Skill Pts idea: all gain +2/lvl, all lose -1/lvl after 1st

[Nyeshet]

An odd idea I had recently but have not yet tried out in regards to skill points:

Every class gains 2 extra skill points every level (8 at first level). However, at second and every level thereafter, the character loses one skill point from a skill not used the prior level. If all were used, then it must come from one of the least used skills. I do not exactly intend for the DM or character to keep track, but even they should realize whether or not a skill has been often used or rarely used by the end of a level. A rogue that has made common use of Search, Disable Trap, etc, but has not used - say - Disguise, would lose a rank in Disguise. They could choose to use one of their two bonus ranks to replace the lost rank, of course, or they could move on.

The idea is that skills unused would eventually fade. A high level rogue that specializing in finding and disabling traps and in scouting ahead (listen, spot, hide, move silently) could honestly say that in his youth he was highly skilled in diplomacy and could spot a lie at a glance, despite the fact that he no longer has any ranks in those skills. I just think it would be a way to add a bit of realism.

As already stated, I do not intend for the DM or PC to keep track of each skill use, but I imagine that after a level they probably could glance at the character sheet and say 'well, I didn't make much use of this skill last level, so I'll drop a rank from it' or 'I can't recall the last time I used this skill, so I guess it'll be the one this time to drop a rank'.

The only problem I foresee is PrC requirements, but it could be ruled that those skills required for held PrCs cannot be lowered beyond the minimum allowed for the PrC. Thus a more commonly used skill would then take the hit, since the PrC skill requirements are removed from consideration (at least once the skill is at the minimum level for PrC requirements).

Another possible issue is cross class skills, but if the PC puts the point into one (ie: a half rank), then makes little use of the rank and removes it the next level - over and over again, then I see them as basically wasting the opportunity this potentially provides.

Anyway, what do you think? Interesting? Wonderful? Terrible? So-so? Any other major issues I would need to consider? I freely admit the second skill rank gained is in part to make up for any inconvience from the other skill rank gained (as otherwise it would be +1/-1 skill point every level - basically trading out a skill rank each level).

 

[GuardianLurker]

I think you'll probably want to put a minimum reduction on it; most skills don't aptrophy to nothing, but reach a certain level and stop. Some skills should be immune (like the proverbial bike riding).

You may also want to consider that adventurers level fairly fast - they don't really have time to forget much. Perhaps -X/season, or -X/year instead?

 

[Nyeshet]

I think you'll probably want to put a minimum reduction on it; most skills don't aptrophy to nothing, but reach a certain level and stop. Some skills should be immune (like the proverbial bike riding).

Perhaps it cannot be reduced to less than 1 rank in the skill? I don't know about you, but I haven't ridden a bike in 6+ years. Were I to try riding one now I have little doubt that I could, but then I also have little doubt that I would be a bit unsteady at it for a while, and I certainly would not be able to do any of the (admittedly minor) tricks I used to be able to do on one. Also, I cannot play a guitar or an piano any more - both of which I could play about 10-15 years ago. If I were given a refresher course for a half year I could perhaps pick up half of what I have lost in those areas, but it would take more than that, I think to really regain the lost skill. I truly cannot play either at the moment. That suggests a skill rank of zero in a trained skill.

So I am uncertain as to whether I should have a minimum of 1 rank or not. The Ride (bicycle) example does suggest that I should, but the Perform (guitar, piano) aspects suggest I should not. I will have to think on this. Good example, by the way.

You may also want to consider that adventurers level fairly fast - they don't really have time to forget much. Perhaps -X/season, or -X/year instead?

I tend to give out half typical XP - mostly to help prevent the sky-rocket through the levels effect typical of the standard suggested XP, so I would not see such all that often. A problem with 1/season or 1/year is that if this is applied to NPCs all of them will have 0 ranks in all skills. It would also make long downtimes for the PCs troublesome, as they would lose several skill ranks without gaining any in return, thus unbalancing the setup. No, I think it should only occur when skills are gained, and the gain should far outweigh the loss - thus the gain of 2 and the loss of only 1.

For typical leveling speeds, perhaps I can see it as -1 skill point per two levels. Thus one point would be lost at second level and every even level thereafter. Would that be closer to the speed you are used to?

 

[Laman Stahros]

Instead of removing ranks, why not apply a penalty instead? That way you never lose the minimum ranks for a PrC and it would be easier to set a retraining system to remove the penalty.

 

[Nyeshet]

Instead of removing ranks, why not apply a penalty instead? That way you never lose the minimum ranks for a PrC and it would be easier to set a retraining system to remove the penalty.

You do realize we would be talking about permanent penalties to multiple skills over multiple levels, right? That would become a small headache for player and DM alike, keeping track of all of those penalties - especially as they would predominantly be in areas that are infrequently used - if ever.

I see this as a true loss of skill, something that - were they to attempt to qualify for a PrC or feat later on, they could not take it due to lack of skill. With a penalty they could - in theory - qualify for such, as the requirements do not - by the RAW - take penalties into consideration. If it did, it would also have to take into consideration bonuses - such as by Alertness or Skill Focus. I think most will admit that both situations - qualifying for a PrC or feat when the PC has the ranks but has a penalty in excess of their ranks or qualifying for a PrC or feat when the PC lacks the ranks but has the Skill Focus, +2/+2 feat to make up for the lack - are untenable. The former would lack any realism or rational reasoning, while the latter would make such feats overpowering.

Also, I think it would be harder to keep track of all the negative skill ranks that would build up if a penalty were involved in skills rarely used, whereas simply subtracting a skill ranks would negate any need to keep track after the fact. Furthermore, the bonus skill ranks would easily allow one to make up the loss if they really wish to do so.

So, I hope you do not mind, but I do not think the penalty idea is the best way to represent this idea.

 

[GuardianLurker]

I'd suggest a minimum of "next lowest 5". So if you have 4 ranks, down to Zero you go. But if you have 20 ranks, you'll only drop to 15. It also means that you won't typically lose a synergy bonus.

I'd also suggest that most Dex-based skills are immune; the reason why you don't forget how to ride a bike (balance, BTW) is muscle-memory. When I was younger, I could jog on railroad/train rails. I can't do it now, but that's because I'm an old fart and my Dex has dropped.

Ditto for Str and Con skills; there really isn't much to forget. I still *know* all the swimming tricks, I've just gotten weaker.

 

[Nyeshet]

I'd suggest a minimum of "next lowest 5". So if you have 4 ranks, down to Zero you go. But if you have 20 ranks, you'll only drop to 15. It also means that you won't typically lose a synergy bonus.

Suppose I have 17 ranks in a skill. The next lowest five would reduce me to 12. If I am using a variant rule for a synergy increase every five ranks, then I would (understandably) lose the synergy bonus. The same would be true if I had 7 ranks; the fifth lowest after would be 2 - well beyond the synergetic fifth level. Thus this ruling does not necessarily help.

Also, I don't see anything wrong with losing a synergy bonus. If the character does not use the skills, why should they still have them or gain any bonuses from them?

Also, recall that the PC is only losing one rank per level. Thus it would take 5+ levels of continual non-use of a skill that already has 5 ranks in it for it to fall to 0 ranks. I find it more likely that every level a different skill will come up as least used, with perhaps a single skill chosen at lower levels but rarely used since eventually pettering out around mid to high levels. Thus I don't think placing an upper limit on a skill is really necessary. Also, it increases the bookkeeping, as the PC or DM must keep track of how many times the skill has lost a rank - which is not necessary if there is no upper limit. And recall, the skills that slowly vanish are those least used - and thus the ones arguably least useful to the character.

I'd also suggest that most Dex-based skills are immune; the reason why you don't forget how to ride a bike (balance, BTW) is muscle-memory. When I was younger, I could jog on railroad/train rails. I can't do it now, but that's because I'm an old fart and my Dex has dropped.

Ditto for Str and Con skills; there really isn't much to forget. I still *know* all the swimming tricks, I've just gotten weaker.

Escape Artist and Use Rope are Dex skills, and I think if I were several years out of practice (ie: a few levels) I would be less willing to attempt an Escape Artist check and would have difficulty remembering most of the knots I used to know. In fact, I know this is true. I recall perhaps four or five basic knots out of over a couple dozen I used to know 10+ years ago in Boy Scouts. The only Con skill is Concentration - which arguably shouldn't even be a skill but a Will save instead.

That leaves Strength. Tell me, if you were a professional mountain climber 5-10 years out of practice in climbing, would you be willing to climb a difficult sheer cliff face? Even in an enclosed area with ropes, nets, etc? It wouldn't just be a matter of strength loss. You would have less ability to judge whether a hand hold is a good one, whether a foot hold will truly hold your weight, whether the next hold is uncomfortably too far or just withing comfortable reach. Also, there would be decreased muscle mass in the hands and feet, but that is not adequetly described in the Str score - which more accurately depicts the arms, legs, and back rather than the digits.

Thus, I do not think that any skill should be exempt from a potential decrease. Any skill can atrophy with lack of use.

_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/

Laman Stahros, it occurs to me that your 'retraining' idea may be linked to the similar idea in the new PHB2. I am due to receive the book either tomorrow or early next week. I'll take a look over it, but from what I recall the system is used to re-allot skill points, feats, spells, etc. If that is the case then it is a more complicated version of the +1 skill pt / -1 skill point I am talking about, and it is not every level but instead upon demand - thus negating the 'lose due to lack of use' which I am attempting to install into the game for greater realism. However, I will consider it - or a variant of it.

 

[Hawken]

Instead of per level/season/year, why not just make it every month and don't worry about levels. If a skill isn't used in that month, they get a -1 circumstance penalty. This is cumulative with each additional month after that the skill is not used. The maximum circumstance penalty for not using a skill = skill rank.

If you use the unused skill at least 1/week for the next month, then the penalty is gone. You could also waive the penalty when the character advances a level or puts a point into that skill (even a .5 point for cross-class would be enough to negate the non-use penalty). If the penalty is -2, it would take two months of steady use to remove the penalty.

For dealing with synergy bonuses, simply subtract the penalty from the rank in the skill and if the value is less than 5, the synergy bonus is lost. Ex: Character has 6 ranks in Tumble, but due to a lack of adventure, had no reason to use the skill the past two months, so he gets a -2 circumstance penalty to that skill. 6 ranks - 2 pt penalty = 4; since that is less than the 5 ranks needed to grant a synergy bonus, he would lose his +2 synergy bonus to Jump. (Excuse me if I have the skills wrong or backwards, but you should still see the point).

I would make skills that are the subject of certain feats or special abilities (Skill Focus, Skill Mastery ability, etc.) not subject to the circumstance penalty for non-use since special training was involved with their development.

This has the added benefit of staying in line with the PHB/SRD rules and the allotted number of skill points per class/level.

Others have posted about how their skills have atrophied to the point of uselessness, but their examples are also measured out over years, not months or seasons. So, I don't think their reasons would necessarily apply here.

 

[dvvega]

Actually there are many RPG systems that use something similar.

However instead of saying you MUST lose 1 rank, you make a roll against a set DC to see if you keep the ranks you have or if you lose 1. You can of course tailor the DC and as d20 seems to be based on the +2 concept, it really should be 2 ranks.

Most of these systems don't care if you used the skill or not - the theory goes that a skill you put points into will always be trained at some stage, but may just go down.

These systems also let you gain a rank based on the same type of roll. So when you roll you risk losing but also could gain something.

In game terms, you need to keep track of when you use a skill and that counts as a +1 to your check for loss/gain. A DC X would be required to keep the skill as is, each failure by 5 would lose 2 ranks, each success by 5 would gain 2 ranks. Here X can be set to tailor against your campaign. It might be level based also since you don't want people gaining ranks too often.

 

[Lorehead]

I'd recommend using the rebuilding rules in the Player's Handbook II, with the additional restriction that you can only replace an ability that you haven't used in a while.