4e style skills and 3.5e style skills

So skill die is something that's new and I don't know if I'm a fan of it. I'm inclined to just grant players alternate bonuses because it just seems so goofy. As such I've developed two alternate skill systems that could be used as advanced rules.

4th ed Style Skills

Like D&D Next 4th ed treated being trained in a skill as either true or false. As such I've simple taken the average roll of what a skill die would provide (rounded up) and treated that as a straight bonus PCs get.



























































































Level



Trained Bonus



1



3



2



4



3



4



4



4



5



4



6



4



7



5



8



5



9



5



10



5



11



5



12



6



13



6



14



6



15



6



16



6



17



7



18



7



19



7



20



7





When an ability would use your skill die, use your skill bonus in its place.


Thoughts



The advantage of this is that there's a minimum level of competence equal to Stat Mod + Trained Bonus. If you have 20 Int and roll a natural 1 at level 12, then you'll still get a 12 on your check. In Standard D&D Next you could Get a 7.


The disadvantage is that you can't reach those high maximums that you can could reach with skill die. At level 12 the most you can get on a check is 31. In Standard D&D Next you could 35.


All in all I feel this is a balanced approach and while the PCs statistically get a 0.5 boost over Standard D&D Next characters, as a GM I'm okay with that.


3.5e Style Skills

In 3.5e you would get points you could spend in any skill. There was a maximum number of points you could put into a skill. You also were penalised for skills that weren't associated with your class. Because this is such a vastly different system to D&D Next it required a bit more effort to device an alternative system.
















































































































Level



Skill Points



Max



1



9



3



2



1



4



3



1



4



4



1



4



5



1



4



6



1



4



7



1



5



8



1



5



9



1



5



10



1



5



11



1



5



12



1



6



13



1



6



14



1



6



15



1



6



16



1



6



17



1



7



18



1



7



19



1



7



20



1



7




You can spend your skill points on any skills of your choice.


When an ability would use your skill die, use the skill rank maximum of your character’s level in its place.


When you would gain training in a skill, for each skill you would gain training in you instead get 3 skill points and an additional point for every character level after 1st level. These extra points can be spent on any skill of your choice.


Thoughts


The advantage of this system is that your character can either specialise in 3-4 skills. Or they can be generalists and instead get a small bonus in a number of skills. The disadvantage is this versatility comes at a cost at lower levels in that your bonus won't be as high on as many skills as a standard D&D Next Character would have. While it does catch up. It takes several levels for it to get there.


All in all I'd feel comfortable presenting this style of skills as a choice for my players. But as a group we would need to decide if we wanted to use this system or not. The fact that classes "bonus skills" converts to extra skill points they can spend on anything is definitely a strong element of this system. Also the fact you can take a feat to get 6 extra skill points at 1st level and 2 extra skill points for every level afterwards (and that you can take this multiple times) is also a strong element. So this makes me feel better about the fact lower level characters won't strictly have as high of a bonus as Standard Characters.


--


Well those are my two alternate systems. I'd be interested in hearing people's thoughts on the two systems.




Normal
0




false
false
false

EN-AU
X-NONE
X-NONE

























DefSemiHidden="true" DefQFormat="false" DefPriority="99"
LatentStyleCount="267">
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Normal"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="heading 1"/>


















UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Title"/>

UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtitle"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Strong"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Emphasis"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Table Grid"/>

UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="No Spacing"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 1"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 1"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 1"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"/>

UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="List Paragraph"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Quote"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Quote"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 1"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 1"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 1"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 1"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 1"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 2"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 2"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 2"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 2"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 2"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 2"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 2"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 2"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 2"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 3"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 3"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 3"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 3"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 3"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 3"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 3"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 3"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 3"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 4"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 4"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 4"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 4"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 4"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 4"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 4"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 4"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 4"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 5"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 5"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 5"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 5"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 5"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 5"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 5"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 5"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 5"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 6"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 6"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 6"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 6"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 6"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 6"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 6"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 6"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 6"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Emphasis"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Emphasis"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Reference"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Reference"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Book Title"/>





/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0cm;
mso-para-margin-right:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0cm;
line-height:115%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
table.MsoTableLightShading
{mso-style-name:"Light Shading";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:1;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:1;
mso-style-priority:60;
mso-style-unhide:no;
border-top:solid black 1.0pt;
mso-border-top-themecolor:text1;
border-left:none;
border-bottom:solid black 1.0pt;
mso-border-bottom-themecolor:text1;
border-right:none;
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
color:black;
mso-themecolor:text1;
mso-themeshade:191;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
table.MsoTableLightShadingFirstRow
{mso-style-name:"Light Shading";
mso-table-condition:first-row;
mso-style-priority:60;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-tstyle-border-top:1.0pt solid black;
mso-tstyle-border-top-themecolor:text1;
mso-tstyle-border-left:cell-none;
mso-tstyle-border-bottom:1.0pt solid black;
mso-tstyle-border-bottom-themecolor:text1;
mso-tstyle-border-right:cell-none;
mso-tstyle-border-insideh:cell-none;
mso-tstyle-border-insidev:cell-none;
mso-para-margin-top:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
line-height:normal;
mso-ansi-font-weight:bold;
mso-bidi-font-weight:bold;}
table.MsoTableLightShadingLastRow
{mso-style-name:"Light Shading";
mso-table-condition:last-row;
mso-style-priority:60;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-tstyle-border-top:1.0pt solid black;
mso-tstyle-border-top-themecolor:text1;
mso-tstyle-border-left:cell-none;
mso-tstyle-border-bottom:1.0pt solid black;
mso-tstyle-border-bottom-themecolor:text1;
mso-tstyle-border-right:cell-none;
mso-tstyle-border-insideh:cell-none;
mso-tstyle-border-insidev:cell-none;
mso-para-margin-top:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
line-height:normal;
mso-ansi-font-weight:bold;
mso-bidi-font-weight:bold;}
table.MsoTableLightShadingFirstCol
{mso-style-name:"Light Shading";
mso-table-condition:first-column;
mso-style-priority:60;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-ansi-font-weight:bold;
mso-bidi-font-weight:bold;}
table.MsoTableLightShadingLastCol
{mso-style-name:"Light Shading";
mso-table-condition:last-column;
mso-style-priority:60;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-ansi-font-weight:bold;
mso-bidi-font-weight:bold;}
table.MsoTableLightShadingOddColumn
{mso-style-name:"Light Shading";
mso-table-condition:odd-column;
mso-style-priority:60;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-tstyle-shading:silver;
mso-tstyle-shading-themecolor:text1;
mso-tstyle-shading-themetint:63;
mso-tstyle-border-left:cell-none;
mso-tstyle-border-right:cell-none;
mso-tstyle-border-insideh:cell-none;
mso-tstyle-border-insidev:cell-none;}
table.MsoTableLightShadingOddRow
{mso-style-name:"Light Shading";
mso-table-condition:odd-row;
mso-style-priority:60;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-tstyle-shading:silver;
mso-tstyle-shading-themecolor:text1;
mso-tstyle-shading-themetint:63;
mso-tstyle-border-left:cell-none;
mso-tstyle-border-right:cell-none;
mso-tstyle-border-insideh:cell-none;
mso-tstyle-border-insidev:cell-none;}

Check out my 5th Edition Blog.

The advantage of this is that there's a minimum level of competence equal to Stat Mod + Trained Bonus.

I'm liking any alternate system to axe skill dice for this very reason.
It seems that I am a rarity in that I abhor and loathe the "advantage" system with two d20's (for personal reasons - mechanically, it's sound, but it just feels wrong to me), but I really quite like the whole idea of using skill dice. I want to use the system in 4e even, or any other d20 based game I use, I like the idea that much.

Supporting an edition you like does not make you an edition warrior. Demanding that everybody else support your edition makes you an edition warrior.

Why do I like 13th Age? Because I like D&D: http://magbonch.wordpress.com/2013/10/16/first-impressions-13th-age/

AzoriusGuildmage- "I think that you simply spent so long playing it, especially in your formative years with the hobby, that you've long since rationalized or houseruled away its oddities, and set it in your mind as the standard for what is and isn't reasonable in an rpg."

It seems that I am a rarity in that I abhor and loathe the "advantage" system with two d20's (for personal reasons - mechanically, it's sound, but it just feels wrong to me), but I really quite like the whole idea of using skill dice. I want to use the system in 4e even, or any other d20 based game I use, I like the idea that much.

I can't get past the fact that a 20th level character with a 15 stat can fail a DC5 check that the game lists as 'a task that is so easy that it is not worth a check.'. Heck, even with a maxed 20 stat you can't always make a dc10 thats 'An easy task [that] requires a minimum level of competence.'. That's telling me that the highest level of skill in the games can't give you 'a minimum level of competence'. That's just wrong IMO.

It seems that I am a rarity in that I abhor and loathe the "advantage" system with two d20's (for personal reasons - mechanically, it's sound, but it just feels wrong to me), but I really quite like the whole idea of using skill dice. I want to use the system in 4e even, or any other d20 based game I use, I like the idea that much.

Simple enough for 4th ed: Instead of getting a +5 bonus you roll 1d10 when using that skill.

Bit more complicated for Pathfinder: Class skills start out at 1d8. For every point you put into a skill increase the skill die by 1. Skills which aren't a class skill advance as follows: 1d2; 1d4; 1d6; 1d8; etc. Should it later become a class skill increase the skill die by 3.
If DDN really wants a way to appeal to 4e fans when it comes to skills, the best thing they can do is give us more than one skill list in the PHB.  Let them give us a long list like the current one, and a consolidated list like the 4e one.  Skills are an optional subsystem anyway, giving us a choice of skill list allows the broad competence that 4e fans enjoy and the narrow competence that 3e fans enjoy (although it would still fail to provide the granularity of 3e, but that's also easily handled with a variant to the skill die).

Also, I like your idea in your proposed 4e skills that takes the average of the skill die roll.  That would be a nice variant of the skill die to include, and it would be terribly easy to implement (just put it in parentheses next to the die type on the skill die by level chart).

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

Am I the only one who hates the skill die?

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

Also, I like your idea in your proposed 4e skills that takes the average of the skill die roll.  That would be a nice variant of the skill die to include, and it would be terribly easy to implement (just put it in parentheses next to the die type on the skill die by level chart).

Yep, just like hd per level.
 

1d12(or7), 1d10(or 6), 1d8(or 5), 1d6(or 4), 1d4(or 3).

Am I the only one who hates the skill die?

LOL No you are not. I hate them with a passion.

If DDN really wants a way to appeal to 4e fans when it comes to skills, the best thing they can do is give us more than one skill list in the PHB.  Let them give us a long list like the current one, and a consolidated list like the 4e one.  Skills are an optional subsystem anyway, giving us a choice of skill list allows the broad competence that 4e fans enjoy and the narrow competence that 3e fans enjoy (although it would still fail to provide the granularity of 3e, but that's also easily handled with a variant to the skill die).

I could see this as an advanced rule (acting as a dial). The problem is when you reduce the number of skills you increase the power of each skill. There'd need to be notes on how to handle DCs for a consolidated skill list.

Also, I like your idea in your proposed 4e skills that takes the average of the skill die roll.  That would be a nice variant of the skill die to include, and it would be terribly easy to implement (just put it in parentheses next to the die type on the skill die by level chart).

They second they do that it becomes the optimal or suboptimal choice. It'd be better of as an advanced rule.

It's part of the problem with HP. The entire table needs to determine their HP in the same manner or those who roll will be punished over the long run. I've put in place a house rule "when rolling for HP, reroll 1s" to make it up to the player to determine how they calculate their HP.
Am I the only one who hates the skill die?



No. I'd like to see it taken out back and shot.

I want the option of being a generalist with some training in many skills and not automatically specialized in a small number of them. And I want to choose what rate each of my skills grows at, and be able to learn new ones.

3rd edition was flawed in that you had way too many skill ranks at upper levels, but using the same principle as bounded accuracy they could develop a skill point system that stays balanced from 1 to 20. In fact, the old playtest skill point system was fine with me, one point every two levels.
3rd edition was flawed in that you had way too many skill ranks at upper levels, but using the same principle as bounded accuracy they could develop a skill point system that stays balanced from 1 to 20. In fact, the old playtest skill point system was fine with me, one point every two levels.

What do you think of the system I've proposed in the first post?
As for skills, I prefer the 4E version ot 3E anyday. The 3E version is just too complex for my tastes. I don't feel we need lots of levels of granularity with how trained someone happens to be in a skill.

Am I the only one who hates the skill die?



Nope. I think it's a terrible mechanic, since it inflates the maximum someone can roll very quickly.

It's also slower with no real gain to it.
Am I the only one who hates the skill die?



No. I'd like to see it taken out back and shot.

I want the option of being a generalist with some training in many skills and not automatically specialized in a small number of them. And I want to choose what rate each of my skills grows at, and be able to learn new ones.

3rd edition was flawed in that you had way too many skill ranks at upper levels, but using the same principle as bounded accuracy they could develop a skill point system that stays balanced from 1 to 20. In fact, the old playtest skill point system was fine with me, one point every two levels.




I don't hate it, but I do find it lacking. I, and several of my players, find the skill die system to be lacking in customization. I really love backgrounds and skills but its just not working the way it currently sits. As a DM I am constantly checking myself when I ask for Spot, Listen, Search, Perception and change it to Int or Wis checks w/a bonus for training. It doesn't feel right coming out of my mouth as I say it.
So I've been plugging this Skill system that I'm fiddling with.

A Skill Point (or Rank) module.

At 1st level, pick a background and take those 4 skills at rank 1, or pick 4 skills to be at rank 1 and an appropriate background trait. Now in addition to that, if you have a positive Int modifier you gain that in extra ranks in other skills you can pick, (i.e. Int 14 is a +2 would grant 2 more skill ranks), but no penalty for a low Intelligence. Making minimum Skills at first 4. Now at every other level you gain 2 extra skill ranks to increase what you currently have or to gain new skills, (which start at rank 1). Still keep the maximum amount of ranks at +7 for bounded accuracy.  That 7th rank costs two skill ranks to reach. This is to indicate a dedication to being the best of the best of the best with that skill.



If there is an overlap of background skills and class skills or Specialty skills that would provide a free bump in rank to that skill. For example, one of the Rogue players in my game got Stealth from Guild Thief, Stealth from the Assassin Scheme and from the Hide in Shadows feat of the Skulker specialty. This would give her a Stealth +3 from the start of the game. Character resources were spent to achieve this so I see no problem there.



As far as with Skill Mastery, I think a simple "If you have the Skill Mastery ability you gain advantage on rolls with those skills." Now with Skill Tricks, its very simple, you sacrifice your advantage to perform the Skill Trick. You can't use advantage on skill checks while maintaining the Skill Trick, due to your concentration on maintaining the Skill Trick.









Am I the only one who hates the skill die?



No, they move the numbers in the exact oposite direction I want. I think skills are too random and don't scale enough in 3.x/4e, skill dice make them more random and the system makes them scale less.


Nope. I think it's a terrible mechanic, since it inflates the maximum someone can roll very quickly.



Really?  I think that's it's saving grace.  To each their own, I guess.
All of the above.

You can use skill dice.
you can use a flat bonus.
You can use points (without the skill cap)
you can use die points (1d4 to sneak, 1d6 to pick locks, ect)
you can use the bonus with a stat
you can use the bonus with a skill
All at the same table.


Really, there's no reason it couldn't work.

Player A wants skill dice to all his Str rolls.
Player B wants to put all his points into sneak and lockpick.
Player C uses dice points on religion, with one into baking.
Player D uses flat progression with the knight background.

Everyone's happy.

guides
List of no-action attacks.
Dynamic vs Static Bonuses
Phalanx tactics and builds
Crivens! A Pictsies Guide Good
Power
s to intentionally miss with
Mr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticed
Way's to fire around corners
Crits: what their really worth
Retroactive bonus vs Static bonus.
Runepriest handbook & discussion thread
Holy Symbols to hang around your neck
Ways to Gain or Downgrade Actions
List of bonuses to saving throws
The Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)
my builds
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.

Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.

Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.

King Fisher Optimized net user.  Moderate.

Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.

Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.  One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.

The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.

Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power.

Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken.

Rune of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.

Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.

Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.

Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight with items, making it far more broken.

Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.

Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.

I think Mellored has a good point. I'd like to see a group of people using different bonuses to their ability checks at the same table. I think skills as a term for dndn is a bit misleading. It isn't the same concept as previous editions. But as much as I get the idea, I think I'd prefer to use static bonuses instead of variable dice bonuses.
Anyone know if any first time players find the skill dice easy to use?
"What's stupid is when people decide that X is true - even when it is demonstrable untrue or 100% against what we've said - and run around complaining about that. That's just a breakdown of basic human reasoning." -Mike Mearls
All of the above. You can use skill dice. you can use a flat bonus. You can use points (without the skill cap) you can use die points (1d4 to sneak, 1d6 to pick locks, ect) you can use the bonus with a stat you can use the bonus with a skill All at the same table. Really, there's no reason it couldn't work. Player A wants skill dice to all his Str rolls. Player B wants to put all his points into sneak and lockpick. Player C uses dice points on religion, with one into baking. Player D uses flat progression with the knight background. Everyone's happy.


This is where I would like to see things get too.
3rd edition was flawed in that you had way too many skill ranks at upper levels, but using the same principle as bounded accuracy they could develop a skill point system that stays balanced from 1 to 20. In fact, the old playtest skill point system was fine with me, one point every two levels.

What do you think of the system I've proposed in the first post?



I like it. Up to level 10 it stays within the bounded accuracy +5 maximum, and only goes up a little more after that. A skill point every level would be great.
My problem with the skill die is why stop at skills, and add it to save DCs, to hit, and other bonuses? It just seems to be a layer of complexity without much gain. They may as well change the game from d20, to 3d6 or something similar if they want dice averaging added to game. But then we would not be playing D&D at that point.

But overall I like broader skills, versus a representattion of 3.5. For example, why even have a skill called forbiden lore, when being a master at a specific skill would allow the character to gain access to lost knowledge, esoteric facts, etc. 
But overall I like broader skills, versus a representattion of 3.5. 

Me, I think 3e's 36 skills a bit much and like 4e smaller skill list.
For example, why even have a skill called forbiden lore, when being a master at a specific skill would allow the character to gain access to lost knowledge, esoteric facts, etc.

I'd Rather not have dozens of knowledge skill like the ancient magics of the little monch hamlet of SE plansbourg. Now if you want to give a specialty to a broad skill like forbiden lore(little monch hamlet of SE plansbourg) that gives some kind of bonus then I'm all for that.

If DDN really wants a way to appeal to 4e fans when it comes to skills, the best thing they can do is give us more than one skill list in the PHB.  Let them give us a long list like the current one, and a consolidated list like the 4e one.  Skills are an optional subsystem anyway, giving us a choice of skill list allows the broad competence that 4e fans enjoy and the narrow competence that 3e fans enjoy (although it would still fail to provide the granularity of 3e, but that's also easily handled with a variant to the skill die).

I could see this as an advanced rule (acting as a dial). The problem is when you reduce the number of skills you increase the power of each skill. There'd need to be notes on how to handle DCs for a consolidated skill list.


You don't increase the power of the skill by consolidating them.  You do increase the range of competency, but that's different from an increase in power in that increasing the range of competence doesn't require adjusting the DCs.

Also, I like your idea in your proposed 4e skills that takes the average of the skill die roll.  That would be a nice variant of the skill die to include, and it would be terribly easy to implement (just put it in parentheses next to the die type on the skill die by level chart).

They second they do that it becomes the optimal or suboptimal choice. It'd be better of as an advanced rule.

It's part of the problem with HP. The entire table needs to determine their HP in the same manner or those who roll will be punished over the long run. I've put in place a house rule "when rolling for HP, reroll 1s" to make it up to the player to determine how they calculate their HP.


I don't see "all players need to play by the same rules" as a problem.  However, the averages given for HPs are averages and that means that the die rolls for HPs should average out to that as you level.  Therefore, barring a streak of very bad luck by players who roll for HPs, it should be fine to have both rolling and taking the average at the same table.

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

I strongly prefer a bigger skill list with narrower skills. Ability checks are for broad applications, skills are supposed to be specific. Actually I think the skill list they have right now is almost perfect, but I might split sneak back into hide and move silently. I love the knowledges.

I have no idea how they're going to reconcile this issue, because it splits the fanbase moreso than a lot of things. Some of us want 3E skills, and some of us want 4E skills. How can they satisfy us all and keep the game balanced?

Probably the only way is two separate skills modules, one that gives you a very small, broad skill list, but a slower growth rate for them, and one that has a large, specific skill list that can be improved and customized a lot more. You can't just increase ot reduce the number of skills and keep the game balanced, because when you only need one point (be it a skill point or a skill die increase) to increase Perception, but three to increase Spot, Listen and Search, the smaller skill list is overpowered.
I strongly prefer a bigger skill list with narrower skills. Ability checks are for broad applications, skills are supposed to be specific. Actually I think the skill list they have right now is almost perfect, but I might split sneak back into hide and move silently. I love the knowledges.

I have no idea how they're going to reconcile this issue, because it splits the fanbase moreso than a lot of things. Some of us want 3E skills, and some of us want 4E skills. How can they satisfy us all and keep the game balanced? 

My way to do this was posted in another skil thread. First make a 4e list. Then break every skill into their more narrow subskill parts. Make the skill like perception (spot, listen, search, track). 4e skill players use the main skills while 3e skill users use the subskills and gets to pick more subskills (like x2 skills for subskills and auto skills from class/race give all sub skills.) Seems pretty easy/simple to me.

Probably the only way is two separate skills modules, one that gives you a very small, broad skill list, but a slower growth rate for them, and one that has a large, specific skill list that can be improved and customized a lot more. You can't just increase ot reduce the number of skills and keep the game balanced, because when you only need one point (be it a skill point or a skill die increase) to increase Perception, but three to increase Spot, Listen and Search, the smaller skill list is overpowered.

One combined skill module seem the best to me, that way you could even have both kinds of skills in play in the same group.

I strongly prefer a bigger skill list with narrower skills. Ability checks are for broad applications, skills are supposed to be specific. Actually I think the skill list they have right now is almost perfect, but I might split sneak back into hide and move silently. I love the knowledges.

I have no idea how they're going to reconcile this issue, because it splits the fanbase moreso than a lot of things. Some of us want 3E skills, and some of us want 4E skills. How can they satisfy us all and keep the game balanced?



Simple.  Offer two different skill lists.  If the DM is allowing skills, the DM chooses which skill list the PCs get to choose their skills from.  The skills that are on the list are literally the only change that needs to be made to allow people to have 4e and 3e skills in the same system (although a variant to the skill die needs to be present to give the 3e list the granularity that the 3e system had).

Probably the only way is two separate skills modules, one that gives you a very small, broad skill list, but a slower growth rate for them, and one that has a large, specific skill list that can be improved and customized a lot more. You can't just increase ot reduce the number of skills and keep the game balanced, because when you only need one point (be it a skill point or a skill die increase) to increase Perception, but three to increase Spot, Listen and Search, the smaller skill list is overpowered.


I can't get behind that at all.  Slower growth just punishes people who prefer broader competence by making them fall behind the built-in curve.  I also can't agree with you that smaller skill lists are overpowered.  They're not.  They provide a greater range of competence.  Just look at the Perception example that you've given.  A character that is trained in perception does not have a "more powerful" sense of perception that an otherwise identical character who is trained in Spot, Listen, or Search instead of Perception because they are not able to outclass them on skill checks.  They have a broader range of competence, certainly, but they are not more powerful.

I'd also like to point out that the only time this even becomes an issue that needs discussing is if two players try to use different skill lists.  Given that choice of skill list is likely going to be a one-time choice by the DM, though perhaps with player input, I don't see that as being anywhere near a common occurrence.

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

Same deal.

Have stat skills (bonus to Str checks)
Have a few broad skills (nature, athletics)
Have a alot of specific skills (nobels of neverwinter, use rope, oozes).

All can be used together, at the same table. (With the more specific ones getting more points/training).

guides
List of no-action attacks.
Dynamic vs Static Bonuses
Phalanx tactics and builds
Crivens! A Pictsies Guide Good
Power
s to intentionally miss with
Mr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticed
Way's to fire around corners
Crits: what their really worth
Retroactive bonus vs Static bonus.
Runepriest handbook & discussion thread
Holy Symbols to hang around your neck
Ways to Gain or Downgrade Actions
List of bonuses to saving throws
The Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)
my builds
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.

Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.

Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.

King Fisher Optimized net user.  Moderate.

Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.

Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.  One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.

The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.

Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power.

Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken.

Rune of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.

Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.

Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.

Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight with items, making it far more broken.

Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.

Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.

I think broad skills can be worth more points than narrow skills.



For example, Perception is an extraordinarily powerful skill worth many points:

Perception (Spot, Find Hidden, Search, Listen, Smell-Taste, Track, Discern Illusion, Discern Disguise-Forgery)




It is possible to rank all skills, both broad and narrow, from best to worth, then establish their relative values to assign a specific point cost.




Personally, giving each character a handful of useful skills is interesting and flavorful. It helps set the tone for quirks that the character is good at, and help express themes and tropes, especially for noncombat challenges.

However I dont want characters having too many skills or fiddling with too many skill points. A labyrinth of skill rules makes the character sheet gratuitously complicated and suffocates the ability to do fresh improvisations.

I love how 5e makes ability checks resolve everything. It is elegant, simple and versatile, design. Dont let the cumbersome load of a skill system slow the ability checks down.

It should be possible to write down the essence of a characters abilities on a single card.   
I can't get behind that at all.  Slower growth just punishes people who prefer broader competence by making them fall behind the built-in curve.  I also can't agree with you that smaller skill lists are overpowered.  They're not.  They provide a greater range of competence.  Just look at the Perception example that you've given.  A character that is trained in perception does not have a "more powerful" sense of perception that an otherwise identical character who is trained in Spot, Listen, or Search instead of Perception because they are not able to outclass them on skill checks.  They have a broader range of competence, certainly, but they are not more powerful.

I'd also like to point out that the only time this even becomes an issue that needs discussing is if two players try to use different skill lists.  Given that choice of skill list is likely going to be a one-time choice by the DM, though perhaps with player input, I don't see that as being anywhere near a common occurrence.



No, you misunderstand. I'm not proposing that one player would have higher skill bonuses than another because they chose the smaller skill list. Both would have the same max skill ranks limit.

See, let's compare two skill lists:

List 1:
Perception
Acrobatics

List 2:
Spot
Listen
Search
Jump
Balance
Tumble

Then give out 10 skill points to distribute, to both characters. They don't have to be in the same game to compare, because the DCs are the same for everyone.

Player 1: 10 skill points
Perception +5
Acrobatics +5

Player 2: 10 skill points
Spot +2
Listen +2
Search +2
Jump +2
Balance +1
Tumble +1

Does that look balanced to you? Because the first player essentially get +5 to all six of the skills the second player has.

What I'm proposing would look like this:

Player 1: 10 skill points
Perception +5
Acrobatics +5

Player 2: 30 skill points
Spot +5
Listen +5
Search +5
Jump +5
Balance +5
Tumble +5

But this would not be possible:

Player 2: 30 skill points
Spot +15
Listen +10
Search +5
Jump +0
Balance +0
Tumble +0

Maximum skill ranks would be the same for both lists, as per bounded accuracy.

That is what I meant, this is the only way to balance it that I see. This is something I feel a lot of players overlook when comparing the two preferences on skills.

Alternately, they could lower the DCs for the second option, but that would put more weight on the ability score, changing the game more than intended.


When I first saw the skill die system, I wasn't in favor of it, but over time I've come to like it. I was a bit weirded out by the skill die at first. Rolling an additional die on d20 checks just seemed bizarre to me. But the more I've playtested it, the more I've grown to like it. For some reason, rolling that extra die is just... fun. It clearly sets apart those who have a skill and those who don't at the table, and just makes you feel like you're more skilled at it, in a way that a flat bonus just doesn't.

If you prefer flat bonuses to your skills, it's actually quite easy to substitute. Replace d4 with +3, and add +1 for each die type increase (so +4 instead of d6, +5 instead of d8, +6 instead of d10, and +7 instead of d12), just like JohnLynch's chart. You'll notice that those are the average results of those dice, rounded up. You may also notice that those are the exact same skill bonuses we were dealing with in the previous packets, before skill dice we introduced. So, if you hate the random element of skill dice, just use those flat bonuses instead. Easy.

Originally, I didn't like the randomness of skill dice either. As others have pointed out, it's possible for someone to fail even easy or average tasks no matter how skilled they are. The thing is, this is easily avoided. A DM really shouldn't call for a skilled person to make a DC 5 or 10 roll unless he has a really good reason to. It's easy enough to just not make players roll at all when the DC is that low, thus avoiding that problem entirely.

I can't get behind that at all.  Slower growth just punishes people who prefer broader competence by making them fall behind the built-in curve.  I also can't agree with you that smaller skill lists are overpowered.  They're not.  They provide a greater range of competence.  Just look at the Perception example that you've given.  A character that is trained in perception does not have a "more powerful" sense of perception that an otherwise identical character who is trained in Spot, Listen, or Search instead of Perception because they are not able to outclass them on skill checks.  They have a broader range of competence, certainly, but they are not more powerful.

I'd also like to point out that the only time this even becomes an issue that needs discussing is if two players try to use different skill lists.  Given that choice of skill list is likely going to be a one-time choice by the DM, though perhaps with player input, I don't see that as being anywhere near a common occurrence.



No, you misunderstand. I'm not proposing that one player would have higher skill bonuses than another because they chose the smaller skill list. Both would have the same max skill ranks limit.

. . .
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />Then give out 10 skill points to distribute, to both characters. They don't have to be in the same game to compare, because the DCs are the same for everyone.


If you're introducing a skill point variant to the skill die, that's a different question than just a matter of lists.  Naturally, you'll need to multiply the points available to users of the narrow skills list as compared to users of the consolidated list.  Of course, I also feel that users of the narrow skills list in the current system in the playtest need more trained skills.  The number feels right if the characters were choosing from a consolidated list, but for a narrow use list it feels like too few.

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

I strongly prefer a bigger skill list with narrower skills. Ability checks are for broad applications, skills are supposed to be specific. Actually I think the skill list they have right now is almost perfect, but I might split sneak back into hide and move silently. I love the knowledges.

I have no idea how they're going to reconcile this issue, because it splits the fanbase moreso than a lot of things. Some of us want 3E skills, and some of us want 4E skills. How can they satisfy us all and keep the game balanced?

Probably the only way is two separate skills modules, one that gives you a very small, broad skill list, but a slower growth rate for them, and one that has a large, specific skill list that can be improved and customized a lot more. You can't just increase ot reduce the number of skills and keep the game balanced, because when you only need one point (be it a skill point or a skill die increase) to increase Perception, but three to increase Spot, Listen and Search, the smaller skill list is overpowered.

Just give the list of "broad" Skills a smaller bonus than the list of "narrow" Skills; then you can use both lists simultaneously.

Kind of like Skill Groups (being the "broad" Skills) with specific Skills (being the "narrow" Skills) within each group.

Probably the only way is two separate skills modules, one that gives you a very small, broad skill list, but a slower growth rate for them, and one that has a large, specific skill list that can be improved and customized a lot more. You can't just increase ot reduce the number of skills and keep the game balanced, because when you only need one point (be it a skill point or a skill die increase) to increase Perception, but three to increase Spot, Listen and Search, the smaller skill list is overpowered.


I can't get behind that at all.  Slower growth just punishes people who prefer broader competence by making them fall behind the built-in curve.  I also can't agree with you that smaller skill lists are overpowered.  They're not.  They provide a greater range of competence.  Just look at the Perception example that you've given.  A character that is trained in perception does not have a "more powerful" sense of perception that an otherwise identical character who is trained in Spot, Listen, or Search instead of Perception because they are not able to outclass them on skill checks.  They have a broader range of competence, certainly, but they are not more powerful.

The fact that the character using one skill point to be as good as the other, who had to use three skill points, means that his one point is more powerful (more "bang for the buck" so to speak).

Now, if he had to spend more points (say you could pick one Skill from the "broad" list or three Skills from the "narrow" list) then it wouldn't be more powerful; or, the "narrow" Skills could give a better bonus than the "broad" Skills.

I'd also like to point out that the only time this even becomes an issue that needs discussing is if two players try to use different skill lists.  Given that choice of skill list is likely going to be a one-time choice by the DM, though perhaps with player input, I don't see that as being anywhere near a common occurrence.

My suggestion avoids the problem altogether; making the list a combined list (with nested/tiered Skills). Then there is no decision to make between lists.


3ed's system is good because it gives you the possibility of being, for example, very good at Blacksmithing (lots of points) and just a dabbler at Handling Animals (only a few points).
That adds a lot of depth to characters with a very simple system (you have that much points, spend them where you like). And depth with simplicity is always good.

The "You're either Trained or Untrained. Period." system feels very dull to me and leads to flat characters, and takes away player choice along the game experience.
I can see it working for this "Basic" version of Next they've talked about, but I would very much like to see an alternate system where you can choose which skills to upgrade as your character evolves.

The second system the OP suggested is good!
But if people want to keep the skill dice you could always have something like that: the first "point" in a skill gives you a d4, further points increase to d6, d8 and so on.
Am I the only one who hates the skill die?


No, no you are not
Try radiance RPG. A complete D20 game that supports fantasy and steampunk. Download the FREE PDF here: http://www.radiancerpg.com
It's funny how the OP's table reflect the last playtest packet's skill bonus progression.

You started with a +3 bonus that could be increased up to +7 at each even-numbered levels 
Try radiance RPG. A complete D20 game that supports fantasy and steampunk. Download the FREE PDF here: http://www.radiancerpg.com
You know what I'd like to see out of a skill point system?  A recognition that not all skills are equal.  "Use rope" and "drive" could make an appearance on equal footing with "search" and "persuasion," because they would cost fewer points per rank.  You could then also have climb, swim, jump, run, throw, and simply "athletics" that covers the gamut but at a higher price.  We would even have an easy way to spin some dials, where a "boating" skill could cost 1 pt/rank in a standard world but 2 points in an archipelago and 3 in waterworld (which could then add narrower skills for sailing, ship building, and chart-reading at 1 point each).  Such a system would benefit from level based rank limits, so that a first level character could not pour all his points into a narrow skill and end up as the god of use rope from day 1, but that's nothing new.

Mind you a skill point system could still use or not use a skill die, and could still be applied outside of the skills context in a unified fashion (e.g. skill tricks, parry...).


The "You're either Trained or Untrained. Period." system feels very dull to me and leads to flat characters, and takes away player choice along the game experience.
I can see it working for this "Basic" version of Next they've talked about, but I would very much like to see an alternate system where you can choose which skills to upgrade as your character evolves.

The second system the OP suggested is good!
But if people want to keep the skill dice you could always have something like that: the first "point" in a skill gives you a d4, further points increase to d6, d8 and so on.



I second 

I would not even ask for a full 3.x version of skill customization, but anything with more granularity than a binary system would be great in my book

Even if it's just like "untrained/novice/expert/master" with mecanics to support it 
Try radiance RPG. A complete D20 game that supports fantasy and steampunk. Download the FREE PDF here: http://www.radiancerpg.com
I can't get behind that at all.  Slower growth just punishes people who prefer broader competence by making them fall behind the built-in curve.  I also can't agree with you that smaller skill lists are overpowered.  They're not.  They provide a greater range of competence.  Just look at the Perception example that you've given.  A character that is trained in perception does not have a "more powerful" sense of perception that an otherwise identical character who is trained in Spot, Listen, or Search instead of Perception because they are not able to outclass them on skill checks.  They have a broader range of competence, certainly, but they are not more powerful.

I'd also like to point out that the only time this even becomes an issue that needs discussing is if two players try to use different skill lists.  Given that choice of skill list is likely going to be a one-time choice by the DM, though perhaps with player input, I don't see that as being anywhere near a common occurrence.



No, you misunderstand. I'm not proposing that one player would have higher skill bonuses than another because they chose the smaller skill list. Both would have the same max skill ranks limit.

. . .
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />Then give out 10 skill points to distribute, to both characters. They don't have to be in the same game to compare, because the DCs are the same for everyone.


If you're introducing a skill point variant to the skill die, that's a different question than just a matter of lists.  Naturally, you'll need to multiply the points available to users of the narrow skills list as compared to users of the consolidated list.  Of course, I also feel that users of the narrow skills list in the current system in the playtest need more trained skills.  The number feels right if the characters were choosing from a consolidated list, but for a narrow use list it feels like too few.



I was just using the skill points as an example of the principle. I guess if you just have the flat skill die for all trained skills, the answer would be to give more skills when using the bigger list.

I really, really, really hope they change the skill die system, though.





Probably the only way is two separate skills modules, one that gives you a very small, broad skill list, but a slower growth rate for them, and one that has a large, specific skill list that can be improved and customized a lot more. You can't just increase ot reduce the number of skills and keep the game balanced, because when you only need one point (be it a skill point or a skill die increase) to increase Perception, but three to increase Spot, Listen and Search, the smaller skill list is overpowered.


I can't get behind that at all.  Slower growth just punishes people who prefer broader competence by making them fall behind the built-in curve.  I also can't agree with you that smaller skill lists are overpowered.  They're not.  They provide a greater range of competence.  Just look at the Perception example that you've given.  A character that is trained in perception does not have a "more powerful" sense of perception that an otherwise identical character who is trained in Spot, Listen, or Search instead of Perception because they are not able to outclass them on skill checks.  They have a broader range of competence, certainly, but they are not more powerful.

The fact that the character using one skill point to be as good as the other, who had to use three skill points, means that his one point is more powerful (more "bang for the buck" so to speak).


Which, again, is only a problem if you're mixing skill lists at the same table.  If you're doing that, you're trying to implement two competing but superficially similar optional subsystems at the same time.  That's like letting players choose whether to use saves or NADs at the same table.  I don't know anyone who wants to create that kind problem, and I don't know of any DM who would allow it.

Now, if he had to spend more points (say you could pick one Skill from the "broad" list or three Skills from the "narrow" list) then it wouldn't be more powerful; or, the "narrow" Skills could give a better bonus than the "broad" Skills.


I've already said that the narrow skill list feels like it needs more skill choices.  This is true whether you implement some kind of point system or go with the binary training system.  Again though, since it doesn't make any more sense for people to use two different skill subsystems at the same table than for people to use both NADs and saves at the same table, one cannot reasonably say that the broader competence of a consolidated skill list is more powerful than the narrow competence of the narrow use skill list.

I'd also like to point out that the only time this even becomes an issue that needs discussing is if two players try to use different skill lists.  Given that choice of skill list is likely going to be a one-time choice by the DM, though perhaps with player input, I don't see that as being anywhere near a common occurrence.

My suggestion avoids the problem altogether; making the list a combined list (with nested/tiered Skills). Then there is no decision to make between lists.


It's not a bad idea, except that it makes some people think that they have to allow consolidated skills to be used if they're using skills.  Having two separate skill lists with a note about about how to combine them if you want to seems best.  Regardless of the lists we choose from though, the skill descriptions will probably have to be done on the narrow use end, with the consolidated skills saying something like "This skill has all the same uses as the X, Y, and Z skills."

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.


Which, again, is only a problem if you're mixing skill lists at the same table.  If you're doing that, you're trying to implement two competing but superficially similar optional subsystems at the same time.  That's like letting players choose whether to use saves or NADs at the same table.  I don't know anyone who wants to create that kind problem, and I don't know of any DM who would allow it.



It is still an issue between two different tables using different skill lists. The DCs are the same. The group using the broad skill list has a much wider range of skill training than the group using the narrow skill list and so they are at an advantage. I don't want the bigger list to make the game more challenging, just more immersive.

Look at Pathfinder, for example. They kept the same skill points per level as 3.5, but consolidated the skills into a smaller list. The effects are obvious as skill checks become almost irrelevant in Pathfinder even by mid levels, where in 3.5 they only became truly ridicuous at high levels. This happens even though both systems have the same max ranks per level (once you reconcile the difference between x4 skill points at 1st level and +3 class skill training bonus).


Which, again, is only a problem if you're mixing skill lists at the same table.  If you're doing that, you're trying to implement two competing but superficially similar optional subsystems at the same time.  That's like letting players choose whether to use saves or NADs at the same table.  I don't know anyone who wants to create that kind problem, and I don't know of any DM who would allow it.



It is still an issue between two different tables using different skill lists. The DCs are the same. The group using the broad skill list has a much wider range of skill training than the group using the narrow skill list and so they are at an advantage.


I'm going to cut you off right here.  It doesn't matter that the consolidated list provides a broader range of competence than the narrow use list, because that is what it's designed to do.  That's why the people who like to use it like to use it.  DDN is going to have various optional subsystems that give the table using them an advantage over tables that don't use them.  Numerous people seem to want an alternate HP scheme that includes the Con score at level 1.  Do people using that system have an advantage in survivabilty over people not using it?  Yes, becuase eliminating the "level one is a minefield" play of the lower starting HP rules is what it was designed to do.  And it's not that the people who use these rules are powergamers.  It's just that they have a style of play that is better reflected by broader competency or by eliminating the "fantasy vietnam" feel.

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

Sign In to post comments