Reigning in Skills

[green slime]

I agree with you Henry, that there is a place for static DC's. But to maintain your baseball analogy, that baseboll tossing machine (DC10) is not comparable to dreaded Slick Knees "Slingshot" MacAinsley, the world's greatest basebowler.

Fixed DC's have a place against static things. Rolls made against opponents which have a varying skills and abilities shouldn't be static. Tumbling throgh the same square as Hill Billy, the near-conscious half-drunk hobo armed with a plastic bag, shouldn't be as difficult or easy as getting through the area of Tiffany the 25th level monk.

 

[azmodean]

great thread, I'm really considering impliminting a system similar to what steevaroo and the gneech advocate.

 

[Warehouse23]

To get around the fatal consequences of low/no skill ranks (how many wizards really spend ranks on climb?) I'd like to see players, particularly low level players, aiding one another on skills. I'd also like to see an expansion of skills which can be aided. If everyone in the party is helping the fighter up the cliff (that armor makes it so tough)... he'll get up. Eventually.

 

[Celebrim]

great thread, I'm really considering impleminting a system similar to what steevaroo and the gneech advocate.

I've got no problem with how anyone runs their games if it makes them happy, but I do feel like noting that I find it interesting how after all this time, people are advocating going back to 1st edition's system of having fixed levels of skill per level.

I fully agree with Gneech that such a system has the advantages of being simplier and making it easier to create NPC's on the fly, but I completely balk on the idea that a skill system that gives you fixed ranks in something per level is more 'flexible'. I also wonder how we reached this point from a discussion that began with the problem of characters maxing out ranks in just a few skills.

I seriously doubt that there is anything that can prevent players from creating Johnny One-Trick, but it is true that one approach would be to pregenerate what you consider a 'balanced' character, preselecting feats and skill ranks for every level of the class in a manner that you felt made for suitably broad characters. But understand that in doing so you are flat out rejecting the 3rd edition revisions to D&D that made it a modern system in favor of a more 'old school' approach in which you new how skilled a thief was in Pick Pockets because he was an 8th level thief. That's all well and good, and Kenzer has a great game based on that sort of rejection of modernistic systems that revels in old school tables and eclecticism, but before adopting such an approach be sure you know exactly where it is going to take you.

I still maintain that there is nothing wrong with the skill system that by and large couldn't be fixed by DM's making calls for a more diverse range of skill checks - both in terms of the DC's to succeed and the range of skills that are applicable to a given session or campaign.

Switching on the right brain, I think Undermountain is completely silly, but one thing that I do admire (and have long advocated) about WotC's 'spoiler' rooms that they've been showing from Undermountain is that the designers have spent alot of time and thought on making each room have alot of skill related features. To me this is the mark of good D20 design, and it is comparable to me to the transition between a game like Doom in which the only feature of the environment you could really interact with was the monsters, and a game like Duke Nuke 'Em (or in more modern terms Half-Life) when the whole of the evironment began to be more of a plaything with which the character could interact with.

 

[BSF]

The game I am currently running does not distinguish between class and cross-class skills. So far it hasn't been an issue. I keep waiting for my game to run into a problem with it, but it hasn't happened.

I'm not entirely sure how I feel about maxed out skills with insanely high skill checks. I play in a game where my Bard has an unoptimized +29 to Diplomacy. It seems a little ridiculous at times, which is why I don't max it out. But for the games I run, I like the heroes to be doing unbelievably heroic things. Skills are just a small measure of that. So I kind of sit on the fence on that one.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

As usual, Elder-Basilisk hits the nail on the head.

If you insist that DCs rachet up to make the check exciting, you are making the game such that the non-skills character classes should never dabble in a skill they do not maximize.

What you should do is throw DC 10 checks at them day and night for every skill in the book. And make the results a matter of convenience and style more than life and death, so that they do not have to have those skills.

"The ground here is a little rough. Make a DC 10 Balance check in order to charge."
"There is a hedge in the way. DC 10 Jump check."
"The orcs are hiding. DC 10 Spot check or you are surprised."

In time they will learn that scattering ranks around makes sense, even if their skills are not necessarily useful against the BBEGs directly.

 

[A'koss]

I agree with you Henry, that there is a place for static DC's. But to maintain your baseball analogy, that baseboll tossing machine (DC10) is not comparable to dreaded Slick Knees "Slingshot" MacAinsley, the world's greatest basebowler.

Fixed DC's have a place against static things. Rolls made against opponents which have a varying skills and abilities shouldn't be static. Tumbling through the same square as Hill Billy, the near-unconscious, half-drunk hobo armed with a plastic bag, shouldn't be as easy as getting through the area of Tiffany the 25th level monk.

Exactly.

On a somewhat related tangent, I was just thinking you could make an arguement that there are certain skills that should improve automatically as you level up. General alertness skills for example. Much the same way saving throws automatically increase you can argue that alertness skills are just as fundamental to an adventuring class's survival. Perhaps stealthy skills should be opposed by the opposing character's level + Wis bonus like intimidation. Just some late afternoon musing...

Cheers!

 

[The Shaman]

I seriously doubt that there is anything that can prevent players from creating Johnny One-Trick...

...except...

I still maintain that there is nothing wrong with the skill system that by and large couldn't be fixed by DM's making calls for a more diverse range of skill checks - both in terms of the DC's to succeed and the range of skills that are applicable to a given session or campaign.

It seems like you have the answer to me - at least that's how things work in the adventures I run.

I call for lots of skill checks, encourage aid another attempts, and apply a variety of different skill synergies. I also try to put characters in situations in which they have to play against their strengths, such as putting a fighter in a circumstance where stealth is at a premium or a wizard that must act as the party's face character.

 

[The_Gneech]

I fully agree with Gneech that such a system has the advantages of being simplier and making it easier to create NPC's on the fly, but I completely balk on the idea that a skill system that gives you fixed ranks in something per level is more 'flexible'.

Well, my idea is that the fixed ranks per level is the baseline; you'd still have a pool of skill ranks to place as you see fit without the headache of "class" vs. "cross-class" to deal with, which is where the flexibility comes in. "You want your fighter to have a real high Knowledge (arcana)? Go for it."

-TG

 

[Saeviomagy]

Here's my take.

The whole problem with skills, obscene check DC's and the like is that some skills suck.

No, really. That's the whole problem.

A diplomacy DC of 40 turns a hostile opponent into a friendly one. That's massive. Huge.

A pick pocket of 40 means you can strip every small item off of an opponent as a free action. That's amazing.

A jump DC of 40 means you can... Jump 10 feet in the air. Or 40 feet across the ground as long as you double move to do it. In a world where it takes a 3rd level spell to fly. Fly. And a 4th level spell to fly ALL DAY. A jump DC of 40 is lame.

A climb check of DC 40 means you can climb a slippery ceiling with handholds. OOOOoooo. Scaaaary.

An intimidate check of DC 40 means that you MIGHT make a foe friendly for as long as you are actually with him. And afterwards he hates you. Or you can give him a minor penalty for a small amount of time. Ooooo.

A disguise check of DC 40 means you can fool people who are not particularly perceptive. If you're changing much beyond minor features, you've probably ROLLED more than 40 just to hit the DC. And your opponents are getting sizeable bonuses to their rolls if they have a clue who it is that you're supposed to be.

A balance check of DC 40 means you can walk a tightrope. Is that yawnarific or what? That means that basically every circus I've ever been to has had someone with a skill check bonus of at least +30! Hell, it means that I've got a skill check bonus in that region. That's just craptacular.

A spot check of DC 40 STILL won't let you see anything outside of the lit radius of your candle.

I think if every skill had the epic ramifications of something like diplomacy, we'd see a lot less complaining that the spellcasters of the world are too powerful, and a lot less worrying that someone's gone and maxxed out pick-pockets.