PDA

View Full Version : Skills Systems You Prefer



InQbait
2013-09-07, 12:31 PM
Hi there, fellow playgrounders. I was just wondering what kinds of skills systems you prefer for your tabletop roleplaying games. If you could please go into detail about the skills system that would be great.
For me, I always found the types of skills systems where you have to roll low to succeed at a check was kind of weird. It still works, it just feels off.
I like a skills system where you roll a die and add on the number of ranks you have in a skill, plus any other bonuses from attributes or such. I also like it if you have 0 ranks in a skill like Swim, your character simply can't swim in water or sewage and just drowns :smallbiggrin:
Or having 0 ranks in a skill like Linguistics means your character can't read or write.
I'm kind of on the fence about how rolling a natural 1 is an automatic failure and rolling a natural 20 is an automatic success (in the case of d20 systems).:smallconfused:
Anyways, please feel free to rant about any problems you have had with skills systems or talk about the things you like about certain skills systems. :smallsmile:

TheCountAlucard
2013-09-07, 12:37 PM
I like dice pool-based games like Exalted, Vampire, and Shadowrun, where nearly everything is based off some combination of your skills and attributes, as opposed to the notion of Base Attack Bonus.

InQbait
2013-09-07, 12:42 PM
Base Attack Bonus annoys me. Rogues have three quarters the BAB that fighters do, but in my opinion rogues should be hitting enemies more often than fighters. However, when fighters do get a hit in, they deal more damage (unless sneak attack happens of course). I'm just saying that you should use skills to wtfpwn your enemies with attacks, not this weird abstract thing called Base Attack Bonus.

Kadzar
2013-09-07, 01:02 PM
I'm kind of on the fence about how rolling a natural 1 is an automatic failure and rolling a natural 20 is an automatic success (in the case of d20 systems).:smallconfused:
That's not actually true for skills in the d20 system, and I'm not sure why so many people believe it is. Skills are explicitly called out as something for which that particular rule doesn't apply.

Yora
2013-09-07, 01:10 PM
I like Pathfinder skills. It's easy and does the job fine.

Rhynn
2013-09-07, 01:34 PM
I prefer skill systems that don't get in the way. The less specific each skill is about its effects, the better. D&D 3.X is a great example of what I don't like: detailed calculations for how far you can jump, etc. I'm happy with "this is your chance to succeed, now roll."

I like GURPS' skill system the best, I think (the basics, not the details): skills are ranked, in theory, 1-whatever, with 10-11 about average. You roll 3d6 equal to or under your (modified) skill to succeed. 17-18 are always a failure (18 only if your skill is high enough). This means that as your skill goes up past 11, each increase actually improves your success rate less, but they do make you much more resistant to negative modifiers; at skill 11, a -1 modifier reduces your chance of success by 12.5%, but at skill 17, it's only ~3%.

That strikes the perfect balance for me. I like the non-linear success chance increase. I like the chance (0.46% at its lowest) to always fail. (If there's no chance to fail at a given action, why are you rolling dice anyway?)

By comparison, I don't like D&D 3.X's system very much: with the DC system, there's plenty of situations where you're guaranteed success or failure; and implementing 1-always-fails gets you a whopping 5% chance to fail at any given task, which I think is too much.

I don't really object to "roll + skill vs. target" systems, though; I think Fuzion (such as Artesia: Adventures in the Known World) is fine. But it needs unbounded upper and lower ends (in A:AKW, 1 and 10 mean a re-roll that is subtracted from or added to the result), and the numbers need to be fiddled with very carefully. In A:AKW, there's too many ways (magic, magic, and magic) to stack on modifiers to some rolls, but I just play around it: I hardly ever have players roll dice unless they're rolling against another character (because the target numbers for regular tasks are too low).

Oddly, for a huge RuneQuest fan, I think "roll d100 under % skill" systems are my least favorite. They're harder to do opposed rolls in - in fact, I still have no idea how those were supposed to work outside of combat in RQ3! Mongoose and RQ6 did them fine, though. Anyway... even with 5% auto-success and 5% auto-failure (both a bit too high), I think modifiers have too big of an effect in these systems.

Aces & Eights, for all that it's an awesome game, has one of the worst skill systems I know of. It's reverse % based, which is just unintuitive: basically, your skill is your failure chance (15% is an awesome skill, for instance)... but because skills can't improve beyond 1%, a very skilled character still has a big chance to fail. But that's not all: the skills are incredibly fiddly, and the skill list is enormous. Each skill has definitions for what you can do at each of 6 skill level tiers (as well as examples of tasks at each of 5 diffcultly levels), and the full listing takes up 46 pages in the rulebook!

I like the skill system in Hero Wars / HeroQuest a lot, and think it fits the setting perfectly (I can't comprehend the choices they made with the latest HQ edition, including making it generic). Skills are ranked 1+. You roll d20, equal to or under your skill. However, skills will regularly go over 20. Each full 20 is a "mastery" and grants you an automatic bump in your success level: at 21 (1 master + 1), you always get 1 success level, and have a 1/20 chance of getting another one. At 70 (3 masteries + 10), you'd have 3 free success levels and a 10/20 chance of a fourth one. When rolling opposed tests, masteries negate each other: skill 65 vs. skill 81 would be 5 vs. 21 (that's 1 mastery + 1). If that looks confusing, it's because the game uses a "Mastery rune" to indicate masteries; 81 is "1w4" (1 + 4 masteries). Extended conflicts, whether lethal combat or debating a point of philosophy, involve staking points (your point pool is equal to the skill you're using). The results of each round are found on a matrix where you compare the success level of both sides of an opposed roll; either or both can lose their stake (or a multiplier of their stake), one side can gain their stake, etc.

Twilight 2013 has a neat skill system. Your character has ability scores ranked 1-15 (rarely above 10, and 5-6 is average). You have skills that are bought with points (each level the cost doubles); first level is 1d20, then 2d20, and so on up to 6d20. On any given task, you're using a specific skill (or 2d20, if no skill applies) to roll under the relevant ability score (with modifiers applied). You roll all those dice, and take the lowest result; then you calculate the margin of success: if you needed 10 and rolled 5, the MoS is 5. Every die after the first that rolled a success adds +2 to your MoS. If you are unskilled at a task, you roll 2d20 and use the higher score (thus, increased chance of failure). MoS is used to determine how well you did - in combat, it increases damage (you hit a more vital spot; MoS 0 has special rules for a grazing hit).

At first blush, calculating your odds is hard in TW2013's Reflex System, but if you're just trying to figure out your chances of success, it's actually easy: it's 1-P(X), where P(X) is the odds that all die come up higher than your target number, which is ((20-TN)/20)^N, where N is the number of d20s rolled...

Yora
2013-09-07, 01:55 PM
I prefer skill systems that don't get in the way. The less specific each skill is about its effects, the better. D&D 3.X is a great example of what I don't like: detailed calculations for how far you can jump, etc. I'm happy with "this is your chance to succeed, now roll."
That's very much true. I like skill ranks in Pathfinder!

For actual play, I much prefer to ignore almost all of the detailed rules and instead just pick a DC by rule of thumb.
20 ft. jump? - DC 20 Acrobatics
Climbing a tree? - DC 10 Climb
Charging down stairs? - DC 10 Acrobatics

All you need are the DCs for some standard situations, and those mostly to be consistent with the DCs you assign to things the PCs encounter. Not such a great thing if a 20 ft. jump is DC 15 one day and DC 25 on another.
But forget about all that stuff about who has cover from whom and how many feet of space you have to get speed before a jump, and all those minor things that can be just dealt with by arbitrary GM call.

If the guard stands in the doorway looking out on the courtyard, then it doesn't matter if a rogue has cover or concealment when he sneaks up the corridor. The game doesn't have rules for characters looking in a specific direction, that doesn't mean you can't just make up if the guard is looking your way or not.

Scow2
2013-09-07, 02:40 PM
Base Attack Bonus annoys me. Rogues have three quarters the BAB that fighters do, but in my opinion rogues should be hitting enemies more often than fighters. However, when fighters do get a hit in, they deal more damage (unless sneak attack happens of course). I'm just saying that you should use skills to wtfpwn your enemies with attacks, not this weird abstract thing called Base Attack Bonus.

Why should a skulking streetrat hit more often than something that's trained its life to hit things? Mathematically, a Fighter should be hitting more in a straight-up fight. In practice, a Rogue hits more often than a fighter because his targets are flat-footed, he has a circumstance bonus to attack, and usually striking them with somethign that ignores their defenses. Feinting in D&D is terrible, though, and Improved Feint was just a mess :/

skyth
2013-09-07, 02:48 PM
It can get complicated, but I really like Rolemaster's skill system. To start off with, Rolemaster is a d100 system. Generally you want to get above 100 to succeed. The d100's are open ended, which means if you roll 96-100, you roll again and add it to the roll. However, if you roll 1-5, you roll again and subtract it from the roll. Further rolls of 96-100 means you roll again and add (Or subtract in the case of an inital 1-5 roll), keep on going :)

It is possible to roll infinitely high or low.

The skills are bought as ranks, with the first 10 ranks giving you +5 to the roll, the next 10, +2 to the roll, and the next 20, +1 to the roll. (So 30 ranks ends up as +80). Anyone can buy any skill during creation/leveling up, but it costs more for certain classes to learn certain skills (For instance, a wizard has their best weapon skill at a cost of 9 per rank, whereas a fighter has a 2/4 cost...Which means every time they level they can spend 2 to get one rank, or 6 to get 2 ranks in the skill).

Added into this are your stat bonus, which is typically the average of two stats but may be just one stat, or the average of 3 stats. For instance, when trying to move silently, you average your agility and your self discipline stat bonus.

Each class also gets a bonus based on their level to certain skills (For instance, a thief gets a +3/level bonus to certain stealth-based skills).

You also add a modifier based on how difficult the thing you are trying to do is. If it's a routine action, you get a +30 bonus. If it is a hard action, you get a -10. If it is absurd, you get a -70.

One further point, is that there are related skills, so that if you know how to build a lock, you know a little bit about picking a lock as well. Not as much as someone who has as many ranks in lock picking as you do in lock creating, but more than someone that has no ranks in either.

I know it sounds complicated, but it's pretty smooth in practice once you get the hang of it.

Rhynn
2013-09-07, 02:52 PM
All you need are the DCs for some standard situations, and those mostly to be consistent with the DCs you assign to things the PCs encounter. Not such a great thing if a 20 ft. jump is DC 15 one day and DC 25 on another.
But forget about all that stuff about who has cover from whom and how many feet of space you have to get speed before a jump, and all those minor things that can be just dealt with by arbitrary GM call

Yeah, this is about how I handle things in, say, A:AKW (although, as I said, the target numbers the book gives are too low). I'm happy with a list of skills that have maybe one-sentence descriptions, and a table of difficulty numbers along the lines of "Easy is 10, Hard is 20". In A:AKW specifically, I mostly call for unopposed skill tests as a formality (don't tell my players!) or to give me some direction on how the situation develops. They're also a great chance to introduce random complications without my being the one to mess with the players: several times, they've fumbled (rolled 1 and gotten a score below 0) and turned things much, much more interesting. (Of course, one critical also made things much, much more interesting, resulting in the death of a NPC prince in a tourney...)

Generally, the lighter the rules and the less they get in my way, the happier I am. (Although now and then I enjoy combat rules like TW2013 and The Riddle of Steel have - elegant yet deep.)

erikun
2013-09-07, 03:00 PM
I like skill systems that are a full part of the system, where combat rolls and other parts are equivalent to skills, rather than skills being a sub-system. If someone wants to make use of a skill in combat, or make use of swinging their sword outside combat, then there should not be some strange "converstion" in order to do so! Needless to say, set "difficulties" for certain actions also tend to be a problem - not because the difficulties are inappropriate challanges for the correct skill level, but because nearly every system that uses it doesn't check about the success chance with lower skill levels, or the failure chance of higher skill levels.

Needless to say, it's hard to suggest an appropriate skill mechanic as all the ones I like are tied to the system itself, and the mechanics are just what works with the system. :smalltongue:

A few that I like are HeroQuest (described best by Rhynn, above), Fate / Fudge (4d6 dice with faces +, +, 0, 0, -, -, so that the average is equal to the current rank), Burning Wheel (d6 dicepool), and World of Darkness (d10 dicepool).


I like the skill system in Hero Wars / HeroQuest a lot, and think it fits the setting perfectly (I can't comprehend the choices they made with the latest HQ edition, including making it generic).
Funny, the reason I became interested in HeroQuest and bought the book was because the system was generic, and could easily create and run pretty much any character concept you might want. Right now I'm reading through HeroQuest 1e to see how they handled things differently in the earlier mechanics, and how that could improve HQ2e.

Rhynn
2013-09-07, 03:23 PM
I think the changes were sort of mandated by making it a generic system, but they didn't really jive with the setting; basically, the first edition of HQ (and HW) were the best possible representation of Glorantha as I saw it (I know many others were more invested in Glorantha-through-RuneQuest), and the changes sort of weakened the connection between setting and system. They removed feats, etc., from magic, which takes away a lot of the awesome flavor of the setting for me.

JusticeZero
2013-09-07, 05:32 PM
I like the principle of D20 skills a bit more than I did 2e (and, apparently, 4+e) style binary skills. However, I would rather they were a bit flatter. Furthermore, a skill "tree" or tier system would be nice - but that seems like something you would expend some sort've feat like resource on, to unlock the ability to make the more arcane skill checks. The difference between "I can cook an omelette on the deck of a ship in a storm on the side of an axe" and "I know how to make blowfish sushi" seems like it takes two types of advancement.

Grinner
2013-09-07, 05:42 PM
I like the principle of D20 skills a bit more than I did 2e (and, apparently, 4+e) style binary skills. However, I would rather they were a bit flatter. Furthermore, a skill "tree" or tier system would be nice - but that seems like something you would expend some sort've feat like resource on, to unlock the ability to make the more arcane skill checks. The difference between "I can cook an omelette on the deck of a ship in a storm on the side of an axe" and "I know how to make blowfish sushi" seems like it takes two types of advancement.

I share this sentiment. As is, D&D 3.5 math forces a kind of story where the PCs start off little better than most mortals, relying mostly upon luck to survive, and end up as contenders for deification.

Edit: Part of the problem is the mound of different bonuses you can stack up.

Rondodu
2013-09-08, 07:02 AM
I still love the system I’ve played more or less exclusively from 11 to 18 or so. Although the system in general is a bit heavy (modern system are much slicker), it revolves around its skill system which is very flexible.

It uses a double entry table. One is for characteristics (strength, agility, dexterity, sight, empathy …) one for skills (running, climbing, dancing, sword, lore, …). You add circumstantial bonuses or maluses to your skill. Read the number in the table, roll with a d%. 100 is failure, 1 is success (but you need to be able to roll). You also have 20% of crit if you succeed, 10% of fumbling if you fail (good tables help you with that), but this is marginal.

So, say you want to sprint, you could roll strength/running. If you want to run a long-distance, you would roll Constitution/running. Want to ride a horse? Let’s say agility/equestrianism. Want to calm down your settled horse? Empathy/equestrianism (-3 to your skill, it is quite settled). Want to examine a horse before buying it? Sight/equestrianism.

You want to hit stuff on the head with your sword? Mêlée/1-handed sword at 0. Your opponents could parry with Mêlée/(their weapons) at 0 or Stealth/dodge at 0.

You want to use the great secret (but awfully hard to pull off) thrust shared from parents to children for generations? Mêlée/1-handed sword at -7. But your opponent will have the same -7 at their evade attempt.

And so on.

The Dark Fiddler
2013-09-08, 11:11 AM
I have no preference for roll-over or roll-under systems, though I will say I'm a bit fonder of percentile systems than others for the extreme ease that comes with probability, and not as fond of D&D as I once was due to all the bonuses getting thrown around.

Dark Heresy's system is one I'm pretty fond of, actually. In it, your Characteristics (stuff like Strength, Toughness, Intelligence, etc.) form the base of your skills, but actual training in the skills matters just as much as being a natural. You can have a high Strength (let's say, 50), but without training in a skill your chance to succeed is only 25% (lack of training halves your characteristic for the purposes of making a check). You have a moderate chance of success. If you have training, though, it goes up to 50% immediately, and can go as high as 70% (training maxes out at a 70% bonus).

If, instead, you had a lower Strength but the same training (let's say a 30 Strength, which is solidly average) you'd instead have a 50% chance, the same as the strong guy with only minimal training. I like this system.

I also sort of like the system used in Fate Accelerated Edition, though; it's not what you can do, it's about how you do it. Rather than be rated in skills, you're rated in Approaches like Flashy, Careful, and Forceful. If you do something forcefully, like bash a door down, you test your Forceful approach. Blowing it up with some explosives might be Flashy, especially when you're trying to make an impact with it. If, instead, you were trying to pick the lock, you might test Careful.

Khedrac
2013-09-08, 12:10 PM
My favourite is the Chaosium Basic Roleplaying System (old RuneQuest/Call of Cthulhu etc.). This is a D% system where your skill is your chance to succeed under normal circumstances (i.e. before modifiers).
Skills can go over 100% which normally means that you are so good you still almost always succeed even when dealing with nasty complications (i.. penalties). This system is also not level based, skills go up by use or by training. The higher a skill is the harder to improve.

One thing I disliked about the option skill systems for B/E/C/M/I D&D and AD&D2 was how limited the number of skills learnt was. D&D 3/3.5 goes a long way to fix this, but the old system felt more as if it defined what you could not do (i.e. everything else) than what you could.

A nice twist in the RoleMaster system is that by the rules, one assigned the skill points for ones next level when one leveled. This represented what skills one was practicing when not adventuring. It could be embarrassing when, just after going up a level, one changed area and suddenly really needed to learn a new skill - can't do that for 2 more levels - next level you can choose it to learn the level after, probably when you no longer need it...

Mastikator
2013-09-08, 12:25 PM
I don't know if there are any non Swedish game that uses a similar one, but Drakar och Demoner: Trudvagn is my favorite thus far.

Everything you do is based on a skill, "combat" is a skill. Each skill goes from 1 to 20, you roll 1d20, if it hits below your skill you succeed. You can have specializations which add to your skill for a specific occasion, and some tasks subtract from your skill.
The cost of increasing a skill = how much you increase to per step. So from 2 to 4 it's 3+4 = 7 points. 7 to 14 = 8+9+10+11+12+13+14 = 77. A specialization costs 10, 20 or 30 points (depending on its level). Each specialization require a minimum of 8, 12 or 16 base in the skill for purchase.

In combat you have a certain number of combat points equal to your combat skill + whatever specializations you have. You may make a certain number of attacks depending on your weapon to which you distribute your combat skills however you choose and roll below or equal to however many points you placed, the 1d20 is equal or below you hit, the opponent may spend his combat points to parry or block or dodge (if he has something to block with, and may receive extra points depending on specializations that increase his points of this purpose).

For magic you roll against your magic skill to see if you succeed in casting a spell, you again roll below your magic skill. Magic spells have 3 levels each working in with the same premise of specializations in terms of prerequisites and cost, casting a level 2 spell imposes a -2 penalty, a level 3 imposes a -5 penalty. Spells can be improved if you have the right specialization to do so for extra magic point cost and extra penalty.

I also like the GURPS system. And I have developed my own which is inspired by both to be elegant and streamlined and versatile and realistic and easy to understand. (instead of rolling below you skill you roll against a DC with 2d10 + you skill + appropriate specialization, but skill increase and specialization acquisition functions the same).

skyth
2013-09-08, 08:20 PM
A nice twist in the RoleMaster system is that by the rules, one assigned the skill points for ones next level when one leveled. This represented what skills one was practicing when not adventuring. It could be embarrassing when, just after going up a level, one changed area and suddenly really needed to learn a new skill - can't do that for 2 more levels - next level you can choose it to learn the level after, probably when you no longer need it...

Forgot to mention that one...And if you somehow level up 2 levels in one session...You apply the skills for each level...You can't change it. Great flavor. Unfortunately, I don't know of anyone who actually used that rule (Including myself). It just adds complication and there is no good place on the character sheet for that information. (Back when actual character sheets were used, not Excel/word files ;) )

Arbane
2013-09-08, 09:45 PM
I'm working from memory here, but I liked the way an older game called CORPS did skills - it was a sort-of skill tree approach, but all the ranks on the branch of the tree got added together: So if you had "Science: 1", "Biology: 1", "Genetics: 2", "Fruit Fly Wrangling: 1", you'd be rolling 5 dice(?) to deal with your lab's fruit-flies. The reason specializing was a good idea was that each skill-rank cost the square of its rank. So, getting "Combat: 5" would be 25 points, which could also buy you "Combat: 2", "Melee Combat: 2", "Swords: 2", "Longsword: 2", "Longsword Parry: 2", "Longsword Attack: 2" which would have you rolling 10 dice to attack or parry and STILL have a point left over.

Also, if you had a higher skill-ranking than the difficulty of a test, you auto-passed.

Vitruviansquid
2013-09-08, 10:26 PM
I like skill systems where the player gets some flexibility beyond what skills they put points in.

It might be something as basic as DnD's "roll over this number and you succeed," with an added number of "free points" you can spend toward any check that increases your roll for it. Said "free points" might be awarded for doing certain things, or replenished by the passage of game/real time.