Revisionism
Raven Crowking
First Post
Thanks.
I had worked on a previous version of "best rules", but in some cases where I made things more complicated (for reasons I thought were good at the time), the complications didn't work as well as I had hoped. For instance, I gave different skill point weights to different skills, and I now think that was a mistake.
OTOH, I came up with a weapon skill system that gives players a lot of choice without having to be married to a grid, which has worked out great. And I think I've worked out a combat system that marries speed with the complexity that I want.
Also, playing Basic Fantasy reminded me how much I enjoy a simpler game....Something I definitely have to take into account.
So here's a new, related question:
I am considering greatly altering the skill system, because I think that a lot of NPC skills (profession and craft skills, for example) can be handwaved or assumed. Instead of using skills, I could combine feats and skills into a single unit, where characters can select a background set that gives them added proficiency in a range of skills (in addition to their class abilities).
Some feats, like Cleave, might just become Fighter abilities.
Thoughts?
RC
Hussar
Legend
RC - for my new campaign, I expanded the profession skill into what I think you're talking about.
Using the Professions skill, you can make various skill checks that are related to that profession - for example, Profession Sailor allows you to make Balance, Use Rope and maybe a couple of other skills. However, you take a penalty the further away from your actual profession you are. The penalty is pretty much left up to the DM, but, typically ranges from -1 to -5 or so.
For example, using Profession Sailor to climb the rigging on a ship would not entail any penalty. Using the same skill to climb a tree might entail a -2. Trying to climb a cliff would be -5 (or possibly more).
Using the Professions skill, you can make various skill checks that are related to that profession - for example, Profession Sailor allows you to make Balance, Use Rope and maybe a couple of other skills. However, you take a penalty the further away from your actual profession you are. The penalty is pretty much left up to the DM, but, typically ranges from -1 to -5 or so.
For example, using Profession Sailor to climb the rigging on a ship would not entail any penalty. Using the same skill to climb a tree might entail a -2. Trying to climb a cliff would be -5 (or possibly more).
Raven Crowking
First Post
I think that the first thing to do is determine what skills/abilities are actually used by PCs on a regular basis. All the old "Thief" abilities, obviously:
Stealth
Open Locks
Find/Remove Traps
Climb
Listen (Perception?)
Pick Pockets
Other things with obvious adventuring uses include Balance, Tumble, Swim, and Ride. Knowledge skills can be rolled into given class abilities (perhaps). What other skills get regular use at people's tables?
EDIT: One of the things I would like to do is have a system with a stable set of DCs. In older editions, you determined that a trap or lock was difficult by applying a penalty (-25% to open this lock, for example). That is far simpler than trying to figure out DCs based on level and expected difficulty. Setting up something like this probably means that PCs are more competent upfront, but I can live with that.
Hussar
Legend
The only tweak I'd make to your list of thief abilities is Pick Pockets. I know it's iconic and all that, but, really, how often did it actually come up in play? Even way back, it almost never came up in our games. IME, it was mostly used by players who wanted to spotlight hog and start fights when everyone else was doing something.
my read of the OP's points leads me to think he sees different problems than I do.
buffing:
my group hardly ever buffed. My friend's group buffed a lot.
Combats take too long:
my group, plays fast 6 fights in an hour. My friend's group takes forever. Even at high level (we actually joined the other group for a game, and as we joined them mid-game and split party, they saw how fast we flew through combats, compared to them Literally our 15 minute fights with giants versus their hour long fights against similar).
XP is too fast:
I tend to level the party every 2-3 adventures. An adventure was 4-6 hours (1 session). In my friend's game, they probably leveled the same rate.
One thing I think we do agree on, is inconsistent sub-systems. I suspect the key isn't inconsistency, so much as poorly designed and infrequently used. Nobody complains how the spell system is inconsistent with the combat system (AC/BAB versus saves and free-form text in spell descriptions). But they do complain about charging, sundering, turning, unarmed combat, tripping, disarming.
Perhaps it's because attacking with a weapon, and casting a spell are 2 tasks done all the time. Whereas the other ones are not done so frequently, thus prone to being unmemorable, except for the frustration in having to look them up all the time.
buffing:
my group hardly ever buffed. My friend's group buffed a lot.
Combats take too long:
my group, plays fast 6 fights in an hour. My friend's group takes forever. Even at high level (we actually joined the other group for a game, and as we joined them mid-game and split party, they saw how fast we flew through combats, compared to them Literally our 15 minute fights with giants versus their hour long fights against similar).
XP is too fast:
I tend to level the party every 2-3 adventures. An adventure was 4-6 hours (1 session). In my friend's game, they probably leveled the same rate.
One thing I think we do agree on, is inconsistent sub-systems. I suspect the key isn't inconsistency, so much as poorly designed and infrequently used. Nobody complains how the spell system is inconsistent with the combat system (AC/BAB versus saves and free-form text in spell descriptions). But they do complain about charging, sundering, turning, unarmed combat, tripping, disarming.
Perhaps it's because attacking with a weapon, and casting a spell are 2 tasks done all the time. Whereas the other ones are not done so frequently, thus prone to being unmemorable, except for the frustration in having to look them up all the time.
FireLance
Legend
A short while before 4e was announced, I came up with the idea of a VP/HP system. Basically, VP were an encounter resource, and every character starts each encounter at full VP (or regains VP after a short rest). HP are the HP that we know, and are only recoverable through (an extended) rest or magic. The key differences between this system as the Star Wards VP/WP system were:
1. Critical hits are not automatically taken off HP. They are taken off VP first, and HP are only depleted after the VP buffer is gone.
2. HP increase with levels much faster than WP, so a high-level character could take a few HP "hits". I had originally considered having HP equal to HP as we know it, and VP equalling HP (effectively doubling a 3e PC's HP), but in retrospect, I think having HP equal to half "normal" HP and VP equal to the difference between "normal" HP and "new" HP might require less changes to the game as a whole.
Actually, I hate this...
It basically makes the specific skills such as Climb less valuable and also just opens us for player-DM argument.
Basically, why is it that there's no penalty for climbing the rigging of a sailing ship in a Class 3 Hurricane but he takes a penalty for climbing a wall?
Make the player actually spend points on the actual sub-skills. This is the one thing I definitely agree with Raven Crowking.
As an aside, I'm still kind of wondering how you can have tactical choice WITHOUT knowing the placement of every on the board. IF I'm understanding you right, isn't your system of weapon skill a pre-battle decision tree?
Raven Crowking
First Post
Weapon skills have an in-battle decision tree, where you assign ranks of skill to different purposes, according to they type of skill you have. Some types of weapons, for example, can be used to increase your AC while others can increase your critical range, etc.
RC
Um, I'm still not seeing how this can be ingame. This is still a pre-battle decision tree since you know what you're going to do even before the battle.
Similar Threads
