How DnD Skill System is Bad

[spongeknight]

spongeknight, that sounds really fucking dumb. If not making the jump is so terrible, then when someone rolls a failure how is that not every bit as bad if not worse than someone not being able to make the jump in the first place?

It's the difference between "The wizard casts finger of death, make a save" and "the wizard casts Fuck You, you die automatically." It's literally the exact same thing. If you don't even get a chance to interact with something and you die, that's bullshit. But even if the enemy wizard targets your lowest save and you've only got a 30% chance or whatever to live through the effect you still get to try. That's the difference between a binary result making your death a certainty and a granular result making your death more likely than not.

No, it is the difference between "The Wizard casts Finger of Death, make a save" and "The Wizard casts Ray of Stun you are stunned."

Not jumping the chasm is not killing your character. Setbacks without rolls happen all the time and they are not the end of the fucking world.

Sorry, I didn't present myself very well there. I was referencing back to the point I made about an Indiany-Jonesy trap where a boulder comes rolling down at you and you could jump across a 10' chasm to escape. In a completely binary system the fighter/rogue/cleric whatever who took "jump 10'" as part of their attributes have absolutely no reason to fear the deathtrap because they say "Oh, I just automatically jump across to safety" where the wizard, who didn't take a jump increase attribute because he was banking on flying around in a few levels, automatically dies because he can never in any circumstances make that jump.

So yes. You trigger the trap and automatically die, instead of triggering a trap and being allowed a chance to leap to safety. It's the same exact thing as a save- if skills are defined as "how a character interacts with the world," then at some point that interaction is going to be necessary to save your skin. Unless you completely handwave every environment and there are never dangers (rushing or deep water, cliff faces, the side of a volcano, high winds, ect) you're going to need to make a balance or swim check or whatever to stay alive. If you can't make that check because the system tells you you can't even try, that's going to suck a whole lot more than failing a check you rolled.

And I'm not advocating a "make skill checks or die" style of play, I'm just assuming that environmental hazards exist at all. Like I mentioned earlier, sahuagin could pull you from your boat into the water- do you automatically start drowning? At what point is a character going to take the "can swim" attribute? At first level? What happens when additional effects are piled on, like wearing light/medium/heavy armor, being grappled while underwater, trying to escape the pull of a magical whirlpool, being tangled in a net, ect? When does your auto-pass become and auto-fail? Can you do anything to make your auto-fail an auto-pass?

There definitely are advantages to a binary pass/fail system, but there are a lot of problems with it as well. The thing is, a pass/fail system heavily supports a rules-light approach to games where the rules are considered secondary to the story. It's the "I really couldn't give a shit about mundane actions, let's get back to murdering/roleplaying/larping" method.

[Kaelik]

And I'm not advocating a "make skill checks or die" style of play, I'm just assuming that environmental hazards exist at all.

No, you are assuming that environmental hazards exist, absolutely kill you, and require some specific arbitrary value to survive. As many people have told you, if the balance DC for a windy mountain is 15, then anyone without any skill wearing armor automatically dies. Or you know, if could not kill them. On the other hand, you could just make a rule that level 1 adventurers are capable of balancing in extreme environments.

At what point is a character going to take the "can swim" attribute? At first level? What happens when additional effects are piled on, like wearing light/medium/heavy armor, being grappled while underwater, trying to escape the pull of a magical whirlpool, being tangled in a net, ect? When does your auto-pass become and auto-fail? Can you do anything to make your auto-fail an auto-pass?

Here, allow me to demonstrate why this entire paragraph is complete bullshit:

At what point is a character going to take the "can swimmove" attribute? At first level? What happens when additional effects are piled on, like wearing light/medium/heavy armor, being grappled while underwater, trying to escape the pull of a magical whirlpoolfog cloud, being tangled in a net, ect? When does your auto-pass become and auto-fail? Can you do anything to make your auto-fail an auto-pass?

In conclusion, I doubt anyone will ever tell you that D&D 3e move speeds are rules light, and yet, they somehow manage to already have rules that cover literally all the fucking things that you point to as reason why swim checks need to exist.

Your options are:

1) Admit that swim speed is an adequate replacement for swim checks, especially because it already is the actual replacement in actual D&D games.

2) Insist that we need those variable move speed checks to account for how fast characters move and when they can.

[Cyberzombie]

And I'm not advocating a "make skill checks or die" style of play, I'm just assuming that environmental hazards exist at all. Like I mentioned earlier, sahuagin could pull you from your boat into the water- do you automatically start drowning? At what point is a character going to take the "can swim" attribute? At first level? What happens when additional effects are piled on, like wearing light/medium/heavy armor, being grappled while underwater, trying to escape the pull of a magical whirlpool, being tangled in a net, ect? When does your auto-pass become and auto-fail? Can you do anything to make your auto-fail an auto-pass?

I think you're missing the point. The Swim skill isn't there so that only trained people ever get a roll. The swim skill is there to give trained people a swim speed (like an aquatic monster).

People without the swim skill are pretty much stuck making strength or dex checks to stay afloat. But the badasses who actually invested points in being a swimmer don't have to make checks at all.

Now you could have waters so rough that only trained swimmers have a shot, but in such a case, the DM needs to realize he's creating a very dangerous hazard.

[Omegonthesane]

2) Insist that we need those variable move speed checks to account for how fast characters move and when they can.

As it happens SIFRP adds some combat excitement by doing exactly that. You have your base move speed, but depending what type of move you made you can make rolls to increase it when your character's actually seriously trying. So e.g. Steve the Crap-Covered Farmer has the base Move of 4, but when Moving he can make an Agility roll to increase it to 5 or maybe 6 if he actually bought Agility. While sprinting he normally moves 16 and can make an Athletics check to instead move 17 or 18.

However, importantly, a failure in these is not, by RAW, any worse than never having tried. In actual gameplay, I talked my GM into making it so that the "increase move action speed" one prevented you from going All Sneaky Like, because that made sense to me and was a hell of a lot less harsh than a lot of other things that might have been argued into making sense.

[tussock]

But how would you do skills?

What do you think should allow 'training' to improve? Should stealth and perception be part of the trained skill system, or should they just revert to untrained and untrainable ability checks?

Or would you abstract skills completely?

I'll talk about D&D.

So. The best part of D&D is the I-go-U-go combat system. It's the only bit that's a proper fleshed-out game, or maybe exploration and trading too. So if you want a skill to show up as the centrepiece of a scene, like a diplomatic request for extra troops to support the border fort, it should use that. Actions and facing off with "hit rolls" and "damage" and "conditions" accumulating until everyone on one team "dies" and the other team takes their stuff and goes recover at home.

As much as possible, you lean on the actual combat system, and social damage or whatever you call it can stack with stun and HP damage if someone starts a fight mid-way through.

---

Or you find that abhorrent so you use the exploration system, like a 4e mixed-skill challenge only there's a flowchart progressing between skill zones toward your goal, where you can ride along if someone is that tall or can pay a default: so not like 4e at all. Again, actually tie it to exploring, going places and meeting interesting people and taking their stuff before the clock runs down.
So opening locks mostly needs some exploration-related resource cost. Time, for instance, or increasing danger. If you have a fancy point-buy skill system with a d20 check you can roll for reduced time or avoiding any sign of passage. Breaking it instead might be quicker but also kinda obvious.

Exploration Diplomacy can tell you how much coin-equivalent you have to lay out to get what you want (the goblins want a bigger share of treasure), or act as a cap on how much coin you're allowed to leverage (the King won't just lease his army to anyone).

---

But if you're jumping over a small gap mid-combat, that's just a movement mode and there's already more rules and dice-rolling going on than we need. Outside combat people should just build a bridge and get over it. The general rules on movement can cover extra effort and how that applies to charging into combat or making longer jumps and associated failure chances or penalties.

And if you want a detailed jump skill, then +20 just adds 20' to your Jump move and suggests how crap your other skills need to be.

---

Then most stuff just needs to be hammered into burning actions or suffering conditions in combat, or using up limited resources in the exploration or horse-trading game. So stealth can just be a thing that makes you massively slower (and maybe you have to hide for an hour and wait for the Orcs to leave) as you explore, and combat-stealth is a different rule where you apply a "you can't target me" condition to your opponents by making a check and using an action.

Rogues can have level-appropriate DCs for their combat skills, and Perception can be a Fort save that Elves get +5 on.

---

If things you're doing don't suit burning resources or actions, then they are not skills, and they just happen in some very simple way. Having some set of binary proficiencies probably suits, like for languages or musical instruments (3.0 style).

[Ghremdal]

---

---

But if you're jumping over a small gap mid-combat, that's just a movement mode and there's already more rules and dice-rolling going on than we need. Outside combat people should just build a bridge and get over it. The general rules on movement can cover extra effort and how that applies to charging into combat or making longer jumps and associated failure chances or penalties.

And if you want a detailed jump skill, then +20 just adds 20' to your Jump move and suggests how crap your other skills need to be.

I disagree. I think more uncertainty in combat is a good thing. Things should be hard to balance on, jump across, sneak past etc.

It adds tension to combat, allows for different tactics and differentiates characters. This assumes good encounter design.

Basic tasks should be able to be performed by anyone, difficult tasks should require some resource investment.

[MGuy]

zugs the alternative is you get to die without making a roll at all.

Yeah... like that isn't a gigantic flamboyant case of a false choice.

The actual alternative is they just don't attempt the jump they can't make and are in fact totally fine.

So if falling down the chasm can kill you, as is being fervently argued in favor, the real choice is A) System that might let you jump it, and potentially generates "Jump Check Or Die" or B)System that might let you jump it, and never generated 'Jump Check Or Die".

Hell an actual realistic assessment of Jump Skill systems doesn't even have option A ruling out situations of "Always can jump" and "Never Can Jump". If this "if you can't jump your head explodes!" bullshit were valid option A kinda falls down on it too, AND still generated "Jump Check Or Die".

Except that in both cases you can choose not to jump. If you're going to assume one for case A you can't turn around and disregard the same thing for case B. You can't assume "Well people just won't jump" in one and then say that allowing them to attempt to roll IF THEY JUMP means I'm advocating make a save or die. You have to either assume they both jump or they both don't.

[sabs]

No you don't. You can let people attempt to jump, but only suffer harm if they crit fail it. On a simple fail, they stop short of actually jumping. You see it on TV all the time. People run towards the chasm, and stop short because they decide they just don't have the momentum/guts/psycho to try to jump. And potentially dying should be a crit fail result, not a fail result.

[Kaelik]

Except that in both cases you can choose not to jump. If you're going to assume one for case A you can't turn around and disregard the same thing for case B. You can't assume "Well people just won't jump" in one and then say that allowing them to attempt to roll IF THEY JUMP means I'm advocating make a save or die. You have to either assume they both jump or they both don't.

No you don't have to assume they both jump or both don't jump, because people respond to incentives.

If you have a 0% chance of making a jump, you will never ever jump. If you have a 50% chance of making a jump, you might jump. It is possible that someone who could make the jump or miss it might jump, it is impossible for someone who can't make the jump to jump.

[MGuy]

Except that in both cases you can choose not to jump. If you're going to assume one for case A you can't turn around and disregard the same thing for case B. You can't assume "Well people just won't jump" in one and then say that allowing them to attempt to roll IF THEY JUMP means I'm advocating make a save or die. You have to either assume they both jump or they both don't.

No you don't have to assume they both jump or both don't jump, because people respond to incentives.

If you have a 0% chance of making a jump, you will never ever jump. If you have a 50% chance of making a jump, you might jump. It is possible that someone who could make the jump or miss it might jump, it is impossible for someone who can't make the jump to jump.

Umm yes they do need to do it both one way or the other. If they are not then how is that a fair argument? A character can know what distance they can safely jump before rolling (given their minimum result). They can"choose" whether or not they take the risk of pushing that. The other version makes it so that they can't.

If they are going to say it is bad to have that choice then THAT argument needs to be made. So far that case has not been made. So far it's only been people saying that Case A can fail and people arguing for A want people to die while blissfully ignoring the fact that case B fails 100% of the time but giving that the pass because a player can choose not to jump which, hilariously enough, they can do for A.

[Kaelik]

If they are going to say it is bad to have that choice then THAT argument needs to be made.

No, if you are going to argue that that choice is better you have to make that argument. You are the one insisting that we add a huge fuck off pile of complexity for some reason. You need to actually give a reason for that.

[MGuy]

If they are going to say it is bad to have that choice then THAT argument needs to be made.

No, if you are going to argue that that choice is better you have to make that argument. You are the one insisting that we add a huge fuck off pile of complexity for some reason. You need to actually give a reason for that.

I have. Thus far there's been no counter argument other than "You CAN fail" if you go for longer distances.

Edit: And what 'huge' pile of complexity? You're just given numbers that correspond with distances instead of just having distances.

[Kaelik]

I have.

No, you fucking haven't.

Edit: And what 'huge' pile of complexity? You're just given numbers that correspond with distances instead of just having distances.

And a system for generating those numbers, and a roll every time you need to jump, and rules to determine what does or doesn't add to your fucking jump skill.

[Cyberzombie]

Except that in both cases you can choose not to jump. If you're going to assume one for case A you can't turn around and disregard the same thing for case B. You can't assume "Well people just won't jump" in one and then say that allowing them to attempt to roll IF THEY JUMP means I'm advocating make a save or die. You have to either assume they both jump or they both don't.

If you're assuming that people never jump if they don't auto-succeed, then you've shown why we don't need jump checks and can just have a static number you can jump. The very fact that you want people to roll to push themselves means that you want people trying jumps they may fail.

In fact, the only reason you ever want to have rollable jump checks is if you want people to fall.

[tussock]

But if you're jumping over a small gap mid-combat, that's just a movement mode and there's already more rules and dice-rolling going on than we need. Outside combat people should just build a bridge and get over it. The general rules on movement can cover extra effort and how that applies to charging into combat or making longer jumps and associated failure chances or penalties.

And if you want a detailed jump skill, then +20 just adds 20' to your Jump move and suggests how crap your other skills need to be.

I disagree. I think more uncertainty in combat is a good thing. Things should be hard to balance on, jump across, sneak past etc.

Hard != Risky. Hell, Hard != things people actually want to do in game.

It adds tension to combat, allows for different tactics and differentiates characters. This assumes good encounter design.

Bollox. More rolling slows down combat, a lot when looking up different sections of rules. Remember grappling? No one wants that, certainly not as something you have to roll on that might block all your attacks for a couple rounds while also doing damage to you just so you could move four squares.

Besides, uncertainty is avoided by real people. We are all massively risk adverse by default (at least on the 5%+ scale), and if jumping and climbing and balancing is risky people will not do it, unless that is literally their only option, or you're fudging the DCs to let them auto-pass, or running a game where every failure is just the next challenge to succeed at.

Which is not good encounter design either way. Have a fine ledge that slows movement, beside a gap that ends your turn to jump, variously leaving you vulnerable to trip or bullrush. Let the player take a real choice (not a gamble), leave the dice out of it, and everyone can get on with killing Orcs all the quicker.

In fact, the only reason you ever want to have rollable jump checks is if you want people to fall.

The conditions of failure do not have to be a fall, and probably shouldn't be to mirror heroic action. But one might still roll to delay you, or damage you, or end your turn, or add a condition (prone, stunned, whatever), or all sorts. You just have to watch that the failure issues are large enough that people will often care to check for them, not that they all kill you.

[deaddmwalking]

I disagree. I think more uncertainty in combat is a good thing. Things should be hard to balance on, jump across, sneak past etc.

Hard != Risky. Hell, Hard != things people actually want to do in game.

I definitely think people enjoy accomplishing difficult things in game. Certainly people seem to prefer an unknown outcome in combat. If not, there'd be no reason to break it down by rounds. Just like some people want to say 'write down jump x' you could just as easily write down 'combat y' and if your value is higher, you win. If your value is lower, you lose.

This isn't just a slippery slope - this is the crux of the issue. People want challenges. They want risk and reward. Higher risk should correspond to higher reward.

In general, people will avoid jumping over a chasm if the risk are high (death) and the reward is low (you save 5 minutes on your trip to town.

It adds tension to combat, allows for different tactics and differentiates characters. This assumes good encounter design.

Bollox. More rolling slows down combat, a lot when looking up different sections of rules. Remember grappling? No one wants that, certainly not as something you have to roll on that might block all your attacks for a couple rounds while also doing damage to you just so you could move four squares.

There's clearly a spectrum where too many rolls become annoying. Further, too many rolls may reduce the odds of success to an unacceptable level. If your grapple rules require a touch attack (1 fail point) a successful Str check (2nd fail point) and a save (3rd fail point) people aren't going to choose to grapple. Reducing complexity is good - but reducing variability often isn't.

Besides, uncertainty is avoided by real people. We are all massively risk adverse by default (at least on the 5%+ scale), and if jumping and climbing and balancing is risky people will not do it, unless that is literally their only option, or you're fudging the DCs to let them auto-pass, or running a game where every failure is just the next challenge to succeed at.

Bullocks on this. Actual people die every year climbing mountains. They try to minimize risk when doing so, but people enjoy doing dangerous things. We even have a name for it - adrenaline junkies.

Which is not good encounter design either way. Have a fine ledge that slows movement, beside a gap that ends your turn to jump, variously leaving you vulnerable to trip or bullrush. Let the player take a real choice (not a gamble), leave the dice out of it, and everyone can get on with killing Orcs all the quicker.

A gamble can be a real choice. If you want to take out the automated sentry gun, leaping the chasm can allow you to disable it immediately. Climbing down and back up might give it 3 or more extra shots. Risk a fall but avoid multiple attacks? These are the meaningful choices that make combat interesting. Comparing numbers isn't exciting.

In fact, the only reason you ever want to have rollable jump checks is if you want people to fall.

The conditions of failure do not have to be a fall, and probably shouldn't be to mirror heroic action. But one might still roll to delay you, or damage you, or end your turn, or add a condition (prone, stunned, whatever), or all sorts. You just have to watch that the failure issues are large enough that people will often care to check for them, not that they all kill you.

A fall might or might not be deadly. Distances matter, especially in a game like D&D. A 4000' foot fall is no more dangerous than a 200' foot fall. And at some point, 20d6 can cease to be a major concern. Even a first level spell can mitigate the danger. Having the element of risk is important - but most of the time it will be more appearance than actual risk. But if there is no risk there is no point. Every action that has actual consequences should involve a roll. And if the action doesn't involve consequences, then it is bad design.

[spongeknight]

And I'm not advocating a "make skill checks or die" style of play, I'm just assuming that environmental hazards exist at all.

No, you are assuming that environmental hazards exist, absolutely kill you, and require some specific arbitrary value to survive. As many people have told you, if the balance DC for a windy mountain is 15, then anyone without any skill wearing armor automatically dies. Or you know, if could not kill them. On the other hand, you could just make a rule that level 1 adventurers are capable of balancing in extreme environments.

At what point is a character going to take the "can swim" attribute? At first level? What happens when additional effects are piled on, like wearing light/medium/heavy armor, being grappled while underwater, trying to escape the pull of a magical whirlpool, being tangled in a net, ect? When does your auto-pass become and auto-fail? Can you do anything to make your auto-fail an auto-pass?

Here, allow me to demonstrate why this entire paragraph is complete bullshit:

At what point is a character going to take the "can swimmove" attribute? At first level? What happens when additional effects are piled on, like wearing light/medium/heavy armor, being grappled while underwater, trying to escape the pull of a magical whirlpoolfog cloud, being tangled in a net, ect? When does your auto-pass become and auto-fail? Can you do anything to make your auto-fail an auto-pass?

In conclusion, I doubt anyone will ever tell you that D&D 3e move speeds are rules light, and yet, they somehow manage to already have rules that cover literally all the fucking things that you point to as reason why swim checks need to exist.

Your options are:

1) Admit that swim speed is an adequate replacement for swim checks, especially because it already is the actual replacement in actual D&D games.

2) Insist that we need those variable move speed checks to account for how fast characters move and when they can.

Sorry, whose statement is bullshit? You're advocating that walking across a featureless flat plane is the same exact thing as trying to swim underwater. You can't breathe in water, and you can't swim unless you're trained how to do it. Swimming pools don't exist in DnD Land, there's no reason for every fucking adventurer to have a swim speed, and they're going to be swimming in armor/waterlogged robes with heavy fucking swords and shit on their backs.

So no, swim speeds are not analogous to move speeds because drowning is a real thing that's possible for every adventurer who didn't start out as a fucking pirate. Moving in full plate is possible, swimming in full plate is next to impossible, and the rules should fucking reflect that.

As for the balance angle- yes, a barely trained guy who put on full plate and tried to scale a fucking mountain nonmagically should fall down and die in a storm. You just graduated from killing rats in basements at first level, you don't have supernatural balance yet. On the other hand a level 10 fighter who has been fighting things for a while and is supernaturally skilled should be able to do that with ease- his challenge comes from a permanent snowstorm on an enchanted-ice slicked castle in the sky. Walking around a windy mountain is a breeze for him because he's better than a human at that point- he's a real hero.

Indiana Jones is seriously threatened with death by rolling boulders and chasms slightly longer than most people can jump, because he's like a level 3 dude tops. If you want a system like Exalted or Scion where you're considered supernaturally capable and badass right as your level 1 ass hits the table, DnD is not the game for you. DnD starts you off as a nobody who has potential and ends up with you as an Earth-shattering superhero, but the rules have to reflect the fact that you're just a capable human being at the start. You get your superhero skills after you level, not when you're casting cantrips- and it's the granular system that reflects that, not the binary one.

[Kaelik]

You're advocating that walking across a featureless flat plane is the same exact thing as trying to swim underwater.

No, I am advocating that the rules for walking across a featureless plane, and also for walking uphill, and also for walking through impediments like brush, stone spikes, rubble fields, tentacle fields and magic clouds can be adapted to accomodate swimming.

For example, you could start at level 1 with a 5ft swim speed, and armor that penalizes your move speed would reduce it to nothing, as would magical whirlpools ect. Then, anyone who did not invest character resources in swimming would be able to in most circumstances, move either 5ft a round as a move action or as a full round action.

You can't breathe in water,

Which has no bearing on anything, because you also can't breathe in a poison cloud if you are holding your breath, but you can still move without making a check.

and you can't swim unless you're trained how to do it.

And you can't walk or run or ride a horse unless you are trained to do it either, but we have no problem assuming that everyone is capable of sitting on a fucking horse, and insisting that they only need to invest resources if they want to do complex riding, so why is "swimming" at 1/6th your land speed at a doggie paddle something we have to assume that large chunks of adventurers just haven't mastered yet?

So no, swim speeds are not analogous to move speeds because drowning is a real thing that's possible for every adventurer who didn't start out as a fucking pirate. Moving in full plate is possible, swimming in full plate is next to impossible, and the rules should fucking reflect that.

If only there were rules for how full plate reduced movement speeds... oh wait, there fucking are.

[Zaranthan]

You can't breathe in water,

Which has no bearing on anything, because you also can't breathe in a poison cloud if you are holding your breath, but you can still move without making a check.

Actually, you can't. Holding your breath is a Constitution check.

and you can't swim unless you're trained how to do it.

And you can't walk or run or ride a horse unless you are trained to do it either, but we have no problem assuming that everyone is capable of sitting on a fucking horse, and insisting that they only need to invest resources if they want to do complex riding, so why is "swimming" at 1/6th your land speed at a doggie paddle something we have to assume that large chunks of adventurers just haven't mastered yet?

spongeknight's actually wrong here. Having zero ranks in Swim is not the same as not knowing how to swim. The DC to keep your head above water and move about at half speed is 10. Most people can do so by removing their armor and taking 10 on their check. No dice required. (there's that superfluous speed number you want printed on everybody's character sheet) BUT, the guy who invested in Swim can do the backstroke in full plate and stay afloat in a storm, which is simpler than adjudicating a swim speed for everybody and then assigning penalties later and working out dozens of pages of new rules just to get back what we already had with two paragraphs of swim skill.

So no, swim speeds are not analogous to move speeds because drowning is a real thing that's possible for every adventurer who didn't start out as a fucking pirate. Moving in full plate is possible, swimming in full plate is next to impossible, and the rules should fucking reflect that.

If only there were rules for how full plate reduced movement speeds... oh wait, there fucking are.

Full plate makes you walk slower. It makes you swim like a rock. If you apply the same rules to both situations either wearing full plate makes you a statue (which makes it useless) or you can swim in it like it's a wetsuit (which is even more stupid).

The 3.5 swim rules reflect this difference in effect. Your swim speed rules (which by the way, exist in 3.5 specifically for aquatic creatures, you know, the ones that are able to move about in water like people move on land) don't reflect this.

[spongeknight]

For example, you could start at level 1 with a 5ft swim speed, and armor that penalizes your move speed would reduce it to nothing, as would magical whirlpools ect. Then, anyone who did not invest character resources in swimming would be able to in most circumstances, move either 5ft a round as a move action or as a full round action.

Invest character resources, like, I don't know, putting points into a fucking skill?

What the hell are you gaining by trying to get rid of skills and replace it with a swim speed if you then have to do the exact same thing you do with skills to increase your ability to function in the same exact way skills currently work? Is it because you just don't want to roll? Because I have no fucking clue at this point. Skill points are character resources you pay to have an increased ability to do things, and you're advocating people using character resources to increase their ability to do things. You are just calling skills a slightly different thing and demanding static numbers instead of rolls at this point.

But that brings us back to the problem of static numbers. If you start out with a swim speed of 5' but that is cancelled by armor, you die as soon as you enter water unless someone else saves you. That's my entire point all over again- static pass/fail mechanics make you die. Regular move speed is fine to have as a static number because you don't start drowning the second that number hits zero. I mean Jesus, even with full plate you're only looking at a -12 modifier to your swim check and calm water is a DC 10. In your proposed system the guy dies automatically no save as soon as a sahuagin pulls him off his boat, but in base 3.5 rules even a piss-weak Str 10 guy has a good chance to survive that encounter.

Now you can certainly make skills much less granular- it has been mentioned several times that a novice/journeyman/expert/master system would eliminate a lot of problems with the 3.5 skill system (too fiddly, too time-consuming to make NPC's, ect), but even untrained people still need to be able to make checks.

[Kaelik]

Actually, you can't. Holding your breath is a Constitution check.

No, holding your breath for two times your con score rounds requires no action.

Full plate makes you walk slower. It makes you swim like a rock. If you apply the same rules to both situations either wearing full plate makes you a statue (which makes it useless) or you can swim in it like it's a wetsuit (which is even more stupid).

Or, alternatively, the rules that reduce speed by 10ft could have drastically different effects on people with 5ft move speed and 30ft move speed.

Your swim speed rules (which by the way, exist in 3.5 specifically for aquatic creatures, you know, the ones that are able to move about in water like people move on land) don't reflect this.

Yes, I know they exist in 3e for many creatures (not just aquatic ones by the way) which is specifically why I said that swim speed is already the replacement for the swim skill that people actually use.

[Zaranthan]

No, holding your breath for two times your con score rounds requires no action.

You know, I knew you were going to vomit this into my face, and I was going to head it off, but I backspaced it and now look where we are. Yes, you don't roll dice to take ten on shit. The breath-holding rules summarize this because the slope changes for no reason at all. Congratufuckinglations on suddenly learning how to read the PHB.

Or, alternatively, the rules that reduce speed by 10ft could have drastically different effects on people with 5ft move speed and 30ft move speed.

How many speeds do I have to calculate when making my character? How many charts do I have to consult when I want to take off my armor for some acrobatics? I thought this was supposed to be simpler?

Your swim speed rules (which by the way, exist in 3.5 specifically for aquatic creatures, you know, the ones that are able to move about in water like people move on land) don't reflect this.

Yes, I know they exist in 3e for many creatures (not just aquatic ones by the way) which is specifically why I said that swim speed is already the replacement for the swim skill that people actually use.

Eat semantic shit and die. I don't give a shit if they have the [aquatic] subtype or not.

[Kaelik]

Invest character resources, like, I don't know, putting points into a fucking skill?

Or having a class ability, or as part of your level up progression, or feats, or special movement mode points that don't come at the cost of your ability to talk to people or speak languages or see well.

What the hell are you gaining by trying to get rid of skills and replace it with a swim speed if you then have to do the exact same thing you do with skills to increase your ability to function in the same exact way skills currently work?

Well 0) Because I'm not advocating getting rid of "skills" where skills are things you can do, I am advocating consideration of alternative methods of rules for some different game besides the generic skill points to skill rolls.

1) Because by decoupling it from skill ranks you can drastically change the way that you invest resources.

2) Because below.

Is it because you just don't want to roll? Because I have no fucking clue at this point.

3) Yes, whether or not their should be a roll is an important thing to consider. And since rolling takes up time, and creates uncertainty in abilities, there should be a good reason for its inclusion. Sometimes that very complexity and uncertainty is a good reason, often times it isn't, for example when you are dealing with something as basic as movement, or as bit part as swimming.

But that brings us back to the problem of static numbers. If you start out with a swim speed of 5' but that is cancelled by armor, you die as soon as you enter water unless someone else saves you.

Or not, because you know, you could have minimum 5ft per full round action rules that exist, and so you would need the Saungin to pull you really far down under before you were going to drown.

I mean Jesus, even with full plate you're only looking at a -12 modifier to your swim check and calm water is a DC 10. In your proposed system the guy dies automatically no save as soon as a sahuagin pulls him off his boat, but in base 3.5 rules even a piss-weak Str 10 guy has a good chance to survive that encounter.

So he is going to roll a 20-12, and hit DC 10 how exactly? Seriously, learn some fucking numbers, because what you just described is people dying in your roll system no matter what they roll.

[fectin]

No, holding your breath for two times your con score rounds requires no action.

You know, I knew you were going to vomit this into my face, and I was going to head it off, but I backspaced it and now look where we are. Yes, you don't roll dice to take ten on shit. The breath-holding rules summarize this because the slope changes for no reason at all. Congratufuckinglations on suddenly learning how to read the PHB.

You can hold your breath for a number of rounds equal to twice your Constitution score, but only if you do nothing other than take move actions or free actions. If you take a standard action or a full-round action (such as making an attack), the remainder of the duration for which you can hold your breath is reduced by 1 round. (Effectively, a character in combat can hold his or her breath only half as long as normal.)

There's no taking ten involved there, whatsoever. I'm sure you'll learn reading someday.

[Kaelik]

No, holding your breath for two times your con score rounds requires no action.

You know, I knew you were going to vomit this into my face, and I was going to head it off, but I backspaced it and now look where we are. Yes, you don't roll dice to take ten on shit. The breath-holding rules summarize this because the slope changes for no reason at all. Congratufuckinglations on suddenly learning how to read the PHB.

You are an idiot. The breath holding rules have nothing to do with taking fucking ten. If you have a con score of 64 you don't have to make a check for 128 rounds, then you have to make a DC 10 check that you will succeed on a 1. Explain how that first 128 rounds had fuck all to do with taking ten, when you are going to turn around and take ten on the 129th under a completely different system of autopass. Or explain how the take ten rules that prevent usage in strenuous situations have the effect of halving those first 128 rounds and then force you to roll on the 65th instead of rolling on all of them?

How many speeds do I have to calculate when making my character? How many charts do I have to consult when I want to take off my armor for some acrobatics? I thought this was supposed to be simpler?

Well, you already have to do a move speed, and a climb speed, and a fly speed, and a burrow speed and a swim speed under the current 3e rules, but I can see how having a non zero swim speed is suddenly a game breaker in complexity while this table is a much simpler solution:

/Max Rank Skills
Skill Name Key
Ab CC Skill
Mod Ab
Mod Rank Misc
Mod
= + +
= + +
= + +
= + +
= + +
= + +
= + +
= + +
= + +
= + +
= + +
= + +
= + +
= + +
= + +
= + +
= + +
= + +
= + +
= + +
= + +
= + +
= + +
= + +
= + +
= + +
= + +
= + +
= + +
= + +
= + +
= + +
= + +
= + +
= + +
= + +
= + +
= + +

Yes, I know they exist in 3e for many creatures (not just aquatic ones by the way) which is specifically why I said that swim speed is already the replacement for the swim skill that people actually use.

Eat semantic shit and die. I don't give a shit if they have the [aquatic] subtype or not.

Maybe you should pay attention to the relevant part of that issue, which is that we already have empirical evidence that people choose to have climb or swim speeds if they want to climb or swim instead of boosting their DCs, so we already have empirical evidence that they fucking prefer the speed system over the rolling skills system.