variant skill rank method

[kenjura]

This is part of series of rules discussion for the <a href="http://www.talarie.com/serious/index.html">Serious d20 System</a>, a variant core system for d20 play.

This is the short version of a discussion on a new method of assigning skill ranks, intended to greatly reduce complexity while only marginally impeding players.


- The Variant Skill Rank Method -
At first level, you gain 4 ranks in every skill on your list. The number of skills you get is calculated the same way as ranks in the core system, a base number (2, 4, 6, 8) plus your Intelligence modifier.
New skills are gained by taking a feat. When you take the feat Skill Proficiency, you gain 1 rank per level in that skill, and continue to gain one per level in that skill thereafter. You are noticably and eternally behind in ranks versus a character who started with that skill, but not cripplingly so.
There are no cross-class skills. Customization is achieved through feat selection; a high starting Intelligence score and plenty of Skill Proficiencies should keep even the most skill-happy characters satisfied.


Advantages over Core
Easier Management. Assigning skill ranks becomes far simpler. The difficulty of managing skills is reduced to almost nothing, and major hassle becomes a quick process.
More Friendly for Customization. Characters who wish to step outside the normal bounds of their class are less hindered by the rules, while maintaining a clear advantage in primary skills for each class.
Disavantages
Makes Assumptions. This method assumes every character maxes out ranks in all of their important skills. I argue this: in 2e, you never got better at a skill. Now, you get better with each level. Do we really need to take it a step further, to "some characters get better each level, and some don't"? In reality, most PC's do max out their most important skills, and this prevents them from spending serious ranks in others.


---------------------------------------
There are flaws in the design, of course. This is not a final mechanic, nor will it be a core mechanic (a variant rule, rather). Flaws are discussed at the full page <a href="http://www.talarie.com/serious/discussions/skills.html">here</a>.


Thank you for reading, and your comments and criticisms are most welcome.

 

[Piratecat]

This sort of thing falls under House Rules. I'll slide it on over!

 

[Drawmack]

This should be in house rules.

- The Variant Skill Rank Method -
At first level, you gain 4 ranks in every skill on your list. The number of skills you get is calculated the same way as ranks in the core system, a base number (2, 4, 6, 8) plus your Intelligence modifier.

Well this makes intellignece more important for all characters which could be a good thing.

New skills are gained by taking a feat. When you take the feat Skill Proficiency, you gain 1 rank per level in that skill, and continue to gain one per level in that skill thereafter. You are noticably and eternally behind in ranks versus a character who started with that skill, but not cripplingly so.

What if I have a 15 int then at fourth level I stick a point into int making it a 16 would that give me a new core skill with maxed ranks? It should since over the course of 20 levels I get 5 ability points and would only get a skill with even numbered gains which means at most three new skills versus the feat method 6 new skills from feats.

There are no cross-class skills. Customization is achieved through feat selection; a high starting Intelligence score and plenty of Skill

No but every skill has become an exclusive skill.

Proficiencies should keep even the most skill-happy characters satisfied.

No it won't but more on that below.

What happens when someone multiclasses? If at fourth level I take a level of a new class, what happens to my skills? I can see two paths - choose the additional core feats and assign the points as if you had gotten them with the feat, or choose the skills and assign ranks as per core classes taken at level 1. I am preferential to the feat method as with the other method I don't think you'll ever had a rogue but everyone will be a rogue/bard. Also with assigning ranks to classes under multiclass. I see two ways. You only gain a rank in skills that are class skills for the class you are leveling or you get 0.5 ranks in skills that belong to the other class. Either way works and is fairly well balanced.

Advantages over Core
Easier Management. Assigning skill ranks becomes far simpler. The difficulty of managing skills is reduced to almost nothing, and major hassle becomes a quick process.

It also makes qualifying for PrCs much easer/harder depending on the requirements for that class. For example the war priest is designed to that a cleric pretty much needs a level of rogue to get in. Under this method that is no longer the case.

More Friendly for Customization. Characters who wish to step outside the normal bounds of their class are less hindered by the rules, while maintaining a clear advantage in primary skills for each class.

How so? With such a limited skill selection and a static increase in all those skills you are limiting customization. Take the rogue who divides their points among all the rogue abilities so they are a well rounded character but are not really good at any one thing. A jack of all trades if you will. This becomes impossible under your system which leads to a lack of customizability.

Disavantages
Makes Assumptions. This method assumes every character maxes out ranks in all of their important skills. I argue this: in 2e, you never got better at a skill. Now, you get better with each level.

You're calling this a more ''realistic'' skill assignment and right here you're putting forth the argument that it's more like 2e. So are you saying the 2e is more ''realistic'' then 3e? Watch your words or your thread can easily deterorate into a flame war. What about the character who only ever wants a couple of ranks in ride. Under your system this becomes impossible. So the character concept of a rogue who learned to ride a little just to get places faster is impossible. There are many more character concepts that are equally impossible. Basically any character concept of a character that has picked up a little about how to do something is out. What about the fighter who can reshoe a horse but that's all. Under your system he would keep gaining ranks in craft (metalwork) so this concept is also impossible.

Do we really need to take it a step further, to "some characters get better each level, and some don't"? In reality, most PC's do max out their most important skills, and this prevents them from spending serious ranks in others.

IMHO yes we do need to take it a step further. The major reason for this is the broad range of character concepts that it opens. Also I would argue that most min/maxers max out important skills but not most players. I run a suspense style political intrigue game. In my games it becomes very important for every character to have 2 - 3 ranks in sense motive, bluff and diplomacy. However only the mouth of the group needs to go beyond this. I normally wind up with a rogue, bard or investigator who has sense motive, bluff and diplomacy maxed out and other characters that have a couple of ranks. Also IMC almost everyone takes a level of rogue because we do a lot of city work so sneaking is important to everyone. Since you do not have rules for multiclassing I have no idea how this would work under your system. I can see this system working great in a dungeon crawl, or hack -n- slash style game but many games would not work well with this system at all.

 

[CRGreathouse]

I think this system doesn't handle multiclassing at all, saves very little work, and severely limits customization.

 

[GuardianLurker]

The biggest problem I see with it is the use of feats to acquire new skills.

Feats are a very precious resource, especially considering how many things compete for them - combat feats, item creation feats, metamagic feats, etc. Your system does two things:
1) make an equivalence between gaining a new skill and gaining Expertise (or any other feat).
2) essentially limit PCs to the skills they pick at first level, since they're likely to be spending their feats elsewhere.

As others have pointed out, it also doesn't work well in a multi-classing environment (to include PrCs). More, it also ignores the fact that for many skills, once you've acheived a certain rank, there's only a very limited benefit in increasing it further. Both Concentration and Tumbling are such skills - very important at low-levels, but at high levels, you've probably swapped them out for something else.

 

[kenjura]

ah, but you must remember, this is for an alternate system, where prestige classes are not necessary for any character (but still there), and everyone gets more feats.

I post this kind of thing to see if the idea is worth pursuing. It isn't a complete rule, as explained at the website. This was the condensed version, to save some space. Perhaps that isn't necessary, I suppose.

Anyhow, thanks for the input.

For your information, I've been knee-deep in an epic-level game for months, it's hard to get out of that mindset. I'm just trying to get a feel for what the rest of the d20 world thinks.

I'll post some more reasonable rules a bit later. ^_^