Skill Groups for D&D

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

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.

Using skill groups, many more opponents will have high Spot/Listen or Sense Motive.

 

[Spatzimaus]

Using skill groups, many more opponents will have high Spot/Listen or Sense Motive.

Circular logic. You're saying that since you feel the core rules don't encourage dabbling in non-key skills, you'll change to a system that makes it easier to do so. Of COURSE the advantage of the core-rule dabbler will go away, then. My point is this: under the core rules, someone who chooses to put a handful of ranks in nonstandard skills has a substantial advantage already on opposed rolls, since the majority of high-level players tend to fall to the two extremes. Either they maxxed out the skill in question, in which case you shouldn't even try (and trying to raise the skill further would only be a waste), or they haven't spent anything (in which case even 4-5 ranks make a huge difference). So, part of the "problem" the skill group system seems to be fixing is something the players could already do just by spending their skill points more intelligently.

I've had players tell me to my face that my Sorcerer was "gimped" because he didn't have max ranks in Spellcraft. And it's ridiculous; once you have enough skill points to meet the typical DCs you face, you're far better off moving those skill points to something more useful. (In my Sorcerer's case, a half-dozen ranks of Speak Language.) But I just don't see this happen very often; in my last group, almost all of the characters had just enough skill points to max their key skills, and nothing else. When I made my Psion character (Shaper), I deliberately put more INT into him than I needed, just so that I'd have plenty of extra skill points to spend on "fun" skills; he had almost forty ranks in six different Craft skills, just so that when I used Fabricate to make a statue out of the "raw material" of the enemy's castle wall, I could make something artistic.

So anyway, my original point: instead of large-scale changes that require all sorts of rebalancing fixes, just fix it so the players can add the one or two skills they REALLY want, or just encourage them to use the existing system to add a few ranks here and there.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

Circular logic.

Well, no it isn't. What I said was that under a skill groups system, your points aren't valid. Having said that, I agree with all your points in the context of the official skill system.

In a skill groups system, many more characters will have ranks in Spot/Listen or Sense Motive, mainly because they have more available skill points, since they can use a handful of skill points to take ranks in all of their core skills. That's OK, because your character also has more skill points available to take ranks in Move Silently/Hide or Bluff, so it all comes out in the wash.

 

[fuindordm]

Good points all...

Part of the problem with D&D as I see it, and the reason why characters are expected to get by with only a handful of skill points, is that about half the skills on the list are easily trumped by low-level, commonly available skills. It isn't necessary in D&D that a party have ranks in all the available skills, because they have magic to do their work for them in an emergency. That's another reason that Iron Heroes has the skill group system, because the heroes can't count on magic and it's more important that a party have access to many skills.

I suppose you all are right, that simply removing the 2-for-1 cost on cross-class skills and allowing swapping of class skills would be enough of a change for D&D.

Ben

 

[Lorion]

In my Eberron campaign I've just given every class +2 skill points per level (e.g. the rogue gets 10 + int modifier per level, the barbarian 6 + int modifier and so on), the recommended skill groups from the Iron Heroes appendix, and introduced the revised craft and knowledge skills from the same book...
Prestige classes also get +2 skill points per level but no skill groups.
I've removed the concept of cross-class skills from my game...

But then again we play really rules-lite and not combat heavy at all, so it may just be us...

Cheers, Marcus

 

[Afrodyte]

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.

Given these problems, I think there are some additional options you may consider as well. The first is to increase the number of skill points some classes have access to. The second is to consolidate some skills (Balance + Tumble = Acrobatics) and get rid of others (Use Rope). The system you proposed in your original post seems aimed at consolidating some skills, but went about it in a rather convoluted way. Instead of having skill groups as a rule, why not have them as an option, something like packages so it can be easier for players to put enough ranks in the most important skills for their concept while leaving room for additional options?

Of course, you'd have to alter which skills are class skills for each class. For the most part, they're fine, but some have too many or too few. Ditto skill points. From there, each class would have two or three builds that use the class skills a bit differently. Let's use the fighter as an example. You could have a sentinel, a cavalier, or even a military officer. Each of these builds would use the skill points they have a bit differently. The sentinel would likely have skills in Climb, Jump, Listen, and Spot. The cavalier would have Handle Animal and Ride. The military officer would spend his skill points in Diplomacy, Intimidate, Knowledge (History and/or Tactics), and Ride.