Catharz wrote:Generally speaking, what are your thouughts on a broad/tight skill system similar (but not identical) to D&D?
I've thought about it. I've decided that it runs into several problems:
[*] People end up not being able to make good use of some of the tight skills, and being very required to have others. When "Interaction" contains "Leadership" (that ends up giving your team mates bonuses) and "Expression" (that doesn't) - the bard gets screwed over the Marshall.
[*] Far more damning, however, is the fact that it has the current skill point problem of "If you weren't god at this, you'll never be ood at this) only much more so because you've already spent the points from your Survival Skill on Climbing - so if you decide you need Swimming, your expenditures on Survival are capped and you can't continue to raise climbing at all if you want to have a meaningful swimming roll (which let's face it, you probably can't get anyway).
[*] Finally, it means that things which people decide to be good at raise really fast compared to other things - which means that if it becomes important for someone to spot someone's sleight of hand roll or something it becomes extremely unlikely for those numbers to be even on the same RNG.
I vastly prefer a system of skill proficiencies. Have some general skills - like 8 or 12 - and then have people be proficient or non-proficient in certain applications. That way, if you want to become a dancer at level 16, you just grab Dancing Proficiency and immediately your whole Presence skill adds in.
Individual uses of skills could be usable without proficiency at a penalty or unusable without proficiency. So you need some specific training to disarm traps, but you have it at a level appropriate level when you get it.
---
Catharz wrote:P.S.: What is your view on d20 vs. 3d6?
3d6 is bad. I really like Champions, but generating numbers on 3d6 is an unfortunate choice. Here's why:
[*] Lack of transparency: A +1 on a d20 means 5%, what does it mean on 3d6? From 3-4, it's a change of 31.4%, but from 10-11 it's a change of 12.5%. This means that as a DM, it is hard to know how modifiers are going to effect probability in actual play. Setting a DC becomes much more frought, certainly.
[*] Hard to Design For: Even worse than the above is trying to write up coherent target number modifiers ahead of time. Ouch, that +1 modifier you write in could vary by a factor of more than 25 (less than half a percent in the 17-18 bracket, 12.5% in the 9-10 bracket).
[*] Hard on Newbs: Not only does the average player have a hard time juggling that kind of statistical data, but people who have small penalties actually have huge penalties. The guy who hits on an 11+ hits half the time, the guy who hits on a 14+ hits less than one sixth of the time - a +3 bonus is a times three increase in success rate. That hurts if you keep missing opportunities for synergy, or if you're a level behind the rest of the party for any reason.
---
Catharz wrote:It adds another level of complexity, but it seems to me that it would work as a method to let characters take skills like Profession (Chef) without shooting themselves in the foot.
The best system I've ever seen for this is Shadowrun's Knowledge Skills. These are skills that specifically have no meaning except solving RP problems and getting Info. Thus, the skill "Obscure Trivia" is just as good as "Italian Cookery", is just as good as "Wuxia Films" is just as good as blah blah blah. Since you don't need them, if you want to have them at all (and you do, honestly), you should just split up the points into "Good Skills" and "Flavor Skills".
-Username17