Why isn't the fighter a social creature?

[SlyDoubt]

That may be true for 1e and 2e. In 4e, the "fighter" can be a warlord. In 3e he can take the occasional level of rogue to get those charisma based skills.

Our own thinking is often too rigid. We could do with less asking, "Why cannot <favorite class> do <thing I want to do> and instead ask, "What classes do I need to use to build a character that can do X?"

We are more flexible when we remove the class as the basis for the character concept, and instead have a character concept that we put into practice using classes as building blocks.

Yep. This is how my players have always approached it. They usually look over the classes just to be inspired and then come up with some kind of concept they like. Then I suggest some stuff that would make that work and they take a look at the options.

Add in Pathfinder's archetypes and really anything is achievable. They were really one of the single best concepts for cutting down extreme option bloat and yet greatly expanding meaningful choices.

I also really liked the hybrid system in 4E. I don't think it worked perfectly but it made for some really neat concepts. In a Dark Sun group I did everyone was a hybrid. Monk/Psion, Rogue/Warlock, Bard/Battlemind and Ranger/Warlord. The eladrin Monk/Psion was really cool.

 

[Mallus]

DC stands for Difficulty Class.

I know.

It makes no sense to me to vary it based on the character's competence.

Of course it does.

ex: It's easy for Gordon Ramsey to cook a Beef Wellington. It would hard for me, and next to impossible for my friend Mike D. who can barely boil water.

??

You'd at least want to rename it...

Fine. Call it Target Number (TN). I was just trying to stick with familiar 3e/4e nomenclature.

... but then why turn that particular mechanic around, when everything else adds skill and ability to your roll?

Because I want to get rid of skill points entirely.

Your mechanic is really no different from 3e/4e, except much less granular, and level independent.

Those are big differences! Also, I wanted to keep somewhat similar.

So you might as well make it into a +5 or +10 bonus to the roll and use static DCs.

You could do that, but I was trying the modifiers as small as possible (in size and number). Why the insistence on static DCs?

 

[Umbran]

Of course it does.

ex: It's easy for Gordon Ramsey to cook a Beef Wellington. It would hard for me, and next to impossible for my friend Mike D. who can barely boil water.

Yes and no, depending how you look at it.

There's two basic ways of approaching the issue - you can set the DC as static, but change the number of skill points each character has or you can not change the number of skill points, but change the DC.

However, if you say that Ramsey is a better cook, so he has more skill points *and* he has a lower DC, you're double-counting his competence.

You can build a system that approaches it along these lines (half his competence is in his extra skill points, and the other half in lowering the DC, for example), but I think you'll find consistent accounting is easier for most folk if you come at it from one end or the other, and not both.

 

[Mallus]

Yes and no, depending how you look at it.

Right. It's all in how you frame it.

There's two basic ways of approaching the issue - you can set the DC as static, but change the number of skill points each character has or you can not change the number of skill points, but change the DC.

My goal was to use abilities scores (or modifiers). No skill points. No defined skills lists, either. Just a rough idea of the character's background (outside of class): sailor, noble, scholar, village blacksmith, etc., coupled with 3 difficulty classes.

Normally the difficulty classes represent how familiar the PC is with the given task. But it could also represent an especially difficult task ie, deciphering a secret code would be a DC 20 for scholars, and impossible for non-scholars.

However, if you say that Ramsey is a better cook, so he has more skill points *and* he has a lower DC, you're double-counting his competence.

Right. But I'm suggesting using only an ability modifier + situational modifier(s) vs. target number, so no double counting.

Ex: an agile, impoverished 1st level urban thief probably isn't an equestrian. So riding a horse --while being pursued-- for her is a DC 20 task.

After adventuring for a while in the company of some talented riders, she improves. This could happen when she levels, or whenever the DM agrees it makes sense. Now (action movie) riding is a DC 15 for her.

Later, it becomes DC10, when as she becomes Horse Queen of the Eastern Plains.

Simple, no bookkeeping, and no unsatisfying costing schemes which attempt to price such disparate skills as horsemanship, alchemy, acrobatics, and origami. I realize this isn't really system, it's just a loose guideline. Which is why I kinda like it.

 

[Hassassin]

You could do that, but I was trying the modifiers as small as possible (in size and number). Why the insistence on static DCs?

It seems overly complicated that raw talent increases your bonus to the die roll (ability modifier), while skill decreases how much you need to roll (variable DC). The unification in 3e was a good thing, in my opinion, precisely because it made clear what those two numbers (the bonus and the target number) really meant. The bonus if the total measure of your prowess, while the target is the difficulty of the task.

What I'm saying is: why fix what isn't broken. Since you can model the same chances of success using the existing mechanics, just by changing the numbers, why not do that?

 

[Mallus]

It seems overly complicated that raw talent increases your bonus to the die roll (ability modifier), while skill decreases how much you need to roll (variable DC).

It's only overcomplicated if you over-think it.

Roll 10+ or or roll 15+ or roll 20+ for every skill check seems fairly simple to me.

There are a number of drawbacks to this (loss of explicit mechanical ratings for PC skills, loss of granularity, etc), but complexity isn't one of them .

What I'm saying is: why fix what isn't broken.

The short is answer, if 3e's system works for you, then by all means stick with it.

3e's approach doesn't work as well for some folks (like me). It's not broken, per se, but it makes certain character concepts, like the sociable fighter, needlessly complicated to create. Actually, that's my biggest complaint about 3e-style skills: it's more trouble than it's worth. My other complaint is the system favors hyper-specialists over broadly-competent PCs, in fact, making broadly-competent PCs in certain classes is impossible.

What I'm looking for it a simple system/set of guidelines to deliver answers at the table: can a PC do this?

3e's skill system is more enjoyable outside of play, ie when building/advancing a PC, hunting for skill synergies, trying to maximize bonuses, or "fleshing out" a character by adding a few points to skills they'll never be any good at if it comes to a check. Like the rest of 3e's chargen/leveling system, it's a gearhead's dream. If this is what you're after, then there's no reason to change.

 

[Hassassin]

The short is answer, if 3e's system works for you, then by all means stick with it.

I didn't mean the system, I meant the mechanic. Looking at the numbers, your proposal was exactly equivalent to having a static DC 20, and getting a -5 penalty or +5 penalty to your ability roll if the task is far or close to your competencies.