D&D 3.5 Condensed Skill List

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Fri Dec 19, 2008 11:03 pm

That destroys the usefulness of being someone who cares about those skills whether they're at half cost, a third cost, free, or anything else.

If you can hire a NPC sage to take care of any Knowledge checks you ever need to make, you should be just as able to hire a NPC scout to take care of any Spot checks you need to make.

Hell, hire NPCs to make any checks other than the "loot it bare" rolls.

I don't mind PCs being able to rely on NPCs if they need to, but choosing to rely on a NPC to make the skill roll should not make the skill less valuable.

Also: Am I the only one finding the idea of "we should do it like Spycraft, see how many pages the book spends on skills." being mentioned as part of (but not directly contradicting, done as if there is no contradiction at all) a thread on condensing the skill list to be an occasion for much

?

Not that Spycraft's skill system (so far as it can be applied to a nonmodern setting) would necessarily be a bad thing to adopt, but its not "condensed" overall, by any means.

angelfromanotherpin · Fri Dec 19, 2008 11:08 pm

zeruslord wrote:in the case of Decipher Script, nothing will ever need to be deciphered if it matters to the plot unless the plot is rewritten to take into account the fact that you need to find a sage.

Not wholly true. I've seen published adventures where Decipher Script gave access to information that was useful but unnecessary. That struck me as a very good use for it, because if the party that turned up for the adventure happened to have Decipher Script they got to bypass some annoyance, but any party that turned up without Decipher Script wasn't screwed or shoehorned.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Fri Dec 19, 2008 11:09 pm

-Username17

zeruslord · Post by **zeruslord** » Fri Dec 19, 2008 11:09 pm

The problem with that is that the DM creates most of the adventures after the party is created, and will not create an adventure where the party is required to have a skill they do not possess. This is exactly the same as the way that computer hacking is never required by characters in sci-fi stories unless they can hack, because a story where your plot needs something hacked in order to progress and it is not hacked and therefore does not progress sucks and nobody will ever write or enjoy that story.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Fri Dec 19, 2008 11:13 pm

The problem with that is that it means that "failure to accomplish X" is the same as "failure for the story to advance".

There is no requirement that the PCs win every adventure they face (seperate discussion, please PM or start a new thread if you feel I'm missing something...I have a point directly related to this one here that's the only reason for making it here). So let's say you fail to Decipher the ancient runes that say "break glass in case of emergency".

The glass is still breakable. And even if not knowing what the runes said costs you big time, that easily means "and so the cult does summon the demon."

"Succeed here or the adventure comes to a screeching halt." is a sign of not having enough material to cover "what if the PCs fail.", which is the same as any other "what if the PCs don't do what was expected".

Voss · Post by **Voss** » Sat Dec 20, 2008 1:05 am

Zerus- thats a pretty big assumption. One that I've almost never seen in actual games. Whether its a purchased module that the DM picked up, wanted to run and said, hey, make some characters for this, or just something the DM made up, quite often the adventure *doesn't* take character abilities into account. And you can't rely on every DM to be able to compensate for a game-breaking lack of a skill or ability. Especially given published adventures tendency to include a 'if you don't have X, you fail' portion, which I've seen many times.

And even if the DM does take into account everything the party can actually do, you're still at the mercy of a flubbed check.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Sat Dec 20, 2008 4:08 am

Thusly, assume that the PCs will fail a certain amount of the time and have a "If the PCs don't manage to ______, then ______."

But regarding skills, all skills ought to at least be useful enough of the time to be worth buying.

In a given campaign, a given skill might not be (so please tell your players that). But if Craft is a serious skill, then there ought to be times it should come up.

Voss · Post by **Voss** » Sat Dec 20, 2008 4:37 am

Seriously, 'ought to be' is *irrevelant*, because thats exactly the problem- they aren't.
Craft, specifically, can never be a serious skill in a system where money= power.

Also, you aren't really addressing the problem. The thing is, because they can fail any specific skill check, if have to have <other> for every single skill check- in other words, you can never depend on skills to get around situations at all. Yet strangely, this doesn't stop DMs or designers from doing putting 'game stopping bug' situations into their adventures.

And backtracking a bit

If you can hire a NPC sage to take care of any Knowledge checks you ever need to make, you should be just as able to hire a NPC scout to take care of any Spot checks you need to make.

Interestingly, hirelings to do shit for you (including scout, act as combat speedbumps, sages, etc) have been a serious functioning part of D&D since... well, the beginning of D&D. The game design has always included the concept that you just need one guy to do his thing, whether its one party member or some flunky that you throw a few copper pieces at. It doesn't always work, and sometimes its really fucking stupid, but the alternative is going the 4e route and declaring '<that> simply doesn't happen/work/or is possible at all'.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Sat Dec 20, 2008 4:47 am

Seriously, 'ought to be' is *irrevelant*, because thats exactly the problem- they aren't.
Craft, specifically, can never be a serious skill in a system where money= power.

Well, presumably a part of this section of the site is to make what should be true closer to being true.

Yet strangely, this doesn't stop DMs or designers from doing putting 'game stopping bug' situations into their adventures.

As stated, we need the "If the PCs do fail here, then something happens." rather than to make failure impossible.

The game design has always included the concept that you just need one guy to do his thing, whether its one party member or some flunky that you throw a few copper pieces at. It doesn't always work, and sometimes its really fucking stupid, but the alternative is going the 4e route and declaring '<that> simply doesn't happen/work/or is possible at all'.

Not arguing. I'm just noting that if "we hire a NPC to do it" is that useful and that important, you should be able to justify spending skill ranks. Because it is absurd to hire NPCs to make all the skill checks in an adventure, at some point you need to invest skill points.

And 4e's method is the "we can't design at all" method, so screw that.

Bigode · Post by **Bigode** » Sat Dec 20, 2008 5:24 am

Division by 0?

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Sat Dec 20, 2008 5:26 am

Well, you can always write an adventure that "If the PCs -don't- catch the thief, then ______, and the PCs have to react to _____."

Draco_Argentum · Post by **Draco_Argentum** » Sat Dec 20, 2008 8:42 am

zeruslord wrote:Decipher Script, Gather Information, Knowledge, etc. are skills that are required to get to the adventure. If you don't have them, somebody randomly walks up to you in the tavern and tells you what you need to know or, in the case of Decipher Script, nothing will ever need to be deciphered if it matters to the plot unless the plot is rewritten to take into account the fact that you need to find a sage. Any ability that is exclusively plot-related will only come up if one or more characters have it.

This is actually fine with me if they're bought with a separate pool of points. It essentially amounts to the players filling out a questionnaire titled 'rate the plot elements you want to see in order of preference.'

ckafrica · Post by **ckafrica** » Sat Dec 20, 2008 3:27 pm

DA: I second it. Just give people a separate mechanism to gain secondary skills.

ZER0 · Post by **ZER0** » Sat Dec 20, 2008 6:52 pm

Please don't divide by me. It makes me uncomfortable in my special parts.

TheNotSoEvilNecromancer · Thu Dec 25, 2008 7:36 am

I realize that this thread is somewhat dead and even if it isn't it has long since strayed from the original topic. Even so, I felt that posting here would be the lesser of two evils to starting an entirely new thread. In an "E" case here is the condensed skill list I created along with another DM and plan on using for my future Tome games. And yes, I've stolen ideas from this thread (and in the case of the descriptions for Acrobatics and Ciphers, elsewhere).

Acrobatics [Balance, Tumble, Perform (Dance)] (Dex)

“I am a leaf on the wind, watch – how I soar.”

Arcana [Craft (alchemy), Knowledge (arcana), Spellcraft (arcane magic), Use Magic Device (Scrolls)] (Int)

“Do try to avoid touching the glyphs unless you place little value in your face.”

Artifice [Craft (artistic,practical items, armorsmithing, bowmaking, weaponsmithing), Appraise (Chosen Field), Forgery (Chosen Field)] (Int)

“Ye’see the serration I added here? Well, in addition to flaying them, it also has the happy side effect of looking really AWESOME.”

NOTE: Yes, you still need to choose your field.

Athletics [Climb, Jump, Swim] (Str)

“So let me get this straight… she leapt onto the other side of the chasm, climbed horizontally, and then swam UP the waterfall!?”

Autohypnosis [Autohypnosis, Concentration, Control Shape, Psicraft] (Wis)

"My... mind is... my... own!"

NOTE: I realize how many of you feel about psionics but I wanted to beef up concentration with autohypnosis. Also, I didn't want to omit concentration entirely so as to allow for skill feats like Judging Eagle's Mental Weaponry. Finally, for the sake of completeness if anyone wants to play a psion or whatever.

Cartography [Knowledge (geography) (history) (local) (nature; plants, seasons and cycles, weather), Use Magic Device (Emulate Race)] (Int)

“Avoid sneezing in the presence of the troglodytes; they take this as a symbolic declaration of war, you see.”

Ciphers [Spellcraft (Decipher a written Spell), Decipher Script, Learn Language] (Int)

"In mastering the ancient tongue of the Primordial Wizards I have learned the foundations of elvish, gnomic, and dwarven."

Coercion [Gather Information, Intimidate, Perform] (Cha)

"Ren, when steal from the other thieves guild heads this does not concern me, in fact I rather enjoy there frustration. But when you take gold from ME, problems start to arise!"

Cunning [Disguise, Hide, Spot (Penetrating disguises and locating hidden individuals), Use Magic Device (Emulate a Class Feature)] (Int)

“So we’ll all dress up like clerics of Vecna, see…”

Deception [Bluff, Forgery, Perform] (Cha)

“You kiddin’ me, this weapon were forged by Dagnar Stonepike his’self. So don’t gimme none o’ this rot about ‘he didn’t make any weapons’ or I’ll sell this to one of my many other investors!"

Devices [Craft (Trapmaking), Disable Device, Open Lock, Use Magic Device (blindly activate and emulate)] (Int)

"Kobolds? I love killin’ these things on account a they’re so small and stupid and cowardly. How they could have survived this long is anyone’s guess."
-Fafnir the barbarian, moments before being beheaded by a Kobold-engineered rotating scythe trap

Dungeoneering [Knowledge (dungeoneering) (architecture/engineering), Search, Use Magic Device (Emulate Ability Score)] (Int)

“Oh yeah, I can get you through those mines, they’re filled with orcs, trolls, and a demon, though. Yeah, they dug too deep and too greedily, nasty stuff. Oh, and watch out for the bridges, they're poorly made and one good spell will make those things crumble to nothing.”

Etiquette [Diplomacy, Gather Information, Knowledge (nobility and royalty), Perform] (Cha)

“Don't worry, I’ll get into the palace, King Daxall is a bit of a deviant after all. And I’ve brought plenty of sheep with me.”

Husbandry [Handle Animal, Ride] (Cha)

“I gave that horse a carrot stick, horses love carrots sticks.”

Legerdemain [Escape Artist, Move Silently, Sleight of Hand, Use Rope, Use Magic Device (Wand)] (Dex)

“You’re putting me in with the petty thieves and bandits!? A criminal mastermind like me warrants at least solitary confinement!”

Perception [Spot, Listen, Sense Motive] (Wis)

“If you’re going to lie to me about the payment then can you at least do it without leaving open the door to your counterfeiting operation?”

Profession (Wis)

"Sure, I can do it, but remember, nothing in this or any other world is free."

Note: With Dungeonomicon revisions, of course. Also, I thought about splitting it apart like I did with Use Magic Device or Perform, but I couldn't do it in a way that wasn't wierd. Besides, I can always use the hobgoblin argument and cover my ears while screaming that it was never meant to be playable by the PCs.

Survival [Heal (first aid, treat wound from caltrop, spike growth, or spike stones), Knowledge (nature), Survival] (Wis)

“Don’t worry, we can eat the red berries; it’s the blue ones that cause you to explode.”

Thaumaturgy [Heal, Knowledge (religion) (the planes), Spellcraft (divine magic), Use Magic Device (Emulate an Alignment)] (Int)

“Yes Virginia, there is a Nyarthalotep.”

Bigode · Post by **Bigode** » Thu Dec 25, 2008 7:43 am

You're a necromancer - just do your thing with threads. Certainly better than thread fragmentation.

angelfromanotherpin · Post by **angelfromanotherpin** » Sat Jan 03, 2009 6:03 am

I like the idea of skill consolidation, but it seems weird to me that I'm going to pull out my Monster Manual and see individual skills listed, while PCs have different aggregate listings.

So here's my suggestion: use something like Skill Groups from Iron Heroes.

It goes like this: There's no Class Skills, and no cross-class skills – any skill is available at normal cost and normal (Level+3) cap. But each class has the ability to buy certain skills in bundles; which could look a lot like the consolidation schemes mentioned above, or could be weirder.

So if you have the Athletics skill group listed next to your class, you could buy Climb, Jump, and Swim as if they were one skill - but you still have separate Climb, Jump, and Swim skill listings, so the character sheets don't need rewriting.

People who don't have the Athletics skill group still have to get the skills individually, and thus still probably won't.

Of course, we'd have to go by each of the classes and set up the Skill Groups they'd get. Probably not very hard, considering they all have their Class Skill lists already, which is what you'd base them on. I think the Iron Heroes book had all the PHB classes figured already, so we'd just have to do the Tome ones.

Cynic · Post by **Cynic** » Sat Jan 03, 2009 6:15 am

angelfromanotherpin wrote:.

Of course, we'd have to go by each of the classes and set up the Skill Groups they'd get. Probably not very hard, considering they all have their Class Skill lists already, which is what you'd base them on. I think the Iron Heroes book had all the PHB classes figured already, so we'd just have to do the Tome ones.

The skill group idea is something that I really do like. But IH actually didn't have the phb classes figured out because they made completely new classes for the system and all the core classes would have to be reworked to fit the mechanics of IH.

But, as you suggested, skill grouping for the classes should be easy. If we make the skill groups then we just need to look at hte classes.

I mean Acrobatics & Athletics write themselves. We basically would have others along the lines of Knowledge, persuasion, Working (if you really want the craft/profession/appraise stuff to be together), MAGICS (psi & normal-magic), Notice, and whatever else I'm missing.

angelfromanotherpin · Post by **angelfromanotherpin** » Sat Jan 03, 2009 6:22 am

I kind of like the idea that some classes might have really weird skill groups. I can't think of any actual examples offhand, but just the idea that somewhere there's an International Brotherhood of Meatworkers class that bundles, say, Heal and Craft (Meat) makes me smile.

Cynic · Post by **Cynic** » Sat Jan 03, 2009 6:25 am

angelfromanotherpin wrote:I kind of like the idea that some classes might have really weird skill groups. I can't think of any actual examples offhand, but just the idea that somewhere there's an International Brotherhood of Meatworkers class that bundles, say, Heal and Craft (Meat) makes me smile.

A skillgroup with heal and craft (meat) is very much the realm of fleshcrafters, innit?

"What? You're bleeding profusely? Well, we can't have that. Let me work over that arm into something much more beautiful and it'll help you in the process."

angelfromanotherpin · Post by **angelfromanotherpin** » Sat Jan 03, 2009 6:35 am

I just looked up the Iron Heroes book, and it does indeed have Skill groups for the PHB classes... but in an incredibly half-assed way, it gives them 1 each. Even the Rogue only gets the Robbery group. Those who hit the 'jackpot' of 2 each were Monks with Athletics and Stealth, and Rangers with Athletics and Wilderness Lore.

Lame.

I think we definitely want to get closer to the Iron Heroes standard of about 2-4 groups per class.