Skills As "Weapons"

[I'm A Banana]

Here's sort of a brainstorm from over in the newest mearls thread:

Skills Are Weapons.

You go to attack the orc! You can choose to use a sword, or an axe, or a spear, or your bare hands, or a club, or whatever...each weapon has slightly different properties, bonuses, and penalties.

You try to convince the orcs not to eat you! You can choose to use diplomacy, or intimidation, or bribery, or deceit, or whatever...each skill has slightly different properties, bonuses, and penalties.

You are running away from the orcs! You can choose to use stealth (to hide from them), athletics (to run faster than them), endurance (to run longer than them), or whatever....each skill has slightly different properties, bonuses, and penalties.

In this model, feats can add breadth. They customize based on what you can use. Use a feat to train in a new weapon, a new interaction skill, or a new exploration skill (or possibly a new defense mode for any of those).

Feats, in this model, are the natural place for multiclassing, though perhaps not as a "feat tax." I don't need to take two feats to use a spear. I take a feat, I can use the spear. I should need only one feat to use another class's ability. I take a feat, I can use the ability.

What the properties, bonuses, and penalties are would depend on the system used for task resolution. If we take D&D's "d20 vs. DC + damage/hp" model and apply it to exploration and interaction, we can have something like...

Swords
Proficiency: +3
Damage: 1d8
Quality: Versatile

Diplomacy
Proficiency: +2
Persuasiveness: 1d10
Quality: Cautious (helps your social defense)

Stealth
Proficiency: +3
Speed: 1d4
Quality: Hidden (you are hidden when you successfully use this skill)

....or whatever.

So, y'see, the idea is that just as your skill with a longsword is determined by "proficiency" and then given a "damage" value and some sort of special quality in physical combat, other skills work similarly in other forms of conflict resolution.

Further pondering needed, but do you think this would be an attractive method of skill use? How might you develop the idea?

 

[3catcircus]

Why not? Other systems use this approach in reverse from traditional D&D in that they make weapon use and armor use skill-based.

 

[Living Legend]

I've heard a few times about the theory have having something like "social hit points" and I find the idea very intriguing. It looks like you propose something similar. I would like to try something like that, maybe at a con or something, but I don't think I could be convinced of it's merit until I actually tried it and found it worked.

 

[Quickleaf]

I knew a gamer who always had to be right, had a masters in history, and had prolific knowledge of "medieval" history, and loved to drag it into games to prove his points.

That guy used history as a weapon.

While it may have oppressed some of us less intellectually predatorial or verbally self-righteous, I wonder what that would do for a less inhibited Orc.

"Guns, Germs, and Steel" vs. Heavy Mace?

 

[Bedrockgames]

Here's sort of a brainstorm from over in the newest mearls thread:



So, y'see, the idea is that just as your skill with a longsword is determined by "proficiency" and then given a "damage" value and some sort of special quality in physical combat, other skills work similarly in other forms of conflict resolution.

Further pondering needed, but do you think this would be an attractive method of skill use? How might you develop the idea?

I think there are two issues with this approach that may cause it to be received negatively. The first is it makes the game potentially much more complicated where many non combat skills go from largely being succeed - don't succeed to being as involved as combat. Also i think there is a lot of resistance to these types of involved social mechanics in the gaming community. Not saying its a bad idea, but i do think there are lots of people who will see it and be turned off.

 

[Janx]

some time ago, I toyed with the homebrew idea to turn D&D into skills based, by making the weapons be skills. Thus BAB was really ranks in skills.

The trick would be, to set the SP per level (like using rogue's 8x factor) as the model, and giving each class enough class-oriented skills to burn the points on and spread things out.


The danger of skills-based designs is that they can allow a player to cherry pick skills to break the system. This is akin to the danger of any multi-classing ruleset as well.

You can tell you have an imbalance, when nobody plays a pure "class" oriented PC. They all wield swords, cast spells, and sneak like crazy.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I've heard a few times about the theory have having something like "social hit points" and I find the idea very intriguing.

Yeah, it's basically a resolution model where you accumulate points of X until it beats the score of the enemies (Y). In order to gain points of X, you need to roll a d20 vs. a DC (perhaps even using existing defenses: Will for social skills, Fortitude for exploration skills)

With your social skills, you'd gain points of Persuasiveness with each use, until you beat the opponent's Stubbornness (or somesuch). With exploration skills, you'd gain points of Speed with each use, until you've overcome the area's Distance (or somesuch).

Note that it'd largely only be used to resolve conflict. In the same way you don't need to roll an attack to cut down a tree with an axe, you wouldn't have to roll Diplomacy to order a beer.

I'd also want the argument and the environment to "fight back," but that's sort of an extra layer of complexity.

I think there are two issues with this approach that may cause it to be received negatively. The first is it makes the game potentially much more complicated where many non combat skills go from largely being succeed - don't succeed to being as involved as combat. Also i think there is a lot of resistance to these types of involved social mechanics in the gaming community.

Man, maybe. The first is actually a Good Thing for me, since I don't like the binary nature of pass/fail skill checks. The second...well, I guess that'd require people to step out of their comfort zone.

The danger of skills-based designs is that they can allow a player to cherry pick skills to break the system. This is akin to the danger of any multi-classing ruleset as well.

You can tell you have an imbalance, when nobody plays a pure "class" oriented PC. They all wield swords, cast spells, and sneak like crazy

Do you think that'd be as much of a problem if the skills were assigned based on your class, like proficiency are now? If you're a Fighter, maybe you're trained in Intimidate and Athletics; if you're a Thief, perhaps Deceit and Stealth; if you're a Cleric, perhaps Diplomacy and Endurance; if you're a Wizard, maybe Charms and Astronomy? They'd have different qualities, and while training might be a feat away, each weapon sort of has benefits and drawbacks unique to it, and each skill probably would, too, so that certain classes (and ability score spreads) would gravitate toward certain skills....

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I think the main idea might work better if skills stay analogous to basic chance to hit, equipment stays equipment whether for combat skills or otherwise, and then feats are used to provide packages of abillities as you have listed. (This is mainly, but not entirely, a terminology issue.)

So you have BAB or combat "skill" or half level bonus or whatever. Then you have "social skill" or you have the 4E skills or whatever. Or you base all of these base skills straight off of ability rolls in some simple system. Anyway, none of this makes you a world-beater, but you do stay semi-competent as you level.

Equipment, magical or otherwise, lets you use these skills or use them better: Swords hit harder than punches, lockpicks work better than tiny knives, rope and grappling hook is better than a vine of poison ivy you grabbed off a tree.

Then you have a bunch of "feats" like you have listed. Want to not just pick up a sword and hit marginally harder than you punch? Take a feat to use the weapon. Want to sneak better than just going through the sleepy castle to get a midnight snack? Take a feat.

Want to throw that last option out for a simpler game built on the basic abilities? Give everyone a set of bonuses to their basic skill, based on level and class.

But if you wanted to roll all of the base numbers into the abilities or classes, call all of the packages "skills", and then drop feats entirely, I wouldn't quibble. But I do think the "base ability" vs "equipment" vs "skill/feat" distinction needs to be preserved, and consistent across combat and non-combat functions.

 

[Janx]

Do you think that'd be as much of a problem if the skills were assigned based on your class, like proficiency are now? If you're a Fighter, maybe you're trained in Intimidate and Athletics; if you're a Thief, perhaps Deceit and Stealth; if you're a Cleric, perhaps Diplomacy and Endurance; if you're a Wizard, maybe Charms and Astronomy? They'd have different qualities, and while training might be a feat away, each weapon sort of has benefits and drawbacks unique to it, and each skill probably would, too, so that certain classes (and ability score spreads) would gravitate toward certain skills....

I suspect, as you say, skills need to be grouped by type, and there'd be restrictions on how many from each group a PC could have. probably determined by class, thus keeping the Class cow in the mix.

 

[[OMENRPG]Ben]

OMEN does something similar to this: everything falls into one of eight Skills, and each Skill has three Specialties.

For example, let us say that you wish to be highly capable with the use of a spear. The player would need to apply points into the Melee Combat Skill, which would unlock its three specialties. Further, if the player truly wished to specialize with the spear, he could select the Poles specialty, pertaining to all longer weapons that have some form of polearm makeup (halberd, spear, naginata, whatever). Therefore, whenever the character uses melee weapons, he has some amount of skill due to being good in general at the Melee Combat skill, but is exceptionally good at Pole use, in this case embodied as a Spear.

This same system percolates throughout the entirety of OMEN, including social, technological, or perception instances where rolls are required. It has been very easy and intuitive to explain to beginners as well as giving a breath of fresh air to many staunch and rather colorful veterans of RPGs.

All "damage" is indicated by the degree of success of the Roll. Since the degree of success is the difference between the attacker/pursuer's Roll and the defender/obstacle's Roll (or static Target Number in some instances), it is very easy to apply a level of magnitude to it.

An exceptional high Roll opposed to an exceptionally low Roll deals a rather large degree of success, while two exceptionally high Rolls, even if the attacker's was slightly higher than the defender's, only signifies a minor degree of success. This is of course geared toward combat, but can also be used descriptively and logically in arguments, disarming explosives, or climbing steep walls and the like.

There are other systems that do something similar, but we are fully committed to the model and believe that it makes a smooth and fun role-playing experience.

So to be brief, yes, Skills as weapons works quite well, and will be published in the OMEN RPG shortly.