-Purpose of skills: What separates a skill from an attribute check or raw ability score?
-Execution of Skills: How does the ideal skill selection look for your favorite edition/heartbreaker
I was browsing through the old The New Edition threads and found some nice discussion that related to my query.
FrankTrollman wrote:True.K wrote:If you already have ability and stat customization, skills are completely useless.
Also true.Hogarth wrote:Until you define your terms, you're just playing word games.
Words like attributes, skills, abilities, powers, feats, schticks, perks, and talents don't actually mean anything in any abstract context. They are only ascribed a meaning by the game system nailing them down with mechanics for acquiring, rating, and using them. So to an extent this discussion is entirely pointless.
But there is a couple deeper questions that this discussion is talking around
The answers to both are "it depends." For a level based system, the answers are probably "no, yes" and for a skill based system the answers are probably "yes, no."
- Should the things you do be numerically rated?
- Should the things you do that are "major" come in on a different set of points than your "minor" things?
FrankTrollman wrote:There's a couple of nested questions here. The first of course is to what extent a leveled character can be thwarted by mundane tasks and defeated by minor characters. Things to keep in mind:
- A level bonus rapidly outpaces differences in attributes. A best case stat modifier is a +9 and a worst case is a +4. So if level bonuses are involved, a character five levels up has basically no need for the services of a specialist five levels down save as a source of teamwork bonuses.
- An optional level bonus is inherently divergent. That is, if you can either add your level or not to a skill you will rapidly depart the RNG.
- Having powerful adventurers pick pocketed by gutter rats is not necessarily bad.
- Powerful characters should be able to do stupid shit like plowing fields before lunch, manning a ship by themselves, and forging siege engines of awesome power.
- If you can only learn languages after gaining a level, you might as well not be able to do it at all, because you won't gain a level until you conquer Mount Chaining, and then you won't be dealing with the Leopard Tribe anyway.
So what does that all mean?
It means that we are stuck between a rock and a hard place. If you give people spendable ranks they will go off the RNG with each other. If you give everyone a Level bonus to throw around, the players have no use for low level sages and can't be harassed by child thieves. And if you don't give either of those things, players won't be getting nice stuff when they go up in level.
---
My thoughts on the subject are many. The first is that ranks in skills should be extremely finite. Like probably between one and five ranks total. Possibly Untrained, Trained, and Expert. Different races might also have different lists of no-default skills, which would be interesting and add depth to the races.
The other thing I'm thinking is that characters should probably pick up skill ranks to throw around independently of gaining power levels.
Untrained: +Stat Modifier
Trained: +Stat Modifier + 5
Expert: +Stat Modifier + 10
?
---
Sociality is a separate thing. And I think that it should be more... big. Like seriously I think that there should be overall Diplomatic Position Scores which are influenced by winning battles against foes.
-Username17
As for the purpose of skills, I like the idea of 'Five cornerstones of adventuring':
So with these in mind, how should skills be mechanically executed in D&D? What should the skill list look like? What SHOULDN'T be done with skills?K wrote:The life of an adventurer is a wild and woolly place. One day you are fighting dragons from the side of mountain crevasses and delving into mostly extinct volcanoes to kill a barrow of flaming wights, and the next day you are sipping sherbet with the duke and doing your best to avoid the love triangle between his daughter and the wizard adviser.
After some thought, there are things every adventurer needs to be able to do to qualify as a minimally competent adventurer.
1. Fight Monsters.
A character has to be able to solo things and fight things as a team. Nuff' said.
2. Talk.
Whether it is witty reparte with liches or doing an inspiring speech to rouse the villagers to take up arms, every real adventurer needs some ability to talk and persuade.
3. Handle Magic Items/Effects.
Magic is everywhere in the fantasy universe, so every adventurer needs some ability to identify, understand, and use weird magics. Fighters may need to cut through magic walls with their equally magic swords while wizards are casting counter-magics, but both need to look at a castle made out of ice and say "meh, its a powerful magic at work here...."
4. Not Die.
Anyone with a basic knowledge of statistics knows that a small probability of dying means you'll die eventually (and probably ignobly). For this reason, DnD uses Raise Dead, action points, and weird things like contingent effects to keep heroes and villains alive. Whether it is access to a good cleric or clones in your basement, every adventurer needs a way to avoid dying.
5. Information
Knowledge wins quests, so in many ways you need some sort of information gathering to accomplish anything. This can run the range from friendly sages to quest-granting angels to street rats with gossip, but figuring out what is going on is essential.
The only rule I can think of is that purely RP effects (weaving) shouldn't take up the same resources as combat/adventuring effects (perceiving danger, identifying magic, etc.)
These old TNE discussions also talk about chase mechanics that eventually got put in After Sundown. Has After Sundown's chasing mechanics been adapted to d20 already? If it became more abstract I could see it as the grounds for a "Skill challenge that works!"