I've been thinking for a while about removing skills from my game and only reverting to related ability check instead. i.e. want to jump over to the next roof? roll strenght against DC X, want to decifer a criptic text, roll int, etc.
This would let the player try to do anything they want as they won't fall back on the skill description to see if it's possible or not. Also this will simplify character creation.
Feat that give a bonus to a skill will apply to the related ability check if it make sense.
I also plan to incorporate background traits that a character must choose that defines what he was before beginning his adventuring carreer as the professions background in d20Modern. These background will give them permanent bonus to specific task, i.e. an athlete might have a +3 when trying to jump or when swimming, etc.
Now what I'm wondering, what would be the impact over long term character developpement? Should I allow the a progression for the background skills, like +1 every level gained?
I'd like to hear your thoughts on the matter as I never had chance to play high level character and don't know much how this will affect the game at higher level.
Thanks
Are you talking about using the old "roll less on a 1d20 than your ability score" method? Or the current ability check?
The current ability check is too swingy IMO, ability scores rarely get high enough to make up for the wide range of the d20.
Actually what I was thinking is setting a DC for the check as for a typical skill check, but instead rolling a d20 and using the most appropriate ability modifier to the check + any background and circonstance bonus that may apply.
What are you going to do with the classes that depend on skills to excel? (Like rogue, it will effect them extremely) Are you going to skip them or give them something in return? Try to think about the balance between classes.
How will the DC's advance? You might want to change that as well, since the + will be lower than when you are using skills.
What are you going to do with the classes that depend on skills to excel? (Like rogue, it will effect them extremely) Are you going to skip them or give them something in return? Try to think about the balance between classes.
How will the DC's advance? You might want to change that as well, since the + will be lower than when you are using skills.
Those are good point you bring and were concerns to me. That's exactly why I'm doing a brainstorming, to find out what are the possible problems that removing skill may cause, and mostly to find out if there are good solutions to solve these problems.
You could have them pick a number of trained skills at first level equal to the number of skill ranks they get. Then assign a flat +3 to the check for each trained skill. Then don't allocate any skill ranks after that. Instead, if a character wants to pick up training in a new skill, allow them to do so with the Skill Focus feat, but instead of granting a +3 to a skill, it effectively makes it a trained skill (the bonus ends up being the same either way).
In a system like this, I would also allow any character multiclassing into a new class to pick one skill from that class's list of class skills to become trained in as well.
Yes, this might sound inspired by Star Wars Saga Edition, but without the additional modifiers added per level.
I'm looking more for versatilaty on the roll, so if a player tells me that he want to jump from tha railing of the balcony onto the chandelier then swing to break through the window on the opposite site of the room, I just might to ask for a dex check instead of a str check (which jump falls under) or maybe a combination of check if it seems appropriate. This would also allow any character to try to pass by a guard without be seen. For sur any character with a background with stealth would be better at doing it.
I'm considering giving +3 or +5 to the skills list under the class description as circumstance bonus. This way classes that are relying more on skills will still have an advantage over the others.
edit:
You could have them pick a number of trained skills at first level equal to the number of skill ranks they get. Then assign a flat +3 to the check for each trained skill. Then don't allocate any skill ranks after that. Instead, if a character wants to pick up training in a new skill, allow them to do so with the Skill Focus feat, but instead of granting a +3 to a skill, it effectively makes it a trained skill (the bonus ends up being the same either way).
In a system like this, I would also allow any character multiclassing into a new class to pick one skill from that class's list of class skills to become trained in as well.
Yes, this might sound inspired by Star Wars Saga Edition, but without the additional modifiers added per level.
That's close to what I was thinking. Don't know about Star wars saga skill mechanic but I like this!
I didn't see your post before posting this one
If you want to do this I think you need to offer some kind of inherent bonus to classes that are normally skilled. Maybe like a skill pool. Roges and ninja get a bunch of points to boost these ability rolls, rangers and inquisitors would get some but less, druids and other 4 skill classes would get only a handful of points. And 2 skill per level classes dont get any.
This would allow rogues and other skillfull classes to continue to have a leg up in the area of doing skill like things, it just means that their class benefits work into your generic ability role thing instead.
What exactly would you do about highly specialized tasks though? Jumping over a gap makes sense as an ability roll, even decifering a script. But some things are training and dont involve your natural abiltiies. For instance a very smart person cant neccessarily pick a lock, or craft a bow, but someone with average or less intelligence can be taught to do so well.
I like Kolokotroni's Idea.
Maybe you could make a difference between trained skills and untrained skills. Untrained would work the way you already thougth about.
Untrained (usually very specific things) can be accest in some other way. Maybe a feat system or something. Or you could rule that only the classes that have those skills as clas skills could try it. The rogue can try to pick a lock, using her Dex bonus, but a paladin can't.
Ok, what about at character creation let the player pick "specialities" based on the actual skill list, or simply on player view for his character (i.e. I want my character to be really good at picking lock) a number of time equal to his class skill per level (as per Kolokotroni idea). These specialities will give character a +3 to check that requires such activities or knowledge, and background trait will add and other +2 (or +3) on top of this. The skill focus feat could add a new speciality to that character or a one time +3 bonus to an existing speciality the chracter have. Feats like acrobatic, will allow circumstance bonus if the situation is appropriate and will stack with other "speciality" bonus the character already have.
What exactly would you do about highly specialized tasks though? Jumping over a gap makes sense as an ability roll, even decifering a script. But some things are training and dont involve your natural abiltiies. For instance a very smart person cant neccessarily pick a lock, or craft a bow, but someone with average or less intelligence can be taught to do so well.
I don't see the ability check something that are fix. Craft is usually an int skill, but if a character with low int but high dex or wis give be a good explanation why his character that is not so smart, but may be highly dextrous or is really careful or simply have a inate ability to find imperfection then I still would allow him to substitute an int check for an other ability. The goal is not to screw the player, but to allow them do something that may not be possible within the rule as written. Alos trying to keep bookeeping low
I've been thinking for a while about removing skills from my game and only reverting to related ability check instead. i.e. want to jump over to the next roof? roll strenght against DC X, want to decifer a criptic text, roll int, etc.
What you lose, apart from whatever skill points provide in terms of game balance, is the ability to focus your PC. If my PC is an expert on arcane lore, I can develop that by spending skill points, taking skill focus, etc.
In your system everyone with a high INT is an expert on arcane lore, even if they have never given any consideration to it. Every guy with a high dex is an expert lock pick, every girl with a high WIS is an expert in the heal skill.
That removes any ability to customize your PC via the skills to be 'good' at something or to separate himself from the adventurer next door. Your system is also going to require you, as GM, to create appropriate skill DCs (as those in the books assume the current system)
As someone pointed out, +1 per level is very SAGA-ish. If you are unfamiliar - all skills are modified by character level in addition to trained/not trained, skill focus, and attribute modifier.
So if you are level 4 with an INT of 18 and trained in Use Computer - you have 2 (half level) + 5 (trained) + 4 (18INT) = +11 in use computer checks, rolled on a d20.
This approach is simple but also has the problem I pointed out in my first paragraph - a 16th level Ewok with a 16 INT has +11 for Use Computer even though he's never seen a computer before. (yes the GM could rule 'no check possible' but you get the point) While the INTMOD to this check makes sense, the level mod is a really abstract way to handle it. The benefit is less book keeping when it comes to skill points.
I personally like the skill point system because it allows me to create more 'depth'. My PC is an expert at crafting armor, so I spend points in that. If you just make that an INT check - everyone with a high INT is an expert at crafting...
You have a valid point and I'll have to consider this.
Thank you
That removes any ability to customize your PC via the skills to be 'good' at something or to separate himself from the adventurer next door. Your system is also going to require you, as GM, to create appropriate skill DCs (as those in the books assume the current system)
I like the ability to customize PCs along these lines too. But there are times that I think adding a skill modifier per level (or 2 levels in Saga or 4e) can be a bit too much. Certainly, you can see a huge difference in abilities of PCs between ones who invest and ones who don't.
This approach is simple but also has the problem I pointed out in my first paragraph - a 16th level Ewok with a 16 INT has +11 for Use Computer even though he's never seen a computer before. (yes the GM could rule 'no check possible' but you get the point) While the INTMOD to this check makes sense, the level mod is a really abstract way to handle it. The benefit is less book keeping when it comes to skill points.
True. And I think one solution might be to not include a level-based component at all or seriously deprecate it well below current levels. Just include some lower "trained" value to differentiate between trained PCs and ones who aren't and make sure that DCs rise slowly based on the difficulty of the task. Maybe design a new feat that allows the PC to invest 4 skill points each time he takes the feat.
instead of adding +1 every level, should skillful classes (or all classes) have an ability where they can add half their level to the roll? i.e Rogue could add half thei level to hide in shadow, pick a luck or disable a trap, a ranger or a druid could add this bonus to find comestible berry, or to make sure they don't leave any trace in a forest, etc.
|
instead of adding +1 every level, should skillful classes (or all classes) have an ability where they can add half their level to the roll? i.e Rogue could add half thei level to hide in shadow, pick a luck or disable a trap, a ranger or a druid could add this bonus to find comestible berry, or to make sure they don't leave any trace in a forest, etc.
You're still severely handicapping those classes. In a RAW game, a typical skill-based class is going to add one rank every level to their most important skills. So, for example, a rogue would (de facto) be adding his entire level to stealth rolls, plus the +3 class bonus.
Any kind of scaling bonus really defeats your purpose. All you're doing is removing the player's ability to customize their character as they level up. I think there's too much baby in this bathwater.
You could probably accomplish the same thing by broadening the skill definitions a little -- PF has already done this to a degree, compared to 3.5. You could probably tweak it a little further if you find it too restrictive. The only other option would be completely rewriting about 3/4ths of the classes to give them compensating abilities.
Lvl + ability + d20 = success! While a plethora of skills certainly helps to define your character, doing something like this may be a fair an balanced approach. I wouldn't let skill traits and feats give much more than a + 1 or 2 though. And racial skill bonuses may be more conditional, like a dwarf gets +2 to perception (wis) while in a stone environment, while elves would get it in natural surroundings.
I have to imagine he's always intended to adapt the target DC's to match whatever changes he makes to the system.
Honestly, this sort of system appeals to me in a way, but one does need to be careful to make sure that the difference between 'trained but low level' and 'untrained but high level' comes out right, a tricky task to be sure.
Yeah, that's pretty much it, DC will need to be nerf down a bit. But also I think this system will make traps more challenging at all level, and also there shouldn't be much problem for opposed skill check as both will have lower value. In fact I believe that near impossible task should have a DC just above 30 so I will be impossible at low level, but at higher level you may have 25-50% chance doing it.
Frankly what always gets me about d20 is the d20 itself. That's just such a broadly random number generator.
Take a little old lady with 5 strength (8-2 aging penalties) and have her arm wrestle a maximum strength level 1 barbarian who 'cheats' by activating rage during the arm wrestling match. She's at -3 for a strength check, that Barbarian is at +7 (20+4)
That's only a +10 differential, which means that out of 40 possible results (her 1-20 and the Barbarians) she can win with surprising frequency. She only has to roll 11 higher on the d20 than he does in order to win, which by my estimation means she wins roughly 25% of the time.
That just does not make any sense whatsoever, and for that reason I'm strongly contemplating shifting to using either 2d10 or 3d6 to bring a bell curve of probability into play.
That's not a bad idea either
But even then the disparancy between the Barabrian and the old lady is not large enough and she'd win often enough while it should be near impossible
But I'll keep it in mind. Since I'm looking to change the skill system changing the way the roll is done is not to far fetch if it helps
|
Frankly what always gets me about d20 is the d20 itself. That's just such a broadly random number generator.
Take a little old lady with 5 strength (8-2 aging penalties) and have her arm wrestle a maximum strength level 1 barbarian who 'cheats' by activating rage during the arm wrestling match. She's at -3 for a strength check, that Barbarian is at +7 (20+4)
That's only a +10 differential, which means that out of 40 possible results (her 1-20 and the Barbarians) she can win with surprising frequency. She only has to roll 11 higher on the d20 than he does in order to win, which by my estimation means she wins roughly 25% of the time.
Funny thing is I that this came up while I am working on designing a d100 post-apocalypse RPG system.
One of the methods I came up with was the Challenge Task roll for the system, in this case you compare the two values against each other, the one with the higher value gets to add the difference to their roll. So in your example with the old lady and barbarian both would roll, the barbarian getting a +10 to his already calculated score and the old lady getting a -10 to hers, the system has degrees of success (degree results) so the one with the highest degree of success wins. In this case, the Barbarian chances spike up considerably due to the difference (which is added to his total). If the difference takes the other participant out of rolling range then they can't engage in the Challenge roll (old lady doesn't get a roll in this case). So if there is a huge discrepancy between numbers, the smaller value doesn't really stand a chance - which works great for PA or simulationist gaming, maybe not so much for heroic fantasy gaming.
That is just one I'm working on right now.
As to the skill based on attribute problem I can shoot out some suggestions.
Establish class criteria (as it has already been listed) and maybe broad skill packets (grouped similar skills) tied to those classes. You can then assign difficulty factors to the tasks to check against:
Within Skill category + 5
Unskilled attempt -5 or no attempt
Opposed Skill category -10
Ex – Climbing check for Fighter is on STR +5 (since it’s in his group) minus any conditional and difficulty factors:
Automatic +20
Very Easy +5
Easy +2
Average (assuming 9-12 are average stats 50% baseline for success) +0
Hard -2
Very Hard -5
Impossible -20
And maybe some numbers in-between what I listed above (a +10 or -10 range would be good).
An offset would be a +1 one every 4 levels after the first plus some bonuses thrown in (minor) from a feat or two (they only would give a few bonuses to some categories in a broad group). Also some feats may allow characters the ability to make some checks into Opposed Categories (skills that are diametrically opposed to their class or prime stat skills) or just dump the Opposed Categories all together and just have Skilled/Unskilled attempts. The scaling level associated +1 to checks also doesn’t have to follow the same track – one category could be 1 every 4 levels another every 5 or 6, so if you want raw physical skill related abilities to scale faster than the esoteric ones you just create a slower advancement path for the harder skill sets.
You can assign skills in broad groups by prime stats instead of actual classes. Such as STR skill groups (Fighters, etc). You can also give two prime stats to each class, maybe three. So a fighter can have full access to STR, CON skills.
I'm just making some of this stuff on the fly (as you can tell), anyway, I'm out the door - I will re-read this and punch some holes in it after I get home and maybe offer up a better fix. The numbers I listed as placeholders so you get an idea of the base concept. I need to get back to 2nd ed mode to really think out what is a good challenge for low level characters and how much higher stats in PFRPG and the increasing stats at higher level throw this whole thing off.
Play 1st Ed AD&D.
Play 1st Ed AD&D.
Actually I got the idea reading the first playtest of DnD next wich at that time a good 1e feel. But still I wan't a Pathfinder game, but with less skill tracking.
Not that I might not run a 1e game but if I can do a good enough mod to Pathfinder, I'd stick with it
Since the bonuses will be smaller, the die roll will have more influence.
This WILL have consequences for opposed rolls.
Imagine an expert sneaker trying to go past an oblivious fool.
Currently, an expert at stealth could easily have +10 stealth at first level (1 rank +3 Dex, +3 Class skill, +2 to 4 from race, +2 to 5 from feats).
The fool has +0 perception.
If they both roll, the sneaker has about a 25% chance to be spotted.
If one of them takes 10, the sneaker has about 5% chance to be spotted (natural 20 or natural 1).
If they both take 10, the sneaker gets past.
In your system, how good might an expert level 1 sneaker be? Maybe +5?
This means the fool is much more likely to catch them.
Using +5 stealth,
if they both roll, the sneaker has I think 33% chance to be spotted.
If one takes 10, I think it is 25% chance to be spotted.
If they both take 10, the sneaker gets past.
In both cases we see that lowering variability (someone or both taking 10) favours the more skilled person.
To make the lower skill scores matter more, you could try rolling 3d6 as suggested earlier, or 2d10. These give a less variable distribution, and thus lessen the impact of the die roll relative to the skill bonus.
EDIT: Changed some guesstimated maths.
My version is similar to yours, Mordo:
- Skills are ability checks vs. a DC
- Characters can add 3+ their level for any task that can be justified by one or more of the following:
-- Racial flavor text
-- Class flavor text
-- Character background
Rogues aren't nerfed because they have flavor text which describes their general skillfulness. Smart players will have detailed backgrounds.
The goal is to have something very rules-lite. That obviously means that there will be more "pressing for advantage" by the players and more adjudication by the DM. And more strange happenings caused by the variability of the d20...just like in older versions of D&D. All that stuff is a feature of old-school, not a bug.
As a side note, on the super-barbarian/grandmother example mentioned above: if Conan simply Takes 10 against the weak grandmother, he can't lose. She might tie if she rolls a 20, but tell me that wouldn't be a blast to have happen at your table? Who wouldn't want to have that be part of their gaming experience?
In closing, if you want fewer rules, you've got to be OK with less certainty.
ubertrip, isn't your system essentially giving everyone full ranks in every skill suited to the character concept?
Not saying that is a bad thing, just making sure I understand.
In that case, people will have universally high 'skill' scores, so you lessen the impact of the d20.
Salindurthas: yes, in a way, but only if you retain the skills currently defined by the system, which isn't required.
I'd describe it instead as: IF (the 'if' is important), if you want to drop the concept of "skills" and "ranks" and "class skills" as well as the clearly limited meaning and usage of those skills, this system gives you a way to adjudicate tasks vs a DC that is 1) super-easy, 2) analogous to the original mechanic, and 3) preserves a bit of inter-class balance.
Does the fighter use the same ability score as the rogue when jumping a pit? That's up to the DM. Does the rogue know anything about the strange arcane writings just because the player said he used to study dragons? Player and GM make it up as they go along and try to be challenged and have fun.
The design pit-falls are obvious:
1) The same Elven Ranger 5 (with identical back stories) would have different capabilities under different GMs...totally unacceptable for a game where tournament play is important.
2) Nightmare players/GMs can easily abuse.
PC: "Before I was a first level fighter, I was my family's cook/scribe/hunter/lawyer/minstrel/fletcher/farmer/blacksmith/pimp, therefore I can...."
GM: "Despite your back story (which I approved) saying that you spent years negotiating trading contracts for your family's import/export business, I'm not going to give you a bonus to your attempt to shave 1sp off the innkeeper's nightly rate. Oh, and its a DC 27 Strength check to walk upstairs to your room. [PC fails roll] You're forced to sleep in the common room and a very sneaky person steals all your stuff."
But again, it's not designed to be robust, it's designed to be flexible. This is the system I'll be using next year to teach my soon-to-be 8-yr-olds how to roleplay.
@Salindurthas & ubertripp: thanks for your input, I'll have to run a few sessions to see how this will sort out, but your feedback will let me be aware of the pitfalls before they are coming
Another thought:
As Ninja in the Rye (great name btw) mentioned, you could try the old "roll equal to or lower than your statistic" method. I.E. the fighter with 18 str needs to roll 18 or less to pass strength checks, etc.
Then, you add modifiers (like what Auxmalus suggested). Something like:
Impossible: -20
Legendary: -10
Very hard: -5
Hard: -2
Average: 0
Easy: +2
Very easy: +5
Trivial: +10
Automatic: +20
The modifier applies to their ability score (so that figher trying to do a legendary feat of strength needs to roll 8 or lower, etc).
Next, get rid of opposed rolls; just set the difficulty based on the opposing party (for example, sneaking past a sleeping guard might be trivial or even automatic; sneaking past a dragon, on the other hand, might be very hard or even legendary).
And you're still rewarding players with super high stats skill wise; makes it easier to do harder and harder things as your stats increase.
If you want to reward players for playing "against type" (a low charisma wizard who wants to hold his own in most social situations), you can leave in skill feats basically as they are (the bonus would apply to their stat in those situations). Upon reaching level 10, the bonus would increase.
:)
I don't know how different this would end up being in play, really; rates of success might work out roughly the same, but hopefully the math/paperwork is a bit easier.
Also, you can still use traits as a means of providing background bonuses; it just adds to the stat, same as the feats.
|
|
Another thought:
As Ninja in the Rye (great name btw) mentioned, you could try the old "roll equal to or lower than your statistic" method. I.E. the fighter with 18 str needs to roll 18 or less to pass strength checks, etc.
Then, you add modifiers (like what Auxmalus suggested). Something like:
Impossible: -20
Legendary: -10
Very hard: -5
Hard: -2
Average: 0
Easy: +2
Very easy: +5
Trivial: +10
Automatic: +20The modifier applies to their ability score (so that figher trying to do a legendary feat of strength needs to roll 8 or lower, etc).
Next, get rid of opposed rolls; just set the difficulty based on the opposing party (for example, sneaking past a sleeping guard might be trivial or even automatic; sneaking past a dragon, on the other hand, might be very hard or even legendary).
And you're still rewarding players with super high stats skill wise; makes it easier to do harder and harder things as your stats increase.
If you want to reward players for playing "against type" (a low charisma wizard who wants to hold his own in most social situations), you can leave in skill feats basically as they are (the bonus would apply to their stat in those situations). Upon reaching level 10, the bonus would increase.
:)
I don't know how different this would end up being in play, really; rates of success might work out roughly the same, but hopefully the math/paperwork is a bit easier.
Also, you can still use traits as a means of providing background bonuses; it just adds to the stat, same as the feats.
This is what I was trying to focus on in my original post Captain, thanks. I was rushing out the door so I wasn't sure if my point got across.
I suggested the following as the base bonuses/minuses if the skill falls within the classes area of expertise.Within Skill category + 5
Unskilled attempt -5 or no attempt
Opposed Skill category -10
But you could ditch the above and just slide the category 1-3 worse using CaptainJando's chart based on the fact is this a class skill or not and the difficulty of the task.
Example: Blackleaf the thief wants to scale a wall patrolled by sentries. Based on his level and theirs the DM sets this as both a average Climb (+0) and a Hard (-2) Stealth checks (two separate checks). Blackleaf has specialized tools (for climbing) and is wearing black armor (it's at night) so his checks may go one easier (Climb becomes easy +2, the stealth check is now Average +0).
When Hoary the Spellblaster decides to follow Blackleaf up the wall without specialized tools or training in Sneakiness and Climbing he has a different set of numbers to contend with. His check difficulty should move 2 factors (Very Hard -5) and the Stealth now moves to 2 factors (Legendary -10)…or even more.
So he still has a chance to try, it's just not practical or wise unless he gives himself a magical boost or maybe gets some help on his check from Blackleaf to get up after the thief gets to the top of the wall.
Anyway, good luck
Why not just play 2nd ED then? Or any of a hundred skill-less Fantasy RPGs out there?
|
|
Why not just play 2nd ED then? Or any of a hundred skill-less Fantasy RPGs out there?
There is nothing wrong with Mordo wanting an alternate skill system Deth. When you post something like this in a house rules/suggestion forum it isn't helpful to the discussion.
His problem isn't impossible to fix under the current system. He can easily swap out one mechanic for another - right now what he's looking at are potential pitfalls to his propsed replacement system.
Also for more clarity - he has already disregarded the roll under 2nd ed system of task resolution (check up thread). He wants to keep the existing DC system, change the numbers down a bit and make it attribute based only (plus some feat mods) for the sake of record keeping and ease of character creation/tracking.
Saying, "go play 2nd ed instead" isn't helpful to the poster.
I'm not trying to slam or attack you here Dr.D.