Skill-based attacks.

[ValhallaGH]

That depends on how you structure it, of course. For example, in Passages, Combat is a general skill, Attacking is one of the sub-skills, and characters can acquire skill specialty bonuses for, e.g., using a greatsword. So, a character might have the following: Combat +2 (Attacking +2) with a Skill Specialty Bonus of "Attacking with a greatsword +2". Thus, he would get a simple +2 when defending, a +4 when attacking with anything other than a greatsword, and a +6 when attacking with a greatsword.

So, how is that different from BAB and Weapon Focus feats?

 

[GlassJaw]

Skill based combat weakens combat characters by forcing them to specialize. Unlike a D&D Greatsword specialist, who is only slightly less effective when forced to use another two-hander, making each weapon (or weapon type) a separate combat skill means that the Greatsword specialist is reduced from slightly less effective to actually ineffective when forced to use another weapon.

As long as you are aware of this difference, and either willing to accept it or actively desiring it, then skill-based combat will work well for you. If you don't want that effect then think long and hard about changes you make.

Good points. You'll also have to give characters more skill points, and perhaps more points to the melee classes that they can only spend on weapons.

Instead of purchasing each weapon separately, you could make BAB a "skill".

This is a cool idea, although my feeling is that once you go down this route, why not do it for everything - BAB, saves, etc - or use a complete point-buy system: MnM, Buy the Numbers, etc.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Skill based combat weakens combat characters by forcing them to specialize.

As Justin says, it depends upon how the skills are set up.

In my system, there is effectively a 'melee' skill and a 'firearm' skill. Your greatsword wielder might choose to specialise a bit through feats, but basically the same with whatever melee weapon he chooses to use apart from feat customisation.

 

[Justin D. Jacobson]

So, how is that different from BAB and Weapon Focus feats?

1) Mechanically: In combat, none, but that's the point isn't it. The mechanical difference is in how the bonuses are acquired, i.e., like every other skill as opposed to on a fixed scale or a fixed number of times. You can also acquire different Skill Specialty Bonuses, e.g., fighting in close quarters, attacking in low-light, attacking flat-footed defenders, etc. I picked the above example because of its similarity to the classic example.

2) Flavor: By treating combat on an even par with Knowledge or Stealth or Persuasion, it sends a subtle message about their relative importance in the context of the game. Now, for D&D, it makes perfect sense that combat would be given a spotlight, emphasized by its unique mechanics and special treatment. But for Passages and other games that are not all about the sword, it has a surprisingly real impact on play.

 

[Pbartender]

So, how is that different from BAB and Weapon Focus feats?

With skills, a character can choose to not improve his combat ability, if he so desires.

In other words, it would allow you to build PCs and NPCs who are good at non-combat skills without requiring them to be good at combat... You can have scribes and politicians and craftsmen with +10 bonuses to their relevant skills and no combat skill whatsoever.

In D&D, if you want an exceptionally skilled character, you are required to increase his combat ability as well with level, whether you want to or not.

 

[ValhallaGH]

1) Mechanically: In combat, none, but that's the point isn't it. The mechanical difference is in how the bonuses are acquired, i.e., like every other skill as opposed to on a fixed scale or a fixed number of times. You can also acquire different Skill Specialty Bonuses, e.g., fighting in close quarters, attacking in low-light, attacking flat-footed defenders, etc. I picked the above example because of its similarity to the classic example.

Okay. So this raises two points for me.
1) Why can't you see BAB as a class's combat skill, only they choose to buy it up so that it increases at the indicated rate? I.e. the choice to improve it is so central to the class's concept that it's automatically invested in.

2) What's to stop a DM from deleting the BAB column and replacing it with extra skill points per level (+4 for full, +3 for 3/4 and +2 for 1/2 or something similar)? Then you create a ratio for buying BAB. (With my previous numbers, it would be 4 points for each +1, with the ability to buy fractions just like skill ranks.) This would create the oddity of making Intelligence even more important for combat characters, since too low an Int would eat up their BAB points but I doubt that's really a concern.
I advocate a higher cost because it's a much more "guaranteed" skill. Simply, if you participate in combat then you will use BAB (see below).

2) Flavor: By treating combat on an even par with Knowledge or Stealth or Persuasion, it sends a subtle message about their relative importance in the context of the game. Now, for D&D, it makes perfect sense that combat would be given a spotlight, emphasized by its unique mechanics and special treatment. But for Passages and other games that are not all about the sword, it has a surprisingly real impact on play.

But combat skill and the various knowledge skills aren't on par. Combat skills are used every single fight, every single attack, where as a particular knowledge may not be used at all during an entire series of puzzle, role play, or investigatory encounters.
If you grouped all knowledge skills into one category (Knowledge or Academics) then they could be on par because then the knowledge skill would be used just as frequently for its relevant areas as the combat skill.

Similarly, you'd have to group all of the athletic abilities (balance, climb, jump, swim and tumble) into one category to keep them on par with combat skill. All are feats of athleticism, but a series of athletic trials is likely to exclude one or more of them, making them inferior compared to combat skill.



So, what's my point? That you'll either need to a) rewrite the entire skill system to bring all the other skills on par with combat or b) you'll need to impose a special cost on combat skill to make it about as pricey as improving a different general area (social, academic, athletic, etc.) or c) you'll need to break up combat skill just as thoroughly as the other skills are divided (at that point, a general improvement in combat ability has the same cost as mastering all social or academic or larcenous areas).

 

[Ranger REG]

I hear a lot of D&D enthusiasts arguing that it wouldn't work because everyone would throw all their skill ranks into attack skills and ignore other non-combat skills. Which seems like an odd argument, since virtually every other non-D20 rpg out there has a skill-based combat system.

That's because they give more points to plug into skills, taking into account that they've added combat skills into the mix.

It's also another added step into creating characters, especially if you're making high-level characters (both PC and NPC). If you accept this tradeoff for so-called "realistic roleplaying," then more power to you.

 

[Aussiegamer]

if you add weapons skills don't forget to even out the combat with armour skills as well...

 

[Flynn]

if you add weapons skills don't forget to even out the combat with armour skills as well...

Pardon me for asking, but why? Many other game systems that use combat skills do not have armor skills. (Ex. Traveller, GURPS, HERO, Storyteller System, etc.) Perhaps I do not know what you are refering to. Could you give me an example?

With Regards,
Flynn

 

[Urizen]

Hmm.

Maybe it would simply be easier to craft a new system based on this mechanic, though I'm not sure there's room for another skill-based system.