Skill Dichotomy (3.5)

[Mercenary Pen]

Just a thought I had, and please bear in mind that 3.5 is not my usual system.

I was thinking as I read through a complex debate in the roleplaying games section the other day (as you do), that the current skill system is horribly oversimplified. For example, the point was made that intelligence and book learning shouldnt really contribute towards gaining ranks in skills like swim and tumble amongst others (or, if they do, it would be through learning spells that add vast numbers of skill points or boost ability modifiers).

So, without trying to make the skill system too much more complicated, I thought to myself, how about we split the skill list down into physical and mental skills, and set separate progressions at skill points per hit die for each within any given base class and/or prestige class?

Whilst mental skill points would be added to dependent on a intelligence modifier, perhaps it might be more fitting for physical skill points to use instead strength modifier, dexterity, or maybe even fortitude?

This might, for example, have the added effect of allowing the Fighter and the Barbarian (for example) to become significant physical skillmonkies, with bards and rogues getting an even mix of physical and mental skills and wizards and factotums focussing almost entirely on mental skill points...

So, any ideas about this sort of thing? Any arguments as to why splitting skills this way would be an utterly terrible idea? Suggestions that some skills ought to bridge the divide between physical and mental? Any suggestions of that kind would be more than welcome.

[John Cribati]

Well, it kind of does make sense to have skills be INT based. After all, eople aren't born with the ability to swim and jump and climb. We all have to learn to these things; even if we accomplish them with our bodies, it's our brains that direct the body on how to move.

[Mercenary Pen]

Well, it kind of does make sense to have skills be INT based. After all, eople aren't born with the ability to swim and jump and climb. We all have to learn to these things; even if we accomplish them with our bodies, it's our brains that direct the body on how to move.

Yes, but on the other hand, I find that a definition of Intelligence that broad ends up trying to do far too much, and leads to the overshadowing of any class where Int is not a primary stat- and assisting the current status quo of 'melee cannot have nice things'.

Perhaps in this case we might rule physical skills as including the development of 'muscle memory' etc. and thus key them off something other than intelligence.

[Wyntonian]

On the other hand, intelligence contributes little to how well people move. It's dexterity that adds an ac bonus, not intelligence (yes, there's probably an exception). I think dexterity is mostly how well people know how to move themselves, with intelligence being more like book knowledge and logic. On the other hand, it seems like the natural str bonus to say, jump checks represents how well the character is naturally inclined towards physical activities like jumping, while skill points represent conscious thought directed at the subject over time, which logically would be assisted by intelligence.

[Vladislav]

I was considering adding "class-based skills" to the system. That is, whenever you gain a level in a certain class, you automatically gain a rank in a class-based skill (or more than one). Of course, additional skills and ranks may be purchased normally.

For example:
For each level of Fighter, gain 1 rank in Climb, Jump and Swim.
For each level of Cleric, gain 1 rank in Knowledge (Religion)
For each level of Wizard, gain 1 rank in Spellcraft
For each level of Paladin, gain 1 rank in Diplomacy and Knowledge (Nobility & Royalty)
For each level of Rogue, gain 1 rank in Bluff and Sleight of Hand

etc.

[Epsilon Rose]

If your going that far you might as well split it so by ability score (after all wouldn't someone with hi cha be better at learning social skills). If you do go that route you would need to give different starting allotments for each category for each class (or maybe give each class a set of professions and let the Player decide how to assign them). You also might want to consider letting classes that change the key stat also change the category ( though classes that completely overwrite categories, like the factotum, might need extra high progression groups to keep them from falling behind.

[Sfere]

I have thought about granting 1 skill point for each stat that can only be used on skills that are assoiciated with that stat. For example, if a character has 14 STR, they get 2 skill points each level that can only be spent on strength skills, etc. The problem seems, if a character gets a bonus to jump from his STR and then gets bonus skill points to jump because of his STR, is that not too much like adding his STR twice? Is there a difference between physical capability and skill? Should there be?

I ask those last two questions because the d&d stats aren't completely literal: a high strength character could be super-muscley or just very skilled at applying leverage. In either case, their strength bonus is applied to their jump check. What then is the difference between the character who gets a +2 to their STR for their skill at applying their strength (and therefore gets +1 to jump) and one who allocates 1 skill point to their jump (and therefore gets +1 to jump) for their skill in jumping? They both end up with the same jumping ability. It becomes clear that unless we want to ditch skills again and go back to making stat checks for everything, we'll have to accept a little bit of abstraction.

If, for example, we grant bonus skill points by strength bonus, we encounter the unfair bias that those who are strong can increase their jumping ability easier than those who are weaker (which is unfair because the strong already get a greater bonus to jump from their strength!). To avoid this, I believe the only alternative is to offer a number of skill points per level not dependent on any attribute and let the player decide where they should be allocated. That way, if they feel their barbarian should jump, they may jump, or if they feel their rogue should hide, they may hide, regardless of stat predilection.

I suspect that when the 3.x skill system was originally designed, they tied skills to INT because they were afraid people would dump the mental stats if they weren't useful to everyone. The unintended consequence of this was that wizards (and other int-casters) got an extra boon over the more MAD classes.

[Kyrinthic]

Allow a character to pick one stat at level 1, this is a permanent choice. Bonus skill points are determined by that stat. At least half of those skill points must go to a skill related to that stat.

Smart characters still have a lot more options, and dont really suffer.
Strong people can be good at jumping and climbing and whatnot, but will probably still not have a lot of knowledge skills.

Best of all, its nice and simple.

There are a lot of tweaks you could do to this to make it slightly better or more accurate, but they would all make it less simple as well.

[The Cat Goddess]

Really? Intelligence shouldn't reflect your knowledge of physical skills?

A smart Quarterback is a better Quarterback than a dumb one. Because the smart Quarterback has more skill points to put into the skills required to be a good Quarterback.

The dumb Quarterback may have more natural talent (higher Dex, Str and/or Con), but the smart Quarterback is a better player (by virtue of more ranks in skill).

Example #2:

There are two kinds of "Con Men". One relies on natural talent (High Cha & Skill Focus Feat), while the other relies on training and skill (High Int & loads of skill points).

[Kyrinthic]

Really? Intelligence shouldn't reflect your knowledge of physical skills?

A smart Quarterback is a better Quarterback than a dumb one. Because the smart Quarterback has more skill points to put into the skills required to be a good Quarterback.

The dumb Quarterback may have more natural talent (higher Dex, Str and/or Con), but the smart Quarterback is a better player (by virtue of more ranks in skill).

Example #2:

There are two kinds of "Con Men". One relies on natural talent (High Cha & Skill Focus Feat), while the other relies on training and skill (High Int & loads of skill points).

A smart quarterback has good knowledge skill. But he will suck if he doesnt have a good dex as well. The smartest quarterback in the world isnt worth anything if he cant land the ball where he intellegently predicts it needs to go. The reverse is true of course too. But then, if 'ball throwing' and 'knowledge -where to throw the ball' were both skills, every professional quarterback would have both skills maxed, and their int or dex bonuses would be the difference between good and great, not how many skill points they had to spend.

I believe either way can work, I dont have a problem with the 'high int is a good bonus' default method, as it is very simple and straightforward, but when you start to represent training and skill with int instead of character levels, its a poor analogy.

Max skills, and skill points per level are a factor of gaining levels, this is your 'training'. Bonus skill points are a factor of being able to pick up those skills a little quicker than others, think of this as your 'aptitude'. I think it is just as fair to say that a con man who is very charismatic could naturally learn to bluff easier than a guy that is very intelligent, assuming they both spent the same time and training on it (ie, class levels).

Also, for the records, in my version, the smart guy and the charismatic guy would have roughly the same number of bonus points to spend, they would just tend towards preferring the skills they are naturally competent in.

[Vladislav]

Allow a character to pick one stat at level 1, this is a permanent choice. Bonus skill points are determined by that stat. At least half of those skill points must go to a skill related to that stat.

Smart characters still have a lot more options, and dont really suffer.
Strong people can be good at jumping and climbing and whatnot, but will probably still not have a lot of knowledge skills.

Best of all, its nice and simple completely broken.

There are a lot of tweaks you could do to this to make it slightly better or more accurate, but they would all make it less simple as well.
Fixed that for you.

Please understand, if one of your stats is stellarly high, being forced to spend half your skill points on skills related to that stat is not really a limitation. Because that's what you want to do anyway.

Player: Well I rolled up a dumb Bard, but he has Charisma 18. I guess I'll key his skill points off charisma.
DM: But remember, you have to spend half his points on charisma skills.
Player: Really? I can only spend half his skill points on charisma skills? That's a downer.
DM: No, at least half.
Player: Haha, you had me worried there for a moment. I intended to spend like 90% on charisma skills.

[Welknair]

This is somewhat related to something that I've been contemplating for my current project. Namely, my system uses skills for most anything a character would do - including swinging a sword. Skills are gained not through leveling, but through hours of training. As it is currently, the training time required is reduced by an amount equal to your Intelligence, but the more I think of this, the more I dislike it. It makes Intelligence a god-stat as it helps absolutely all skills in that you can get more points for less hours. The result would be that everyone would want to be a genius, as this would even allow melee characters to have vastly superior combat abilities just due to their increased swordsmanship skills. There comes a point where physical attributes would be entirely overshadowed by the number of skill points the character possessed.

So what is one to do? I like the concept of someone being a "Fast Learner" and it seems logical for intelligence to tie into this, but as mentioned it doesn't fit for everything and raw processing power doesn't necessarily equate to how fast something can be learned. I don't want to cut out the system, but at the same time its' present state is abhorrent.


As for 3.5, this seems like it would be an interesting idea, though it would take some tweaking. Random ability scores determining skill points is not the correct route, for sure.

[Epsilon Rose]

It might be worth mentioning that while it might not make the most sense for Int to control how fast you lean all skills there is something to be said for a mechanic that encourages players to put at least a few points in int so they don't windup with terminally stupid and un-roleplay-able characters.

[Kyrinthic]

You accidentally used broken not different.

It would make the game different, not broken. if having a lot of skill points could make you broken, then the current 8+ skill classes would be higher tiers.

It makes it so that a 'book-learning' character is not the only viable way to be a good skills character.

That charismatic streetbard that didnt go to college for a degree in extra skill points can still be a valid character concept. It also helps alleviate MAD in some classes that really dont need it.

Its ok to play a dumb barbarian and not expect that means you can barely tie your shoes, never mind survive in the wilderness, climb cliffs, jump and swim.

At the most extreme use of this it would not come remotely near to changing the tier of a class. Broken is definately not the right word.

The limitation I put on there is supposed to be a non-factor for a character built sensibly, but its to prevent unusual class / stat combinations that dont make sense. that charismatic, but not overly smart bard wouldnt be able to really build a super-knowledgeable character for an example.

[Veklim]

People seem to be consistantly missing the main point here...
Intelligence is the stat which dictates the accuracy and allacrity with which you learn. If you are learning a physical skill like tumbling, you still have to understand in one manner or another precisely how you are meant to land, turn and shift your balance. A person with high intelligence is better equiped at translating experience into action and will therefore pick up the idea better, but if he doesn't also have a high dex, he may well fail to achieve a high standard. A lower intelligence character with a high dex won't need to learn as much to attain the same proficiency because he already has an innate competance, but without enough skill points (i.e. experience -> application) he can't excel either.
There is no mis-balance here. There is no problem here. A character with high strength needs less skill points to make a strength skill usable. Same with any skill/stat, but a character with high intelligence (which is incidentally a nearly pointless stat unless you cast off it, want combat expertise or want skill points) will be able to apply their understanding of a thing to improve their use of a thing faster.


The unintended consequence of this was that wizards (and other int-casters) got an extra boon over the more MAD classes.
Disagree COMPLETELY. The reason the wizard, supreme D&D intellectual, only has 2 skills per level is because they will ALWAYS HAVE A GOOD INT!!!! It was there to counteract the very thing you speak of.

Skills are a mundane form of magic if you will, the more of them you get, the more versatile you become. The idea behind putting skills based on intelligence is easy to understand, with the exception of charisma (most often dumped stat in my campaign groups) intelligence is less useful than any other stat. dex, con & wis go for saves, str & dex for combat values, dex & con for defense values. OF COURSE a wizard would disagree, because the class is designed with intelligence in mind (ooooh, bad one sorry), as would a bard who needs charisma above all else, but taking a level playing field between all classes and playing styles, intelligence is only attractive at all because it gives you access to more skillful builds.

[DracoDei]

I have thought about granting 1 skill point for each stat that can only be used on skills that are assoiciated with that stat. For example, if a character has 14 STR, they get 2 skill points each level that can only be spent on strength skills, etc. The problem seems, if a character gets a bonus to jump from his STR and then gets bonus skill points to jump because of his STR, is that not too much like adding his STR twice? Is there a difference between physical capability and skill? Should there be?

Sounds a little like THIS (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=124289) solution I have seen to this problem I have seen before.

For a less intrusive, but much less comprehensive solution to the problem try THIS (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4505657#post4505657).

[Nero24200]

I think using intellegence to gain skill points makes sense. The issue comes from the fact that ranks and misc bonuses (from say feats or class features) will completely overshadow natural talent (I.E having a high ability score).

If you want to make the natural talent more dominant perhaps having the ability score bonuses for skills increase with levels or alter the max ranks for skills to be dependent on the character's ability score.

[DracoDei]

If you want to make the natural talent more dominant perhaps having the ability score bonuses for skills increase with levels or alter the max ranks for skills to be dependent on the character's ability score.
Regardless of your main point ("INT MOD added for skill points is good"), these are interesting concepts. I like the second better than the first.