King of Nowhere
2018-09-28, 07:50 PM
I'm not calling this thread "fixing the skill system" because I don't think the system is so bad that it needs fixing, nor am I so arrogant to think that I can fix it or really do better. But I got an idea for an alternative ruling that could be interesting.
One thing often complained about the skill system is that your characters has way too few skill points to be good at what he should be good. This is further exacerbated by the incentive to maximize a few skills and ignore the others.
This goes much against a character archetype, as the character is actually supposed to be good at most all of his class skills.
Let's take, for example, a monk. In movies or books, martial artists are great at anything acrobatics (jump and tumble), can be incredibly stealthy (hide and move silently), can have chases over rooftops or tree branches (balance). They rarely climb, managing with just jumps, but if they find themselves on a vertical surface they handle themselves well (climb). And with the sole exception of altair from the first assassin creed, they certainly can swim well (swim). And they can ignore a great deal of pain while remaining focuses (concentration). Spot and listen are optional, but most have them too.
So, the monk archetype should be good at least at 8 things. Too bad most can only manage 3 or 4, because those are the skill points you have.
How about a warrior? One of the more common establishing scenes for a warrior is him talking about weapons, the finer distinctions, picking up a pile of seemingly identical weapons and discarding most of them as crappy while singling a few as superior quality, bascially those guys have a huge knowledge of weapons and armors (craft: weapons and craft: armor). And I've never seen a warrior who would be bad at any physical activity, including (swim, climb, jump). Heck, most of them are good at balance too, and it's not even a class skill. But a warrior who's supposed to be good at 5 ddifferent things can rarely pick more than 2 or three.
and let's not even talk about the rogues, who'd need like 15 skill points per level to be actually good at all the stuff they're actually supposed to be good at, or clerics who need an int bonus to even qualify for epic spellcasting.
So 3.x games are full of monks who are not stealthy, fighters who know nothing of their gear, clerics who suck at public speaking, wizards whose boundless knowledge is completely limited to one or two specific fields.
The easiest solution if you don't want those characters with very narrow competences is to give everyone 2 extra skill points per level, so they can still maximize what they really need, while spreading the rest in secondary skills. The downside? Most people will maximize 2 more skills and call it a deal. And they'd still suck at many things they should be good at. But it's more convenient gaming-wise.
Another easy solution has been done with 5e, basically by extremely simplifying everything. I admit I don't know much the 5e, but from what I hear you no longer have skill points, you just have advantage or not. Which also has the disadvantage of reducing customization. Now all fighter types are equally good at any of their stuff as any other fighter type.
Basically, I would like to have a character being good at what his archetype should be, while at the same time keeping the distinction between those who are extremely good at something (maxxed skill) and those who are merely good.
What I came up with is to give every class a bonus to all their class skills equal to 1/2 their class level (rounded up) minus half the ranks already spent in the skill, to a minimum of 0.
What does it mean? Say you are a 5th level fighter. You now get a +3 (half level rounded up) to climb, swim, and stuff, having 0 ranks in it. That's not huge, it's not game breaking, but it establishes that you are actually competent at those activities, more competent than a random bloke with the same strenght score; just as you are supposed to be.
Now, say that you wanted to actually spend some effort at being a decent swimmer, and took 2 ranks in swimming. This reduces your level bonus by one, so now your swim bonus is +4 (+2 for ranks, +2 for houserules bonus). So you still got a benefit from taking a few ranks in swim, you swim better than the average fighter of your level. But it starts to close the gap.
If you maxxed swim, the ranks are greater than twice the houseruled bonus, so the houseruled bonus disappear. You get the same modifier, so all the mechanics finely tuned by what a character of a certain class and level with maxxed skill should manage are not affected.
And you can still choose which skills you'll max, ensuring your character will be different from other similar characters. One warrior is fantastic at swim, another at climb, another at knowing weapons. But they are all reasonably good at all those disciplines.
I don't even think it would affect much a campaign: I was rarely forced to use a class skill I had no ranks in. It's more of a fluff thing.
If half the level seem too much, another option is to make the bonus 1/3rd of the max rank you could have in the skill. This would lower a bit the value at high level without affecting much the value at low level.
I'm posting this to see what you guys think about it.
One thing often complained about the skill system is that your characters has way too few skill points to be good at what he should be good. This is further exacerbated by the incentive to maximize a few skills and ignore the others.
This goes much against a character archetype, as the character is actually supposed to be good at most all of his class skills.
Let's take, for example, a monk. In movies or books, martial artists are great at anything acrobatics (jump and tumble), can be incredibly stealthy (hide and move silently), can have chases over rooftops or tree branches (balance). They rarely climb, managing with just jumps, but if they find themselves on a vertical surface they handle themselves well (climb). And with the sole exception of altair from the first assassin creed, they certainly can swim well (swim). And they can ignore a great deal of pain while remaining focuses (concentration). Spot and listen are optional, but most have them too.
So, the monk archetype should be good at least at 8 things. Too bad most can only manage 3 or 4, because those are the skill points you have.
How about a warrior? One of the more common establishing scenes for a warrior is him talking about weapons, the finer distinctions, picking up a pile of seemingly identical weapons and discarding most of them as crappy while singling a few as superior quality, bascially those guys have a huge knowledge of weapons and armors (craft: weapons and craft: armor). And I've never seen a warrior who would be bad at any physical activity, including (swim, climb, jump). Heck, most of them are good at balance too, and it's not even a class skill. But a warrior who's supposed to be good at 5 ddifferent things can rarely pick more than 2 or three.
and let's not even talk about the rogues, who'd need like 15 skill points per level to be actually good at all the stuff they're actually supposed to be good at, or clerics who need an int bonus to even qualify for epic spellcasting.
So 3.x games are full of monks who are not stealthy, fighters who know nothing of their gear, clerics who suck at public speaking, wizards whose boundless knowledge is completely limited to one or two specific fields.
The easiest solution if you don't want those characters with very narrow competences is to give everyone 2 extra skill points per level, so they can still maximize what they really need, while spreading the rest in secondary skills. The downside? Most people will maximize 2 more skills and call it a deal. And they'd still suck at many things they should be good at. But it's more convenient gaming-wise.
Another easy solution has been done with 5e, basically by extremely simplifying everything. I admit I don't know much the 5e, but from what I hear you no longer have skill points, you just have advantage or not. Which also has the disadvantage of reducing customization. Now all fighter types are equally good at any of their stuff as any other fighter type.
Basically, I would like to have a character being good at what his archetype should be, while at the same time keeping the distinction between those who are extremely good at something (maxxed skill) and those who are merely good.
What I came up with is to give every class a bonus to all their class skills equal to 1/2 their class level (rounded up) minus half the ranks already spent in the skill, to a minimum of 0.
What does it mean? Say you are a 5th level fighter. You now get a +3 (half level rounded up) to climb, swim, and stuff, having 0 ranks in it. That's not huge, it's not game breaking, but it establishes that you are actually competent at those activities, more competent than a random bloke with the same strenght score; just as you are supposed to be.
Now, say that you wanted to actually spend some effort at being a decent swimmer, and took 2 ranks in swimming. This reduces your level bonus by one, so now your swim bonus is +4 (+2 for ranks, +2 for houserules bonus). So you still got a benefit from taking a few ranks in swim, you swim better than the average fighter of your level. But it starts to close the gap.
If you maxxed swim, the ranks are greater than twice the houseruled bonus, so the houseruled bonus disappear. You get the same modifier, so all the mechanics finely tuned by what a character of a certain class and level with maxxed skill should manage are not affected.
And you can still choose which skills you'll max, ensuring your character will be different from other similar characters. One warrior is fantastic at swim, another at climb, another at knowing weapons. But they are all reasonably good at all those disciplines.
I don't even think it would affect much a campaign: I was rarely forced to use a class skill I had no ranks in. It's more of a fluff thing.
If half the level seem too much, another option is to make the bonus 1/3rd of the max rank you could have in the skill. This would lower a bit the value at high level without affecting much the value at low level.
I'm posting this to see what you guys think about it.