One question the Design Focus [Skills] thread kicked off in my head was the question where the "real" fiddly bits in the 3.5 skill system are, especially in context with being a DM and having to use it regularly, and for higher-level NPCs/monsters.
To wit, this is an attempt to find out where the 3.5 system could be simplified without mutating it too much, while coming at it from a DM's perspective. Players do have it easier, that's a given. :) To give a quick overview of my perspective, I'm a habitual auto-maxer, except if I really want a diverse spectrum of skills for one important NPC that doesn't get killed off on first contact. Otherwise, I treat skill points as a big pool.
Some that came to my mind (as far as it runs at 1 AM ;D)...
- The whole business with cross-class skills in a multiclass character. I can see why the designers might have thought it to be "more realistic" that training you get in one class only fully counts for those skills that class is optimized for...but it is a holy headache for more complicated NPCs.
Solution: Simply allowing all class skills from different classes in a multiclass combo to be class skills for every purpose solves this without creating too many compatibility problems.
- Synergy bonuses. To be honest, I like them, since they provide a non-magical bonus for skills...but they are hell to remember AND to look up. There's no table in the PHB that lists skills with their synergies. You have to check each skill description for that information.
Solution: A much better marking of which skill gives synergies to which, coupled with a condensed skill list, should help with finding the correct synergies. Add a column to the skill table, listing the synergies. Going down the list once after you assigned skill points to your NPC and checking the 5 ranks minimum should be doable. Keeping synergies simple is the other one. No "grants +2 synergy bonus to [specific application of skill A] if you have 5 ranks in [skill B]". A flat +2 to one skill if 5 ranks in other skill will keep the fiddly down already.
Thoughts, suggestions, anecdotes, complaints? ;)
|
- Synergy bonuses. To be honest, I like them, since they provide a non-magical bonus for skills...but they are hell to remember AND to look up. There's no table in the PHB that lists skills with their synergies. You have to check each skill description for that information.
Solution: A much better marking of which skill gives synergies to which, coupled with a condensed skill list, should help with finding the correct synergies. Add a column to the skill table, listing the synergies. Going down the list once after you assigned skill points to your NPC and checking the 5 ranks minimum should be doable. Keeping synergies simple is the other one. No "grants +2 synergy bonus to [specific application of skill A] if you have 5 ranks in [skill B]". A flat +2 to one skill if 5 ranks in other...
I know I have seen a table somewhere in the PH for synergies but but I don't have it handy. There's this though. Skill Synergy table SRD Wiki
Just thought I would throw it out here.
I know I have seen a table somewhere in the PH for synergies but but I don't have it handy. There's this though. Skill Synergy table SRD Wiki
Just thought I would throw it out here.
Thanks :) Going to dig through the 3.5 PHB (rarely use it, I still prefer 3.0), maybe they indeed have one in there.
One more that came to me...
- Retroactive INT bonus to skill points. Why not? CON is retroactively added to Hit Points, too, after all. Just grant characters the extra skill points when they manage to increase the INT bonus by +1...and limit them to spend them on already trained skills (including new ones chosen at that level). One could make a case that a character, after increasing his intelligence enough to raise his bonus, has gained new insight into old skills, and learns the new ones faster. Also, it allows the DM to simply pool the bonus skill points from the highest INT stat instead of having to incrementally raise INT for his NPC and calculate skill points from there.
(1) Take 3.5 system. Roll together skills with synergy bonuses, as proposed in the Pathfinder system. Synergy bonuses go the way of the dodo.
(2) Allow retroactive Int bonuses, so you don't have to back-subtract. Geron is dead-on with that suggestion; it'll save a lot of difficulty when statting NPC wizards.
(3) Ignore class vs. cross-class skills.
(4) Pick 'em and max 'em out.
Note that all the "fiddling" is done beforehand (steps 1-3), leaving a streamlined process for DM prep equivalent in simplicity to the Pathfinder one. The advantages are that
(1) characters retain the same equivalent skill ranks as they would in 3.5e. If your campaign adds 2 more per class or whatver, that's fine, but some sort of backward compatability is "hard-wired" in. In the proposed systems, there is no equivalence, so that the NPCs in Paizo adventures would suddenly have many more equivalent ranks than their 3.5e predecessors (requiring prep time to convert 3.5e adventures).
(2) Customization works the same as in 3.5, for PCs, if they want it to. Therefore all the skill point people stop complaining about not being able to.
(3) Rogues remain a viable class past 1st level.
Nobody else got some "DM's fiddly bits" to add to the list? Impressive, considering there's plenty of people calling the 3.5 system "fiddly". :) Are those few points really it? I mean, they are for me...they are basically what I ignore, too, most of the time when statting out NPCs. Seems I'm not the only one. ;D
The "fiddly" bits are ingame: constantly referencing too many feats, spells, and class features or looking up complex rules such as for aerial combat, grappling, invisibility or avoiding gaze-attacks...
Creating NPCs and (advanced) monsters with classes (even complex ones) is not fiddly (at least for me), because I use software...
Hi Geron, you did ask.
The problem is the math behind the system. The current system doesn't work very well past 8th level IMHO due to the difference between max skill and untrained.
What I mean is, at 11th level, you can't use the skill system at ALL for group challenges. Take for example Balance. At 11th level, try coming up with an encounter that everyone in a group has a decent chance of passing.
At 11th level, maxxed out skill is at least +14 (doesn't factor in DEX, syngergy bonus which really play havoc with the math but for the time, let's just work with the basics),a guy who puts in one SP every other level since maxing it out at first (+9), a guy who dabbles (+6) and the untrained guy (+0).
A DC of 25 pretty much means the last two guys outfail and even the 2nd guy only has a 25% chance of success. You have to basically set the DC between 17 and 20 which basically has the latter guy auto-failing.
It gets worse from there. At level 15 for example, you have the +18, +12, +9 and +0 respectively. And that's all assuming we don't use synergy bonus, skill bonuses and have equal abiltiy scores.
Yep, I asked. :) Thanks for answering.
But the question is, is this about setting DCs for a challenge that everyone in a group has a decent chance of passing, or about the point that a DC that challenges the best in the group in that particular skill will simply give the rest a guarantee of failure?
To take your Balance example and the +14/+9/+6/+0 group you spelled out above. A challenge that doesn't involve combat (because THEN we really open a can of worms) would be trying to cross a large chasm on a narrow arc of natural stone that leads over a stream of lava far below towards the secret cliffside entrance of the BBEG's castle. Sounds good? ;)
So lets make it 7 inches (DC 10), make it lightly slippery because of constant drizzle (+2) and lets have some winds because of the hot air ascending all the time (+2) for a total DC of 14.
- The +14 guy will walk across as if he was on the market square, maybe even doing it blind for the greater challenge (if he has a high Dex), and feel damn good about having invested so much into his Balance skill.
- The +9 guy can either take a risk and roll the dice (maybe his Dex will help), or he can take 10 to be on the safe side.
- The +6 guy will most likely take 10 as long as he can do so, even though he has a 65% chance of making it on a die roll, and only a 15% chance of an actual fall.
- The +0 guy will have a hell of a time, even with a high Dex, since he can't take 20. He'll most likely have to get the "aid another" from the +14 guy, and maybe even need to be steadied with a rope and the others holding it tight (for another +2 bonus), and still take 10 to make it to the other side.
This basically tells me that a DC of 12 would be appropriate if I had this kind of spread in the Balance skill in my group, by eliminating one factor (lets say the rain). Guy +14 will laugh and dance across the ledge (the cocky rogue type), guy +9 will have a really good chance of getting across and none for falling (the bard who used to love rooftops), guy +6 will make it over with a decent chance of success and nearly no chance of falling (the fighter who grew up in the mountains), and guy +0 will make it with somebody aiding him and taking 10 (the wizard who is a bit klutzy most of the time).
I guess the real point is that I don't have to throw high-DC challenges at high-level groups all the time just because one member will manage them easily otherwise...just as I don't have to throw high-AC or high-SR monsters at the group all the time just because the fighter or wizard might feel a bit underchallenged otherwise. The fun and interesting part about D&D is to vary the challenges so everybody can feel great once in a while. Changing the system so that everybody can feel "adequate" all the time makes for boring characters in the long run, in my opinion, and for boring games.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 4
|
Here are the fiddly bits that I run into when statting up NPC's and monsters.
- synergy bonuses. Can't remember 'em, period.
- skill points based on INT for all creatures. This forces way too many "racial bonuses" and prevents me (sometimes) from creating a beast that would do what it should be able to do.
- "hidden" modifiers like size bonus/penalty for Move Silently (or is it Hide?), the base speed modifier for the Jump skill, and doubling the Armor Check/encumbrance penalty for Swim.
- Armor Check penalty itself is a little fiddly but I am willing to live with it.
[edit] forgot the most important one, and the whole point of my post: The monster with a prestige class is a problem. You have three pools of skills to worry about: base skills from HD, class skills that allow entry into the PrC, and then the PrC class itself. Factor in all the above issues and you're in for a long,painful afternoon.
|
Lots of good stuff...
Kirth's system FTW!
Thoughts on other problems.
1) skills challenges appropriate to the whole party.
I think it is GOOD that you can make challenges that only some of the party can overcome. This encourages the use of other solutions, like tying members together with a harness in the above balancing example, or just towing them across with a rope. or things like that. For a lot of skills, check with high DCs SHOULD be near impossible for people who haven't put a lot of training (skill points) into. This is just my opinion on the matter though.
2) skills that must be leveled vs. skills that die out.
Tumble is the real culprit here. I think they need to rework how tumbling in combat works to have it similar to the Bluff rules. Enemies BAB or CMB or whatever should definately come into play here. I think this is a change that could be implemented while easily retaining backwards compatibility.
Another solution is to fold Tumble into Acrobatics together with Balance and Escape Artist, and you create a good reason for a player to put points into that skill, since all three applications can be important at some point or other. :)
Here's a radical idea from left field...
What if high level characters can loan other PCs their skill points?
Take that example from earlier with the Maxxed, Dabbler and Untrained character. What if we allow some sort of system where the Maxxed could "lend" his skill points to the Untrained (and/or Dabbler) so they could succeed a group skill challenge?
This could be represented in one of many ways, the easiest being an enhanced "aid another check" - instead of granting +2, the character can reduce his own skill total to allow another PC to "borrow" his skill.
This would allow PCs to still be "the best" at something, but by allowing another PC access to their skill points during special encounters, you could smooth out the inequalities of different skill levels in a group.
So, from those discussions that actually still deal with the original 3.5 skilly point system here, I've gleaned the following points:
- Fold skills together in a reasonable way. This will shorten the skill list, and eliminate a lot of synergy bonuses outright (Persuasion instead of Bluff, Diplomacy and Intimidate for example).
- Eliminate the cross-class distinction to simplify skill point expenditure, or leave it only for max ranks. In second case, allow all skills from classes in a multiclass to be class skills for the purpose of raising.
- Allow retroactive INT bonus for skill points. Details up to be determined (personally, I'd allow them only to raise already trained skills).
- Synergy bonuses should either be heavily simplified, or eliminated (personally, I'd simply like to see them simplified and better organized in a table).
What do you think? Would this make the 3.5 skill point system less complicated to deal with? Just talking about the system itself here, not about which class could use more skill points or more class skills (poor poor fighter).
Well, I guess I'll have to see what feedback I get from houseruling this into my games then. ;D One nice thing coming from all these discussions around Pathfinder...lots of inspiration and insight into the current D&D system. :)
What is too fiddly for me when DMing?
Synergy bonuses.
Check
Non-retroactive Int increases.
Check
Huge scale of results. d20 plus modifiers gives a scale of results between 1 and 40+. Don't need such a massive scale.
Scale of results is less important than scale of target DCs, since greater check results doesn't equate greater successes.
Assigning dozens of skill points across dozens of skills - it's a hassle and too easy to miss points here and there.
What's keeping you from auto-maxing class skills for NPCs? :)
Armour penalties - like them, but I always forget them!
Agree to a point...would be nice if they were easier to list. Armor on/off is always a situational question, no idea how to simplify them without taking them out.
Human bonus skill points - I always forget these!
Well..play more humans? ;) Seriously, I tend to forget what I use only rarely. Maybe that can help. Otherwise, ditch all races except humans and add 1 point to class skill points/level. ;)
Overly granular skill system - it increases in single point increments, yet results are determined in 5 or 10-point increments (or higher.)
Depends on the skill, but in general, yes. Except if the DM makes liberal use of the +2/-2 modifiers. I guess the simplification of an easy to remember +5 for next difficulty level counted more than having a finer grained DC system.
Wildly varying skill levels between characters make skill-based encounter planning a hassle.
You could say the same about combat planning...or magical planning...or nasty traps...I guess D&D simply used to be a game about a group of specialists instead of a group of generalists so far.
These are just the first few that sprang immediately to mind. Any one or two of these could easily be ignored. Taken together, they are a monument to fiddly. Fiddly=bad.
Well, more food for thought, so thanks for the post. :D In the end, I'm hoping for a system that we both can use with equal ease and fun. :)
|
|
The most "fiddly" bit of DnD 3.5 was the skill system but since there is enough threads on those, we could go into some others.
1) Special Combat Manuevers. Things like Grapple and Turn Undead. I know how to run them and can usually do it without looking in the book but they are too wonky. Grapplers have too many options and the best one is be a monk and continual deal your unarmed strike. Turn Undead doesn't work at higher levels as well as it should. Bull Rush/Overrun are not used as Often as Trip/Disarm. Trip and Disarm gives the user more of an advantage than Bull Rush and Overrun Combined.
2) Crafting Magic Items. I like how they set it to help balance the party, but no one wants to make them. XP is just too precious, so players expect the DM to give them the items they want either through purchase or treasure troves. That's the fiddly part.
I will post some more later.
Uhm, you know, this is supposed to be one of those threads that try to excise the fiddly bits from the skill system without turning it into an Alpha variant...so far, the other threads are pretty cluttered up with variations on Alpha 1 systems, and different point calculations and lots of math. ;) I guess a thread on other fiddly DM bits of 3.5 would be better served in its own thread anyway, since it would get more attention there instead of in a thread on fiddly 3.5 skill point bits. :)
Well, it certainly looks like the kind of fixes that are proposed by Meepo and Kirth and others are getting serious consideration, so with some luck, we'll get a simplified 3.5 skill point system in one of the next updates...let's cross fingers. :D
|
I do like Meepo's fix for the class, cross-class issue. While I would just as happily eliminate the distinction, I don't see that being generally acceptable, so I think his fix is better.
I still hope that the designers will eliminate the x4 skill points at the first HD. It basically makes most monster races unplayable. Since I like expanding options (even when those options may not be commonly used) I really want to see something that addresses the fact that a class that requires any skill use is permanently handicapped by a race with racial HD.
My solution is simply to give everyone a couple more skill points a level, and no multiple at 1st level (or HD). It actually works out to more skills in the long run, but high Int characters under the 3.5 system may not see the benefit until mid-levels.
Another solution is to fold Tumble into Acrobatics together with Balance and Escape Artist, and you create a good reason for a player to put points into that skill, since all three applications can be important at some point or other. :)
Um... Isn't tumble already a part of the Acrobatics skill? Read the Acrobatics skill itself - it allows you to move without provoking AoO's, etc...
Okay, I'm probably being too slow, too simple-minded or something inbetween again, but why does the x4 at 1st level make most monsters unplayable as PCs?
Apart from the fact that I think D&D is not meant to support "most monsters" as PC races, but that's a different kettle of fish. :)
|
|
Okay, I'm probably being too slow, too simple-minded or something inbetween again, but why does the x4 at 1st level make most monsters unplayable as PCs?
Apart from the fact that I think D&D is not meant to support "most monsters" as PC races, but that's a different kettle of fish. :)
Unplayable may be too strong a term, but let's use a rogue as an example, with a bugbear as the base creature (since I just did that).
If you begin with a bugbear, you have 6 x (2+Int mod) to start with. Let's assume a +2 Int mod for the example. This bugbear has 24 skill points. The only class skills for the bugbear are climb, hide, listen, move silently, search and spot. The bugbear is treated as a 4th level character from the beginning. Let's say we're 5th level now, so I'm a bugbear rogue 1 compared to an elf rogue 5.
I have the 24 racial skill points and 10 rogue skill points. To contribute to the party I should expect to regularly face search checks, open lock checks, and disable device checks with a DC of 25. To be most effective in combat, I should have a good hide and move silently.
Now, the elf rouge has no problems. He has 10 skills with maximum ranks (8) as well as an ability modifier. Assuming that he has a +2 in any relevant ability, he would have a +10 total and against a DC 25 have a 25% chance of success (and probably has other bonuses as well). Besides the 5 skills that I've identified as key skills, the elf rogue has 5 other skills with maximum ranks, so he may easily be able to contribute with knowledge (local), gather information, diplomacy, etc.
My bugbear, however, has some difficult choices under the 3.5 rules. If I truly believe that all 5 of those skills are crucial, my best bet is to spend them on the skills I want to max. Since I have 3 HD I have a maximum of 6 ranks to start. I put 6 ranks in Hide, Move Silently and Search. My remaining 6 points I spend on Open Lock (4 skill points = 2 ranks) and Disable Device (2 skill points = 1 rank).
With my first level of rogue I have 10 skill points. With a maximum of 7 ranks in everything, I max out my Hide, Move Silently and Search (3 points) and try with Disable Device (spending 7 points).
So, to compare, the elf rogue ranks are
Hide +8, Move Silently +8, Open Locks +8, Disable Device +8, Search +8, five other skills +8.
The bugbear has
Hide +7, Move Silently +7, Open Locks +2, Disable Device +8, Search +8. No other skills.
And the bugbear makes a good rogue with three skills on the class skill list. Try it with a lizardfolk (none of the racial class skills are rogue skills) and you see the big disparity.
Hmmmkay, I see where you're coming from. Looking at the Bugbear in the d20srd, I'd probably distribute skill points a bit differently (also, a bugbear is a 3rd level creature before class levels are applied, LA only influences XP progression), and definitely view a bugbear rogue as the more frontline-active kind of rogue who happens to be good with locks and traps as well. But tastes differ for sure. Thanks for the pointer, though. :D