POLL: Would you play D&D without a Skill System?

[Olgar Shiverstone]

I'd miss it, but D&D is fine both with & without skills.

IMO, the primary benefit of a skill system is not for running the game. It's for allowing players to customize their characters further, and be rewarded by having their character be demonstrably and mechanically better at whatever the player wants to be better at.

For example, in BD&D, you could say "I'm an expert bowyer", and the DM might say "OK" -- but it might or might not be demonstrable in game. With the 3E skill system, you can take 10 ranks in Craft:Bow and be measureably better than someone who hasn't. Depending on the DM, there could be little to no difference between the approaches -- but many players might feel better with the latter approach.

 

[Jackelope King]

If it doesn't have a skill system, it needs one. And if it needs one, odds are I wouldn't be able to stop ad just adding a skill system.

Skills need to be board enough to cover a wide variety of uses, but with granularity built into them so that a character who wants to focus in on a very specific use can do so and be supported by the rules. The system should also make it so that you don't have the silly situation where a 20th level fighter can climb a tree. It should allow you to specialize in areas you want without punishing you for "forgetting" a skill which your background says you really should have (like the fighter who was a guard for a nobleman who doesn't know anything about diplomacy or nobility and royalty).

(My own solution to this is to parse skills down to a little over a dozen, and then allow characters to use their ranks in one skill to substitute for another at half-ranks. So a Ranger with 10 ranks in Survival (woodlands) who doesn't have any ranks in Stealth suddenly needs to hide in the woods, rather than being told "sucks that you don't have any ranks", he can use 5 ranks of Survival (Woodlands) to make the check to Hide. For me, this finds a happy middle between everyone being "a master at some things and a bumbling idiot at everything else" and the "GM-May-I because it makes sense" negotiation game. Higher-level heroes are still more competent in general without being as arbitrary as Saga Edition, since it's based on the skills they already have, but they're not automatically better than a focused hero of lower level just by virtue of being higher-level. Everyone can be competent, but the masters can really shine.)

 

[Delta]

I would normally buy that argument, but when talking about the latest iterations of D&D, where you can be a Cleric 2/Fighter 3/Magic User 3/Rogue 2/Whoseywhatsit 3 ... then it doesn't wash with me. Talk about gimme-everything-I-want-it-all.

Right, and I object to that as well (in my 3E campaign no one's ever had more than 3 classes). But even so, at least at each level you have to forego one thing to pick up another -- having Wizard 13 (and simultaneously as good as a 13th-level Expert gemcutter) seems even more nonsensical.

However, I must disagree with part of the above. No, knights were not trained to just fight. They also had to learn artistic/musical skills, and how to serve. ('Everyone knows' that Samurai did, but few seem to realise that European knights did too.)

Even rudimentary artistic/musical skills I would put in the same camp as relatively simple things like climbing, camping, hunting, falconry, riding etc. None of those things are like gemcutting, blacksmithing, architecture, etc., where you have to go through a whole separate apprenticeship through all your teenage years to master (and which parenthetically are "Professions" that create actual objects of economic utility).

 

[Delta]

In general, I like a class-based system or a skill-based system, but I'm not as fond of the hybrids.

Ooh, all kinds of "score" lights started blinking in my head with that comment.

 

[hazel monday]

Common sense and DM Fiat are acceptable substitutes for a skill system in my opinion. Except for thieves. Thieves need to be able to succeed or fail based on the dice.

 

[Jhaelen]

I wouldn't play without a skill system. I always hated earlier editions where only rogues/thieves could have some 'real' skills.

3E was the first edition with a workable solution. I'm sure it could be improved.
I'd also prefer it if skills were even more important than they're now. E.g. I'd get rid of all (or most) spells that supersede skills. I prefer spells to provide skill bonuses or to have improved effects with higher skill ranks (like the Lore Call spells from Complete Adventurer).

I'd also like to see spellcasting and attacking to become skills. Obviously, this would require a different and more balanced skill system but then we'd finally have a single perfectly integrated, streamlined system for resolving any kind of action - maybe we'll see this in 5E

 

[Aus_Snow]

I would sometimes do play without, and would often do miss having one there.

But I never run games without, these days (though I have done, some years back.) Most people also seem to like having a skill system of some kind. It's just some crazy ol' grognards I know, that don't.

 

[Doug McCrae]

After two weeks of playing Moldvay Basic, I am *emphatically* in the "Good Riddance" camp.

I had no idea how much the d20 skill system was clogging up my D&D games until it was gone.

I didn't realise you were old school.

BECMI is a good system, I prefer it to 1e and 2e.

 

[Doug McCrae]

3.X's current scheme for scoring/balancing innate aptitude (Abilities) and training (Skills) is completely off. Its "double-hoop syndrome" forces a character with a DEX 18, for instance, to turn around and, again, invest in DEX-based endeavors that he should already be great at for having a DEX 18: balance, tumble, move silently skills.

So, you can end up being nearly the most naturally dextrous character around...but still unable to keep your balance on a floor with some rubble because of skill point shortage. In turn, some clod with a DEX 10 and (apparently) years of experience skating over rubble floors (see, he's got 10 ranks in Balance) can work wonders the guy with the Dexterity of Michael Jordon can't even attempt.

Which is exactly as it should be. Ranks = training, stats = innate ability. Training > innate ability.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Player: "My character is a renowned gemcutter."
DM: "OK."

Player 2: Well I want to be an expert gemcutter, armourer, chirurgeon, apothecary, herbalist, wheelwright and boatswain.
Player 3: My character is great at picking pockets and hiding in shadows. My class is fighter but I have 15 dex so that's okay, right?
Player 4: Well I'm a sage and I've researched all monsters. My class is also fighter.