Skill Groups for D&D

[fuindordm]

Iron Heroes (Mike Mearls, Monte Cook) recently added a useful innovation to the D20 ruleset: the concept of Skill Groups. Like many other gamers, I've been somewhat dissatisfied with the D&D implementation of skills. When 3rd edition first came out, it was so much better than anything D&D had done before that
we were blinded to the faults... but now we know that we can do better. Mike Mearls has shown us the way!

The three main problems that I see with the D&D skill system are:

1) The cost to invest in cross-class skills is prohibitive. Skill points are a scarce resource, and the double penalty of increased expense and limited ranks combine to make cross-class skills a painful choice for players. That's not to say that I've never seen players doing it anyway--and I've done it myself. ButI believe that players should be encouraged to diversify their portfolio beyond the archetype of their class, not strongly discouraged as they are now.

2) The list of class skills for each class is somewhat arbitrary--it's easy to imagine characters whose primary abilities are best represented by one class but who would logically have a very different set of class skills. Examples include the seafaring fighter (marine), the court magician, the urban berserker, the savage bard, and so on.

3) Most classes simply do not get enough skill points to fill all the roles they are supposed to play in the party. While this has the advantage of making Int much less of a dump stat, in practice even with a decent Int many characters are forced to make the choice between maxxing out their canonical skills and diversifying into the skills they really feel their character ought to have given their background. If a player chooses the latter path, they suffer an in-game penalty for creating a character with depth, which I find unfortunate.

These three slightly different mechanical problems all combine to discourage reflecting a good background story in the skill selection, to the detriment of the game. I feel that D&D would be a better game if characters had better backgrounds and more skills. Skills are useful but not overpowering abilities that give players the opportunity to contribute even when their primary abilities can't come into play. Allowing players to max out their core skills while still diversifying according to their background will increase everyone's participation throughout the game, and therefore everyone's enjoyment as well.

Having said that, I will point out that core D20 has already offered some fixes to these problems:

1) Occupations--if characters can choose a starting occupation then they can add some background-appropriate skills to their list of class skills.

2) Variant classes--quite a few of these are defined in Unearthed Arcana, and the PH suggests that the DM can work with the player to create their own.

The very existence of these options implies that the choice of class skills for any given class is not a balancing factor, although the number of class skills might be. Both of these options can ameliorate problem 2 (the fixed archetype) but neither addresses problems 1 and 3: the low number of skill points
available and the high cost of spending them outside your set of class skills.

Iron Heroes allows all characters to spend their points in all skills on a one-for-one basis, but defines skill groups--broadly related sets of skills that certain classes can purchase at a discount. One skill point spent in a skill group (assuming your class gives you access) buys one rank in all the skills in that group. This system strongly encourages players to max out any skill groups they have access to, and spend what's left on skills that they feel are appropriate to their character's background. As you can imagine, Iron Heroes characters have lots of skills.

However, the Iron Heroes character classes are almost all fighters of one kind or another. One of the core values of D&D, and one of the things that makes it a great game, is the emphasis on teamwork. It achieves this through the concept of <i>niche protection</i>, meaning that even at high levels each class
should have a unique role to play in the party, and should do it better than any other member of the party. In an all-fighter party, niche protection is not an issue. In D&D, it still is--and the Iron Heroes system unchanged would make it too easy to devalue the roles of the ranger, bard, and rogue in the party.

Still, I like the idea. Here, then, is my proposal for implementing skill groups in D&D:

First, the groups should be much smaller than in Iron Heroes. A skill group should have at most 3 skills. Spending a skill point in a group still gets you one rank per skill.

Second, if your class has access to a skill group then all the skills in that group are class skills.

Third, ranks in cross-class skills cost one skill point each, but still have a maximum of (3+level)/2 to enforce the concept of niche protection.

Fourth, synergy skill pairs should not be part of the same group.

The D&D skill groups are:

Acrobatics: Balance, Tumble
Athletics: Climb, Jump, Swim
Cavalier: Handle Animal, Ride
Deception: Bluff, Disguise
Influence: Diplomacy, Intimidate
Mechanic: Open Lock, Disable Device
Medicine: Craft: Alchemy, Healing
Merchant: Appraise, Knowledge: Geography, Sense Motive
Mystic: Concentration, Knowledge: by magic (Arcana/Nature/Religion), Spellcraft
Perception: Listen, Spot
Pickpocket: Escape Artist, Sleight of Hand
Preacher: Diplomacy, Knowledge: Religion, Perform: Oratory
Scribe: Decipher Script, Forgery
Stealth: Hide, Move Silently
Streetwise: Gather Information, Knowledge: Local, Sense Motive
Wilderness: Handle Animal, Knowlege: Nature, Survival

Two skills, Diplomacy and Sense Motive, appear in two groups. Some skills appear in no groups: Craft/Profession/Perform, Search (see below), Speak Language, and Use Magic Device. In my campaign, Alchemy includes the ability to make medicines from natural resources--if you don't do this, then Heal need not be part of a skill group either.

The Search skill could probably be scrapped altogether. If you're not searching for anything specific, Spot can be used instead; if you are looking for something that you're an expert in, use that skill instead. 3.5 already set a precedent, allowing the use of Survival to search for tracks. Disable Device could be used to search for mechanical traps, Spellcraft could be used to search for magical traps, Appraise could be used to search for valuables in a room full of junk, Knowledge: Engineering could be used to search for secret
doors, and so on.

The classes have access to the following groups in addition to their usual list of class skills:

Barbarian: Athletics, Cavalier, Perception, Wilderness
Bard: Acrobatics, Deception, Influence, Merchant, Mystic, Preacher, Streetwise
Cleric: Medicine, Mystic, Preacher, Scribe
Druid: Athletics, Medicine, Mystic, Wilderness
Fighter: Athletics, Cavalier
Monk: Acrobatics, Athletics, Perception, Scribe, Stealth
Paladin: Athletics, Cavalier, Influence, Mystic, Preacher
Ranger: Athletics, Cavalier, Medicine, Perception, Stealth, Wilderness
Rogue: Acrobatics, Athletics, Deception, Mechanic, Merchant, Perception,
Pickpocket, Scribe, Stealth, Streetwise
Sorcerer: Deception, Influence, Mystic
Wizard: Mystic, Scribe

I think I would find this system perfectly acceptable. I have some concern that the ranger, rogue, and bard will wind up with too many skills; the rogue in particular is at least doubling his skill selection and should never need to invest in Intelligence. On the other hand, I think the rogue is an underpowered class, and would it really be so bad if it became the undisputed skill master of the game?

If you find people are getting too many skills under this system, consider changing the base skill points for the class as follows:

Cleric, Fighter, Paladin, Sorcerer, Wizard: 2
Barbarian, Druid, Monk: 3
Bard, Ranger: 4 (They got a skill boost of 2 points in 3.5 in recognition of the fact that they had too many core skills; under this system they no longer need that boost.)
Rogue: 6

One might also argue that instead of adding skill groups to the system, you could simply increase the number of skill points that each class gets--say to 4/level for the Cleric, Fighter, Paladin, Sorcerer, and Wizard; 6/level for the Barbarian, Druid, and Monk; 8/level for the Bard and Ranger, and 12/level for the rogue. While this is simpler, it doesn't solve the problem of cross-class skills being far too expensive--players will just get more core skills than they had previously. I think the skill groups system will encourage players to stay in their archetype to a great extent, but also to diversify their portfolio.

For example, if I want to play a con-artist rogue then I might pick the following skill groups: Deception, Merchant, Perception, Pickpocket, Scribe, Stealth, Streetwise, and use my last skill point in Diplomacy. I could then keep the following skills maxxed out: Appraise, Bluff, Decipher Script, Disguise, Diplomacy, Escape Artist, Forgery, Gather Information, Hide, Knowledge: Geography and Local, Listen, Move Silently, Sense Motive, Sleight of Hand, Spot.

Is such a character overpowered?

Your thoughts and comments will be appreciated.

Cheers,
Ben

 

[Li Shenron]

Ok, here's my opinion, but please don't get angry

To cut it short, your system seems just fine for me. So do most of the many skill variant systems which are suggested by people who think that the core system needs improvement.

All the "need" for improvement comes from the perception of players, who always tend to see their own characters weaker than they actually are. They always push for variants which give them higher stats for example, or bonus feats, or more ranks in skills as your system.

Nothing wrong in having fun in tweaking the rules. A variant written by you will make your game feel more "yours", and this is good.

Regarding skills specifically, the core system may seem quite stingy, but it really isn't. Let's see your starting points:

1) True that cross-class skills are discouraged. Having classes in general discourages dipping into someone else's path. Sometimes it may be really make some character idea prohibitive, in which case I prefer to help the player with an "ad-hoc" solution rather than trying to make a variant system, which will not necessarily work for the next character.
If you can see skills just like you see BAB, proficiencies or spells, it makes sense that cross-class skills are hard to get; it is actually a bonus to have them, because in a different system your PC might even be completely banned from other's skills unless he multiclasses.

But it is not a must to keep skills as they are, just as one could "liberalize" spells or feats or whatever, meaning that you can try to make skills more out of the class system if you like.

2) Class lists are not arbitrary at all! They are imperfect, that is, because the designers were not careful in designing them. They are based on certain archetype, just like each class is. If you want a different archetype, it's usually easier to either modify a class on the fly for a specific character, or use other mechanics (feats) to help breaking the boundaries of an archetype (granting new class skills).

3) Here is the part which I disagree more with. I have played really a lot of variants about skills, all of which gave PCs more than the core rule gives. Players believe that they MUST max out their "basic" skills AND still have skill points for something extra. I don't think they should necessarily have that.

I take the Ranger as an example, because it irked me when they gave him 6 sp in 3.5. The archetypal ranger is a sort of scout who lives in the woods, and a good hunter-tracker. Wilderness Lore, Knowledge Nature, Handle Animal, Move Silently, Hide, Spot, Listen are all typical skills for a Ranger, but to which extend? How the hell says that every Ranger should have all these and to the max? If all Rangers had these, you will surely have little to no difference among rangers, except in the extra things which are not about being a ranger

Furthermore, there is a group economy that should be significant. Too many PCs with the same skills are not useful at all (depends on the skill of course). Two PCs with max Survival (ex the Ranger and the Druid or Barbarian) are NOT needed.
Actually, you should be able to play even if your group doesn't cover all skills! A group without a single character with Disable Device should be able to work fine, it only needs another way to get past traps. A group without Move Silently only needs another way past guards. Who says that you "must" have these in the group?

Finally, skills are not at all needed to be "maxed out". The DM is not required to scale up the DCs to the maximum just because the Cleric has maxed out Knowledge Religion, and the Cleric doesn't have the right to pretend to win that check 100% of the times. For the record, I've played sorcerer almost without ranks in Spellcraft or Knowledge Arcana, and she didn't suffer (clearly she wasn't a counterspeller or the party sage).

Conclusion: I think you like thinking about the rules a lot, and you have a lot of fun with tweaking them, nothing wrong with that. And your system is definitely balanced IMO, so go ahead. I do that all the time (with skills too in fact I just officially made a new house rules about skills in my 3.0 campaign). But don't think about it being necessary because it's not that. Iron Heroes introduction may say so, but it's only because if it doesn't seem necessary you ain't buying it

edit: mmm, my last sentence was kinda rude I actually don't think Monte & Mike do these onlt to sell, but they're players too, and so probably feel the PCs always need "boosts"

 

[Bastoche]

The fact that in D&D, the skill list is (relatively speaking) lacking in numbers and variety is due to the rogue balancing factor. If you give more skills to everyone, the rogue will get the shaft. Granted he will still have more skills than the others but he will be much less "necessary" to the party.

The system works well in Iron Heroes because ALL character classes fills the same role in the party: being and efficent warrior.

 

[fuindordm]

Li, your post was far from rude. No worries!

I guess the need to tinker with the skill system comes from the feeling that skills are not as important in D&D as they should be. I think in an 'average' D&D game (that is, the kind that Wizards imagines beginners playing), only a few skills need to be maxxed out--Tumble, Concentration, stealth and perception skills for example, because they have DCs that can keep going up and up as you face higher CR opponents. The others have more or less fixed DCs and once you reach a certain level in the skill you can do things reliably (especially if retries are allowed), and spend your skill points elsewhere.

And skill checks are often just an occasional thing. I like to run a game where skills are used all the time,
so I would like players to have more skills in general.

Anyway, thanks for your comments.

Ben

 

[Li Shenron]

I guess the need to tinker with the skill system comes from the feeling that skills are not as important in D&D as they should be.

...

And skill checks are often just an occasional thing. I like to run a game where skills are used all the time, so I would like players to have more skills in general.

I would like that too... in general I prefer low-mid level games when the party doesn't always have a spell to solve every problem. I'm not sure however that by having more skill points you'll see many more skills being used, but you'll see more skills succeed for sure.

To make skills more important, I would instead like to see each of them expanded to be more more versatile.

For example:
- What if Move Silently allowed also to cast spells with a softer voice, and Hide to cast spells diguising the gestures? What about requiring a MS check vs Listen or Hide vs Spot for casting spells without being noticed?
- What about using Concentration to be used to avoid some AoOs?
- Appraise to get a hint about what a magic item does, atleast vaguely?
- Wilderness Lore to estimate travel times and get a "distance discount" by detours?

This is no easy task, and very few supplements have significant skill expansions (tho they have new skills outright, which actually makes things worse ). I would not be able to design new uses for existing skills and sets the DCs, but IMO this sort of things would improve the role of skills more than having more skill points.

 

[Thondor]

I like the concept of skill groups but I think if you are implimenting your system you'll need to use the lowered skill #'s that you presented (rogue's with 6 excetra). Have fun with it!
I feel however that you can aleviate the problem of diversity by :
a) making cross-class skills not cost 2 for 1 merely limiting them to half the maximum.
B) if the player has a solid reason for the character being very good at the skill such as a fighter that's a sailor having Use Rope, then wave the limit to the full max.

I would really like to see expanded uses for skills, perhaps even some new skills(not that I've ever been able to think of any) As Li suggested.
examples:
Use rope: after a certain # of ranks (6????) a character can use a net, lariat/lasso (are there rules for these somewhere?) maybe even bolas without the exotic proficiency.

I like the Apraise as presented, Wilderness Lore should be Knowledge (geography) for shortening travel time by planning the best course (assuming you can find good maps or speak with knowlegeble locals) Wilderness Lore would then be following that course (synergy bonus?)

Forgery and Decipher Script(Writing/reading): should be combined IMO there uses are to rare. (no one but wizards can write/read IMC without 1 skill point - the wizards get the skill point free)

I wish I had more ideas. Maybe I'll come back to it later

 

[Spatzimaus]

I'm just not sure it's necessary to drastically overhaul the skill system. The current system discourages cross-class skill spending, sure, but I look at it a different way: IMO, the basic problem is that a character's class skill list is set in stone from the start, unless they multiclass. So, the best solutions, to me, are ones that allow characters to customize their class skill list. You want "the seafaring fighter (marine), the court magician, the urban berserker, the savage bard"? Easy to fix. If it's simply a matter of making one or two skills be available to the player, then do it in a way that's balanced.

For instance, allow every player to pick one skill at character creation to be a class skill for them at all times. If that skill later becomes a class skill for you, you get a permanent +1 bonus. We did this IMC a long time ago; sure, it makes things a little more powerful, but it was surprising how often people picked non-optimal skills. The Psion, for instance, took Speak Language, just because he could. Or make it race-related, and give every race two; for instance, all Elves get Spot and Listen as class skills; all Dwarves get the metal/stone Craft skills; Half-Orcs get Intimidate and Survival; Humans get to pick two; Half-Elves get Spot or Listen as one, and pick the other.

One upshot is that it makes PrCs much easier to enter; many of them require 8-10 ranks in a skill because it effectively limits access to a single class. A Sorcerer can now be a Loremaster by picking a Knowledge skill, for instance. Seriously, we had people wanting to play Human, Half-Orc, or Half-Elf simply because the Human Paragon class has an ability that adds one permanent class skill, and it finally allowed them to play the type of character they wanted. That's just bad design.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

Paladin: Athletics, Cavalier, Influence, Mystic, Preacher

Correct me if I added wrong, but isn't that 13 class skills (and thus automatic skill points, according to your system, as it appears to me)? Assuming a paladin of int 10 (which is a pretty generous assumption for many paladin builds), you've just granted him 6.5 times the skill points, plus however many bonus skill points to spend on other groups you gave him!

You're right though, the system does discourage cross-class skill buying. But in older additions of the game, wasn't the system even less flexible than the current one? Your average fighter should never take a rank in knowledge: the planes, thus they don't get it as a class skill. If the character studies the planes while not practicing with his sword, then he can progress in knowledge, but still no where near as fast as the wizard who devotes his life to such studies.

If you want to change the cross-class system to be less punishing, why not just use that one rule change you made: cc skills cost 1 sp per rank, but have a maximum half as much as a class skill. That way it's more enticing, without stepping on the toes of classes that can fully max out the skill.

I think the best way is to just talk with your DM before character creation about making a skill list suitable for your character idea (as UA basically introduced). I disagree with you on this point, however: some skills are indeed better than others. Who wouldn't choose Tumble over Heal? No need to make tables or rules about this though. It should be clear what a fair trade is based on an existing skill list. Climb for Gather Information and Survival for Diplomacy could make a class with those original skills into more of a out-doorsman type, for example.

You certaintly put a lot of effort into your system, though. I'd like to know how it works out.

 

[genshou]

Do all skills really need to be maxed? It makes sense for a PC to work on those skills that have a cinematic or heroic edge to them, such as Hide/MS, Spot/Listen, Tumble, in certain campaigns the social skills, and of course modern skills such as Computer Use (for that Social Security Database hacking) or Repair. A few ranks is enough for most uses of a skill, but if you're doing big-league forgery you can't get by without devoting your training to a serious degree in that area. How many people need more than a few ranks in Use Rope (if any at all)? Obviously if you're constantly flinging ropes around (such as lassoing purple worms and G/C dragons), you'll need every rank you can get. But usually it's the sorts of skills that get opposed rolls and happen frequently that get the focus. And why not? A normal guard has a Spot of between +0 and +4, which means it's fairly easy to hide your forces in the forest near a castle as you survey their defenses. When you're trying to get by the rival adventuring band, however, or the seasoned veteran scout, it makes sense you'd need to be an expert at sneaking. If you're a common soldier, you won't need a Hide +40, but if you're a ninja or some kind of superspy...

I don't think there's enough wrong with the skills system to implement a change of this magnitude, but obviously YMMV.

 

[Spatzimaus]

Do all skills really need to be maxed?

Yes and no. Most classes have a few "required" skills that will practically always be maxxed out. But there are plenty of skills that don't absolutely require being maxxed to be effective.

If you're a multiclass Rogue/Wizard, for instance, getting 4 or 5 ranks of Hide and Move Silently is usually enough to allow you to use stealth to get past anyone who doesn't have ranks in Spot or Listen. And as people have just pointed out, most people don't spend a lot of cross-class skill points, so who has high Spot/Listen? It's even more important for some of the other Rogue skills; having a few ranks in Bluff or Disguise go a long way, since most people don't have ranks in the "counter" skills like Sense Motive.

Most of the Knowledge, Craft, Profession, etc. skills don't need to be maxxed, either; it's nice to have a handful of ranks in them, but you don't absolutely need the max if you're trying to meet a set DC. Same goes for Tumble or Concentration; if you're almost never trying to hit a DC higher than 15-20, do you need to keep adding more skill points once you reach the teen levels?