHB skills so that they'll know for sure what they are buying and that what they are buying will have some active application in overcoming hazards. Faced with a 'flexible' system implicitly backed up by the PHB document, I'd pretty much stick with PHB skills or commonly understood skill unions (like 'Stealth', 'Perception', 'Acrobatics', 'Atheletics', etc.) that I knew could be defaulted to PHB skills. Unless I was a particularly persuasive or dysfunctional metagamer (and I'm not), I'd never pick something like, 'Tactics', 'Leadership', 'Astrology', 'Sailor', 'Gambler', or whatever because I'd have no way of knowing whether such skills would have any sort of practical usage and I'd be forced to negotiate with you for when they might be effective or what they could do. Effectively, anything not explicit to a PHB skill would default to a Profession skill (and we all know how 'useful' those are) or an obscure and narrow Knowledge skill that would never come up until I defined it and which would probably have been rolled into another less obscure Knowledge skill had I not invented it.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Uh, sounds like d20 isn't quite the 'right' (as in, easy to use or intuitive) basis for this kind of game. To be honest, you might be better off with something like HeroQuest 2.0, a system that uses 'Keywords', which can be extracted from (for example) a character sketch, back story, or whatever else. And those Keywords are your character's strengths and weaknesses. That's it. No stats, skills or levels (per se) - or anything else much, as far as PC stuff goes.

But anyway, I'm not going to try to stop you going ahead with this.

Classes: what happens there? Skills known, etc. What if someone chooses a whole bunch of extremely narrow skills, and can hardly ever do anything? Or, perhaps they choose a ton of really broad skills, and can basically do anything at all. . .

Perhaps I don't fully understand.