D&D 3E/3.5 the 3e skill system

[billd91]

yes, abstact, and yet the rules say it always takes 20 times as long to do.

Hence the abstract since it isn’t the exact number of times it takes to luck out and actually roll a 20 (which actually may be more than 20x as long).

 

[Ilbranteloth]

I fail to understand how I can possibly be ignoring skills and proficiency just by calling for checks normally. This is a bridge too far -- that the game doesn't acknowledge or represent skill or proficiency unless a passive floor is installed. That's just a weird thing to say.

I don't allow passive checks to be a floor. You end up with things like a passive 25 perception check with a skill bonus of +10 (observant feat). This means that the PC autosucceeds on very hard perception checks at all times (absent disad) but can only succeed on an observation skill check actually rolled about 30% of the time. That's just odd stuff, there. To make that work, you'd have to have a host of other houserules to level it out, and I'm already past my limit of keeping track of PC stats if I tried to remember what their passive scores are. Way too much work for wonky results and not much improvement over just calling for checks when appropriate.

Passive scores represent constant effort over time. It's the score you use when on watch, or if you're looking for traps down a long hall, or other, constant effort tasks. Normally, according to the PHB play loop and using the middle path from the DMG, you'd only ever call for a check when the PC states an action with an uncertain result, the task is achievable and not trivial (this is based on the task, not the PC stats), and there's a consequence for failure. That pretty much solves the calling for trivial checks problem, because you'll only call for checks when these things apply. And, the neat thing, is you don't care what the PC stats are -- the DC should be based on the difficulty of the action attempted. So, if you call for a check and the PC can autobeat it with their stat, they feel super awesome and the thing happens. It's a neat way to do exactly what you're talking about -- making PC skills and proficiency count -- without ever even having to think about what the PC's stats actually are. They're going to try to attempt actions that align with their abilities and PC desires, and you just adjudicate and it comes out in the wash.

And, I say this after having tried what you're talking about. I even further codified skills and bonuses to attempt to achieve skill perfection. It took getting frustrated and then actually listening to a few other ideas from posters here (shocking, I know) to get to the point that I was doing way, way too much work to get a result I didn't actually like. I tried the rules, and, wouldn't you know, they actually work pretty well. I don't fret it, my players are having more fun, and I'm having more fun. It's cool.

But, that's my way, not THE way. I'm glad you have a system that works for you, I just find it to be way too much work for not enough payoff. Especially the knock-on effects of having to houserule other things to fit it in and the DC inflation.

It wasn't hard to address the DCs. With or without Passive scores as a floor, I disagreed with the published ones anyway. In addition, I didn't care for the huge range of bonuses once Expertise was factored in.

As for the game "ignoring skills and proficiencies" it has to do with assessing when a roll is needed in my opinion.

For example, common advice now is to not ask for a roll when there is no chance for failure. How can you determine that if you don't compare it to their skills? If you asked my daughter to play a G chord on a guitar, she'd have no way to do it. But it's trivial for me, I don't even have to think about it. Likewise, give me a chord chart and I can play along without any trouble. They are both within my capabilities in nearly any circumstance where you give me a guitar. That would be within my Passive score.

If you give me a guitar in a different tuning, then I'd have disadvantage, because I'd have to figure out the fingering. It would depend on how different it was from standard tuning, though. So I'd have disadvantage and would probably have to make a check. However, give me a little time and I'd figure it out. I could still reasonably fail in future attempts, though. So if I'm just sitting there working it out, no check is needed because I have all the time in the world. But put me on stage and I have to perform it now? I'd have to make a check because it's not within my Passive capabilities and I might fail.

So as a DM, would you require me to make a check if I was given a guitar in standard tuning and told to play a song for the king? If so, then I think that you are not considering my skill or taking it into account. I can play that without fail no matter how many times you have me try. Forcing a check indicates that I might fail.

So, how do you determine what's within my capability and doesn't need a check? You do it on the fly, perhaps. But you base it on something. The obvious thing to base it on is DC vs. Passive score. That way you'll know that my +7 in guitar is significantly higher than the kid I started teaching a year ago and only has a +2. And that there are a lot of things I can play without thinking about it, that would be a challenge for them.

Perhaps paradoxically, I'm not trying to get "skill perfection" and one of the things I prefer is a bit more randomness in the game. That is, instead of a +x bonus, I prefer a +1d4 bonus, for example. Where possible anyway. Because I'm not a fan of the way a codified ruleset strictly defines success and failure. Having said that, I do think that for any skill, there are levels of proficiency (and non-, proficient, and -expert are enough for me), and that by tying a variable (advantage) to a fixed floor is a good way to cover both of those design elements. Defining DCs better is what helps ensure the floor is neither too low or too high.

It makes the game much more streamlined, in a way where there is solid information for the DM to work with when running the game. The focus can be more on the situations and circumstances that alter the normal chances of success, as well as on requiring checks when the stakes are higher, and avoids asking for what often seem like trivial checks.

DMs make these decisions all the time. But tying them to the Passive scores means they can make them more easily, and also take into account each PCs skills more consistently. It's less work (other than any tweaks you want to make to DCs, if any).

To address your Perception example, that's already covered in Sage Advice. You don't not see the stuff you'd notice with the bad roll. You'd simply not notice anything else. In RAW Passive Perception is already considered a floor.

 

[Ovinomancer]

It wasn't hard to address the DCs. With or without Passive scores as a floor, I disagreed with the published ones anyway. In addition, I didn't care for the huge range of bonuses once Expertise was factored in.

As for the game "ignoring skills and proficiencies" it has to do with assessing when a roll is needed in my opinion.

For example, common advice now is to not ask for a roll when there is no chance for failure. How can you determine that if you don't compare it to their skills? If you asked my daughter to play a G chord on a guitar, she'd have no way to do it. But it's trivial for me, I don't even have to think about it. Likewise, give me a chord chart and I can play along without any trouble. They are both within my capabilities in nearly any circumstance where you give me a guitar. That would be within my Passive score.

If you give me a guitar in a different tuning, then I'd have disadvantage, because I'd have to figure out the fingering. It would depend on how different it was from standard tuning, though. So I'd have disadvantage and would probably have to make a check. However, give me a little time and I'd figure it out. I could still reasonably fail in future attempts, though. So if I'm just sitting there working it out, no check is needed because I have all the time in the world. But put me on stage and I have to perform it now? I'd have to make a check because it's not within my Passive capabilities and I might fail.

So as a DM, would you require me to make a check if I was given a guitar in standard tuning and told to play a song for the king? If so, then I think that you are not considering my skill or taking it into account. I can play that without fail no matter how many times you have me try. Forcing a check indicates that I might fail.

So, how do you determine what's within my capability and doesn't need a check? You do it on the fly, perhaps. But you base it on something. The obvious thing to base it on is DC vs. Passive score. That way you'll know that my +7 in guitar is significantly higher than the kid I started teaching a year ago and only has a +2. And that there are a lot of things I can play without thinking about it, that would be a challenge for them.

Perhaps paradoxically, I'm not trying to get "skill perfection" and one of the things I prefer is a bit more randomness in the game. That is, instead of a +x bonus, I prefer a +1d4 bonus, for example. Where possible anyway. Because I'm not a fan of the way a codified ruleset strictly defines success and failure. Having said that, I do think that for any skill, there are levels of proficiency (and non-, proficient, and -expert are enough for me), and that by tying a variable (advantage) to a fixed floor is a good way to cover both of those design elements. Defining DCs better is what helps ensure the floor is neither too low or too high.

It makes the game much more streamlined, in a way where there is solid information for the DM to work with when running the game. The focus can be more on the situations and circumstances that alter the normal chances of success, as well as on requiring checks when the stakes are higher, and avoids asking for what often seem like trivial checks.

DMs make these decisions all the time. But tying them to the Passive scores means they can make them more easily, and also take into account each PCs skills more consistently. It's less work (other than any tweaks you want to make to DCs, if any).

To address your Perception example, that's already covered in Sage Advice. You don't not see the stuff you'd notice with the bad roll. You'd simply not notice anything else. In RAW Passive Perception is already considered a floor.

You do know there's other ways to come at that same problem, right? Like expecting the player to present both goal and approach in their action declaration, meaning not only what they want to accomplish but how they are trying to get there. So, "play a guitar" is a nice goal, but without an approach, I can't adjudicate it. That approach can be simply, "leveraging my proficiency in guitar" then I now know how to adjudicate that. Now, I consider if this is something that's worth a check -- does it have a consequence? If not, then the answer to the action with approach is "sure, you play a guitar." If it does, like say you're playing for food, then I'll set a DC based on the situation, like maybe "this area of the city isn't well off, so that sounds hard to play well enough to get food, DC 20."

If you don't know how to play guitar, it's really simple, I just say, "nope," and we move on.

I don't need to go through the effort of figuring out skill floors, keeping that information available, and then adjusting DCs that work just fine for me as is. And, I get skills and proficiencies mattering just fine. It's very cool that you've found your way, and it works for you, but there's other ways to the same goals. Not using your way doesn't mean mine fails. I'd actually find your approach stultifying and clunky if I tried to use it because I no longer value such heavily codified systems. But, I don't begrudge anyone else liking them.

 

[tetrasodium]

It wasn't hard to address the DCs. With or without Passive scores as a floor, I disagreed with the published ones anyway. In addition, I didn't care for the huge range of bonuses once Expertise was factored in.

As for the game "ignoring skills and proficiencies" it has to do with assessing when a roll is needed in my opinion.

For example, common advice now is to not ask for a roll when there is no chance for failure. How can you determine that if you don't compare it to their skills? If you asked my daughter to play a G chord on a guitar, she'd have no way to do it. But it's trivial for me, I don't even have to think about it. Likewise, give me a chord chart and I can play along without any trouble. They are both within my capabilities in nearly any circumstance where you give me a guitar. That would be within my Passive score.

If you give me a guitar in a different tuning, then I'd have disadvantage, because I'd have to figure out the fingering. It would depend on how different it was from standard tuning, though. So I'd have disadvantage and would probably have to make a check. However, give me a little time and I'd figure it out. I could still reasonably fail in future attempts, though. So if I'm just sitting there working it out, no check is needed because I have all the time in the world. But put me on stage and I have to perform it now? I'd have to make a check because it's not within my Passive capabilities and I might fail.

So as a DM, would you require me to make a check if I was given a guitar in standard tuning and told to play a song for the king? If so, then I think that you are not considering my skill or taking it into account. I can play that without fail no matter how many times you have me try. Forcing a check indicates that I might fail.

So, how do you determine what's within my capability and doesn't need a check? You do it on the fly, perhaps. But you base it on something. The obvious thing to base it on is DC vs. Passive score. That way you'll know that my +7 in guitar is significantly higher than the kid I started teaching a year ago and only has a +2. And that there are a lot of things I can play without thinking about it, that would be a challenge for them.

Perhaps paradoxically, I'm not trying to get "skill perfection" and one of the things I prefer is a bit more randomness in the game. That is, instead of a +x bonus, I prefer a +1d4 bonus, for example. Where possible anyway. Because I'm not a fan of the way a codified ruleset strictly defines success and failure. Having said that, I do think that for any skill, there are levels of proficiency (and non-, proficient, and -expert are enough for me), and that by tying a variable (advantage) to a fixed floor is a good way to cover both of those design elements. Defining DCs better is what helps ensure the floor is neither too low or too high.

It makes the game much more streamlined, in a way where there is solid information for the DM to work with when running the game. The focus can be more on the situations and circumstances that alter the normal chances of success, as well as on requiring checks when the stakes are higher, and avoids asking for what often seem like trivial checks.

DMs make these decisions all the time. But tying them to the Passive scores means they can make them more easily, and also take into account each PCs skills more consistently. It's less work (other than any tweaks you want to make to DCs, if any).

To address your Perception example, that's already covered in Sage Advice. You don't not see the stuff you'd notice with the bad roll. You'd simply not notice anything else. In RAW Passive Perception is already considered a floor.

That check for playing a song for the king is less "do you successfully play a song" than "do you successfully choose a song that is performed in such a way that it draws out the right emotions & feelings in the king as well as his assembled court using wis(guitar)". Unfortunately for all the improvement that goes with phb175 using skills with different ability checks it's a woefully supported afterthought compared to variant feats or variant multiclassing given that there aren't actually any examples.

 

[Neonchameleon]

To chime in to me the biggest weakness of the 3.5 skill system wasn't how granular it was (I found it took up far more time in character creation than it was worth but that's a matter of taste and you could just dump all your points into a few skills) but the fact there were 32 different individual skills and a further four families of skills (craft, profesion, knowledge, perform). This both meant that even rogues were generally untrained and unskilled at most things and, far more painfully, there was a lot more of "that's a skill?" or people struggling to find the skill that was called for in play. And on this note I find it interesting that 4e and 5e each have 17 skills by default and Fate Core has 18 by default.

I find 5e to have a watered down version of the 4e skill system where you were either proficient or not. And then you could add a feat to it or a utility power that represented a specialism in that spell. One example is if you want to do the classic "brush pass" pickpocket where you walk past without breaking your step. In 3.5 making a sleight of hand check as a free action is a -20 to your roll (and as lifting a small object from a person is itself DC20 you need to hit DC40 to do this). In 4e instead of it being a -20 to your roll you instead specialise; you take the utility power that lets you do it as a minor action (which if you are trained in thievery you can get at second level if you wish - but you get limited utility powers) and then the brush pass as opposed to needing an excuse to stand by your target is just part of your thing. In 3.5 you specialised in skills by numbers going up; in 4e you specialised in skills by being able to apply those skills in more ways (and by numbers going up admittedly).

3.X does have effective auto-advance in some skill areas though. For example, the difficulty in knowing anything about a creature is based on a DC of 10? + Hit Dice. Higher level threats typically have more hit dice (often many more than 1:1 to level) so knowing information about your foes becomes progressively harder at higher levels. Having middling ranks is about the same as having none.

It may be just as easy to learn about orcs at level 10 as level 1, but the propensity of orcs as a frequent encounter typically drops off.

This was a "Murphy's Rules of RPGs" issue however as the bigger, older, and more powerful a monster got the less you knew about it. As written it could lead to silly results.

"Whats that?"
"A wrymling red dragon that grew up on granite hillsides like this one. It weighs about as much as a horse and the pair of us can take it assuming it doesn't have parents around. Its treasure is about that of [treasure table Q]"

Five minutes later:
"That was an easy fight against the red wyrmling. Now what's that?"
"A big red flappy thing? That seems to be breathing fire? But it's got too many hit dice for me to identify and is heading this way!"

As a tangent on the 3e skill discussion, have you ever discussed the crafting rules? I'm not talking about making magic items, just making things.

...

What do you think of that mechanic: To easy, too hard, too complicated?

Waaaay too complicated and way too inflexible. I can't remember the last time the exact value in GP of what I was trying to craft was even vaguely relevant - and it does "interesting" things when you so much as try to dig a pit trap.

My general take is that someone needs to have a total bonus of +10 to even be considered a Journeyman: They can Take 10 for most tasks, since they can't fail by more than 5. To be a Master I'm thinking you need a +15, so you can't fail by more than 5.

Of course that +15 might include circumstance bonuses like a well prepared shop, work assistants etc, so the NPC can still be below 10th level.

And this is a huge issue with worldbuilding. Your numbers feel decent to me, but that's a lot of high level commoner NPCs you need just to run the economy.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

You do know there's other ways to come at that same problem, right? Like expecting the player to present both goal and approach in their action declaration, meaning not only what they want to accomplish but how they are trying to get there. So, "play a guitar" is a nice goal, but without an approach, I can't adjudicate it. That approach can be simply, "leveraging my proficiency in guitar" then I now know how to adjudicate that. Now, I consider if this is something that's worth a check -- does it have a consequence? If not, then the answer to the action with approach is "sure, you play a guitar." If it does, like say you're playing for food, then I'll set a DC based on the situation, like maybe "this area of the city isn't well off, so that sounds hard to play well enough to get food, DC 20."

If you don't know how to play guitar, it's really simple, I just say, "nope," and we move on.

I don't need to go through the effort of figuring out skill floors, keeping that information available, and then adjusting DCs that work just fine for me as is. And, I get skills and proficiencies mattering just fine. It's very cool that you've found your way, and it works for you, but there's other ways to the same goals. Not using your way doesn't mean mine fails. I'd actually find your approach stultifying and clunky if I tried to use it because I no longer value such heavily codified systems. But, I don't begrudge anyone else liking them.

Of course there are other ways to do it. I'm just saying that this approach is more complete than the 5e version and fills in the gaps nicely. What works for you or other groups is what matters for any given table. I'm just explaining the system we use, what we're trying to accomplish with it, and why we like it better.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

That check for playing a song for the king is less "do you successfully play a song" than "do you successfully choose a song that is performed in such a way that it draws out the right emotions & feelings in the king as well as his assembled court using wis(guitar)". Unfortunately for all the improvement that goes with phb175 using skills with different ability checks it's a woefully supported afterthought compared to variant feats or variant multiclassing given that there aren't actually any examples.
View attachment 118805

It's always dependent upon the circumstances, of course. That's not the point of my example, though, it was just to provide a simple example of succeeding at a skill because you have a certain level of proficiency. I've seen DMs who called for a check to see if something with smithing ability and the tools on hand could make horseshoes.

Again, it's simply to have a system that describes:
What you can do without needing a check - things that are routine for you.
Things you can't do, no matter what - they are beyond your current level of skill.
And everything in between, which requires a check. This includes times where the situation itself may make what is normally easy, more difficult and thus requires a check, when it normally wouldn't

Combined with an understanding of DCs, which don't change in relation to the skill or level of the PC, it makes a complete and very simple system for the DM to adjudicate.

In terms of using other abilities, we have addressed that as well. but first and foremost, it's something that we support as a matter of the course of play. That is, if a player has multiple abilities that might apply, our rule is that you use the most advantageous one.

The most common example for us is Investigation/Perception. We view them as quite similar. Perception is a gut reaction, a sixth sense, that sort of thing. It's based on your intuition. Investigation is reason-based, not only noticing small details, but recognizing their signification a la Sherlock Holmes. There might be a few very specific instances where we feel one is more appropriate than the other, but in most cases we use them interchangeably. We've kept the same names, but would prefer Observation instead of Investigation.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Of course there are other ways to do it. I'm just saying that this approach is more complete than the 5e version and fills in the gaps nicely. What works for you or other groups is what matters for any given table. I'm just explaining the system we use, what we're trying to accomplish with it, and why we like it better.

I don't see it as more complete or filling the gaps over the 5e version I described, though, just a different, more complicated than I'd like, way. I'm happy you like it better, but that doesn't make it more complete, just more matched to your preference -- specifically you appear to have design goal preferences of a highly codified skill system that I don't share. Different design goals means different approaches. How "complete" you view an approach would then depend on how well it matches your design preference. I find the 5e "Middle Path" to be very robust and supports my design preference very well, so yours is not "more complete" for me, and it does a worse job, for me, of achieving my design preferences.

Again, I hope you continue to find you method fun and fulfilling in play.

 

[Greenfield]

Thinking about the Wis(Guitar) reference: If it was actually important to the plot line that the performance go well, I might make it two skill checks: A Knowledge or Profession check to plan the performance, and then the actual Perform check to see how well you carried it off. Knowledge - Nobility might reflect familiarity with the court, in terms of fashion or taste, for example.

The basic Perform rules (in 3.5) determined whether you were good enough to play the Palace, with success measured in how many coins landed in your hat.

If the situation required some other metric, such as you maintaining the King's interest while your team snuck into the dungeons, or the tower, or the treasury etc., then you might end up with that two-skill check.

Of course, you could always use Fascinate (Bardic song ability, Will save DC = Perform Check) to hold his attentention. There's also a spell called Enthrall that can hold a crowd, but the Save is far more reasonable.

 

[Teemu]

Shutting down Diplomacy is so easy using the existing 3e system that it becomes a purely optional skill. DM's option.

By RAW, it takes a full minute before the dice ever hit the table. If the opponent doesn't give the character that minute, which they may not if they see other PCs casting prep spells or readying weapons (or even if they're impatient or p**sed), the Diplomacy flat out fails. Not even a dice roll.

So of all of the skills to complain about, that one is kind of silly.

Over the years I've seen a lot of abuse of rules, in a wide variety of games and editions, and it's amazing how many of those abuses get shut down if you play the rules exactly as written.

This applies to 3e as much as any other.

The 3.X Diplomacy skill allows you to make a check as a full-round action if you take a -10 penalty to the roll. And that -10 penalty is easily overcome by all the various bonuses you can stack. And I think there might’ve been a way to reduce the penalty to -5 with a feat or class feature.