Skill-based attacks.

[Master of the Game]

That assume you also want to do away with class defense bonus progression.

Keep in mind, that at the present, combat and defense skills will either progress as a class skill (i.e., character level + 3) or cross-class skill (half the previous equation), so there is no equivalent of a cleric's BAB or median-type progression.

You could make your attack skill cross-class for anyone but full BAB classes, but remove the 1/2 skill cap for the 3/4 classes.

That would give your fighter 1 rank per skill point, your rogue 1 rank per 2 skill points, and your wizard 1 rank per 2 skill points to a max of 1/2 your level.

It isn't pretty, but I think it would work.

 

[Justin D. Jacobson]

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.

You can. The idea of treating Combat as a skill, however, is to put it on par with other skills while retaining a similar feel of an actual combat. Obviously, some players will also prefer the choice of exactly what kinds of bonuses they want for their character. So, you could have two combat-oriented characters, one who was highly skilled at attacking and doing damage, and one who was highly skilled at defending and avoiding damage. Or tweaking through specialized skill bonuses as I mentioned in my prior post.

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.)

Nothing.

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.

For the type of campaign you're talking about, having Combat as a skill wouldn't make sense. But it's perfectly feasible and legitimate to run a campaign that is not so combat oriented, where a character might use their combat skill and their knowledge skill once each over the course of a given adventure. This sounds more like an issue you have with Knowledge skills generally than with Combat as a 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).

I agree with the undercurrent your suggesting, but it only requires tweaking--not the massive sweeping changes your implying. Seriously, check out Passages, and you'll see what I'm talking about.

 

[Ranger REG]

You could make your attack skill cross-class for anyone but full BAB classes, but remove the 1/2 skill cap for the 3/4 classes.

That would give your fighter 1 rank per skill point, your rogue 1 rank per 2 skill points, and your wizard 1 rank per 2 skill points to a max of 1/2 your level.

It isn't pretty, but I think it would work.

It could work, although I have to get over my disdain of the expensive cross-class skill cost.

Sorry, I'm already spoiled by SECR's reform.

 

[ValhallaGH]

For the type of campaign you're talking about, having Combat as a skill wouldn't make sense. But it's perfectly feasible and legitimate to run a campaign that is not so combat oriented, where a character might use their combat skill and their knowledge skill once each over the course of a given adventure.

What "type of campaign"? I didn't describe or mention a single campaign. I merely mentioned the fact that combat skill (BAB) is used every combat by everyone actively participating, while also mentioning the fact that over an extended series of knowledge-based encounters it is very likely that not every knowledge skill will be used.
This means that combat skill is better than individual knowledge skills. Period.

This sounds more like an issue you have with Knowledge skills generally than with Combat as a skill.

What issue? I love knowledge skills. Use them all the time, both in my character builds and in my games when I run. Wonderful things, people should have more of them. My feelings about the skill don't prevent me from seeing the simple facts that it is not, as you claimed, equivalent to combat skill.

Please try to only read the words I write. If I meant anything different than what I literally write then I would write different words.

 

[Justin D. Jacobson]

What "type of campaign"? I didn't describe or mention a single campaign. I merely mentioned the fact that combat skill (BAB) is used every combat by everyone actively participating, while also mentioning the fact that over an extended series of knowledge-based encounters it is very likely that not every knowledge skill will be used.
This means that combat skill is better than individual knowledge skills. Period.

Assuming by "better" you mean "more likely to see use", let me illustrate with a counterexample of a type of campaign where your absolute is false. Let's say we have a campaign the focus of which is solving the assassination of the king by poisoning. The entire campaign could involve tracking down clues, experimenting to isolate toxicants and reagents, etc. There might not be a single combat until the BBEG is finally identified (and even then, he could just be Mr. Burns ). In such a campaign, the Combat skill would see far less use than many Knowledge (and similar) skills.

GMs should tailor their campaigns to what the players focus on. Take the ranger's favored enemy bonus; a GM who never presents encounters where the favored enemy appears is doing his players a disservice. Similarly, if a player invests in Knowledge (architecture), the GM would be well advised to include encounters in which a Knowledge (architecture) check would be helpful. If none of the players have ranks in Knowledge (religion), the GM isn't doing the best job possible by constantly calling for Knowledge (religion) checks. All Knowledge skills don't need to be used with equanimity--only the ones in which the players invest ranks.

What issue? I love knowledge skills. Use them all the time, both in my character builds and in my games when I run. Wonderful things, people should have more of them. My feelings about the skill don't prevent me from seeing the simple facts that it is not, as you claimed, equivalent to combat skill.

I wasn't saying that Knowledge skills are the same as Combat. They can be in certain types of campaigns (or, indeed, can even be more relevant). It did seem like you didn't like the level of granularity of the Knowledge skills. If I inferred that incorrectly, I apologize. There's a simple fix for that to. Namely, to decrease the granularity, e.g., Knowledge (hard sciences), Knowledge (humanities), etc.

Please try to only read the words I write. If I meant anything different than what I literally write then I would write different words.

You seem to think I've escalated the heat of the discourse. If prior reply to you seems aggressive or rude, I fault the Internet. It certainly wasn't my intention.

 

[ValhallaGH]

Assuming by "better" you mean "more likely to see use", let me illustrate with a counterexample of a type of campaign where your absolute is false. Let's say we have a campaign the focus of which is solving the assassination of the king by poisoning. The entire campaign could involve tracking down clues, experimenting to isolate toxicants and reagents, etc. There might not be a single combat until the BBEG is finally identified (and even then, he could just be Mr. Burns ). In such a campaign, the Combat skill would see far less use than many Knowledge (and similar) skills.

Doesn't prove anything. The only way you didn't use the combat skill was by not having any combat at all. On the other hand, did every encounter that used a knowledge skill use all of the knowledge skills? Not without a lot of careful planning on the part of the DM, and possibly even not then.

Now do you see what I mean when I say better? When the relative situations come up, irregardless of how often they occur, it is guaranteed that combat skill will be used in all combat encounters while it is not guaranteed that Knowledge (the planes) (as an example) will be used in all knowledge encounters. This means that combat skill is a better skill than knowledge (the planes), mechanically. It may be less useful due to the circumstances of the campaign but the underlying game mechanics make it an inherently better skill.

GMs should tailor their campaigns to what the players focus on.

Relevance?

Take the ranger's favored enemy bonus; a GM who never presents encounters where the favored enemy appears is doing his players a disservice. Similarly, if a player invests in Knowledge (architecture), the GM would be well advised to include encounters in which a Knowledge (architecture) check would be helpful. If none of the players have ranks in Knowledge (religion), the GM isn't doing the best job possible by constantly calling for Knowledge (religion) checks. All Knowledge skills don't need to be used with equanimity--only the ones in which the players invest ranks.

So, now you're arguing in support of my statement. I'm glad you finally agree with me, though I'm confused why you didn't edit the beginning of your post to reflect your new position.

I wasn't saying that Knowledge skills are the same as Combat. They can be in certain types of campaigns (or, indeed, can even be more relevant). It did seem like you didn't like the level of granularity of the Knowledge skills. If I inferred that incorrectly, I apologize. There's a simple fix for that to. Namely, to decrease the granularity, e.g., Knowledge (hard sciences), Knowledge (humanities), etc.

No, you miss the point. Because knowledge skills are very granular (as are athletic skills, larcenous skills, stealth skills, social skills, perception skills and all the others) they are mechanically weaker than the non-granular combat skill.

Try this explanation. If you had the choice between Knowledge (horses) and Knowledge (nature), which would be a mechanically better skill? Which is more likely to be used in any given knowledge encounter?
Now, if you had the choice between Knowledge (nature) and Knowledge, which would be a mechanically better skill?
Now if you had the choice between Knowledge (nature) and Larceny, which would be a mechanically better skill?
Now, compare Knowledge (nature) and Combat. Which is the mechanically better skill?
Sure, campaign can change the equation. There's no point investing in a skill if it never gets used (except to add flavor to the character). That doesn't alter the underlying mechanics of the game.

Odd, the Favored Enemy example seemed to indicate that you understood and agreed with this. Confusing.

You seem to think I've escalated the heat of the discourse. If prior reply to you seems aggressive or rude, I fault the Internet. It certainly wasn't my intention.

Wait, there's heat?
No sir, I think you're misunderstanding my posts because you're inferring things that aren't being said. You're drawing conclusions when there are no conclusions to draw. Everything I want to say, and everything I mean, is already posted to this thread. You seem to be misreading it, adding contexts, words, clauses, meanings and phrases that aren't there, resulting in me having to repeat myself again and again. I get tired of that sort of thing, so I hope that you will stop mentally editing my posts and instead read them literally; my expectation is that a literal reading will make it abundantly clear exactly what I mean and then we can progress to an actual discussion rather than a repetition of our respective starting logic.

 

[Fifth Element]

http://enworld.rpgnow.com/product_info.php?products_id=20556&

 

[Justin D. Jacobson]

I tried to be diplomatic and got grief for it. So this is me, bowing out of the thread.

 

[ValhallaGH]

I tried to be diplomatic and got grief for it. So this is me, bowing out of the thread.

Dang it! This had the potential to be an interesting discussion.

 

[Pbartender]

Val, you need to update your .sig with the same disclaimer you have on other message boards... To wit:

"I often come across as a jerk. I don't mean to but it happens any way. Try not to take offense."