The Problem With Skills

[Samwise]

Well, I'd keep all the monster ID knowledges.
At most, just roll them into a single monster knowledge skill, or expand martial lore to cover assessing their abilities.

[Unbeliever]

Another option is to have two pools of skills. One could be close to what they are now, called Skills, and the other could be the more flavor-oriented ones, called Trades. This would allow people to put some mechanical representation of the fact that they have a background in hunting, blacksmithing, or underwater basket weaving on their character sheet without dipping into the same pool that fuels Knowledge, Concentration, and UMD.

At that point, just go AD&D and have a single "secondary skill" for background, which are generally trades or professions, and current skills as the actual skills.

Or, using the D20M reference I made to professions with the D20M backgrounds adapted into the current version of the game, just have players select such backgrounds and include some set of additional things they can do, unrelated to identifying monsters, sneaking about, scouting, and other such "functional" skills.

I do sort of miss the Secondary Skills from AD&D.  And, have always wanted to encourage some semi-useful basketweaving.  I'll take a look at the d20 Modern backgrounds (referred to as Starting Occupations) and see if there's anything worthwhile in there to pillage from.

[Amechra]

What if Class Skills didn't represent skills that are cheaper, but gave you your starting skills instead?

Like, every class gets X class skills and Y skill points per level.

At 1st level, they get Z points in their X class skills, and Y points to spend anywhere they damn well please.

At 2nd level, you'd just get the Y points, and so on and so forth.


More generally - I think that a way to encourage "skill monkey" as a thing is give everyone X skill points per level, but have each class have some number of those skills pre-invested.

[Garryl]

What if Class Skills didn't represent skills that are cheaper, but gave you your starting skills instead?

Like, every class gets X class skills and Y skill points per level.

At 1st level, they get Z points in their X class skills, and Y points to spend anywhere they damn well please.

At 2nd level, you'd just get the Y points, and so on and so forth.

You mean like how Pathfinder gives +3 to your class skills (with the investment of the 1st point)? It's sort of like 3 free points in each of them.

[Amechra]

What if Class Skills didn't represent skills that are cheaper, but gave you your starting skills instead?

Like, every class gets X class skills and Y skill points per level.

At 1st level, they get Z points in their X class skills, and Y points to spend anywhere they damn well please.

At 2nd level, you'd just get the Y points, and so on and so forth.

You mean like how Pathfinder gives +3 to your class skills (with the investment of the 1st point)? It's sort of like 3 free points in each of them.

More like "You're a Rogue - you get 4 free ranks of Sleight-of-Hand, Disable Device, and Search. You have 12 skill points remaining" vs. "You have 24 skill points to spend. You have to pay extra for any skill that isn't Sleight-of-Hand, Disable Device, and Search".

Ideally, you could pick your "free" skills from a list, rather than every class having them preset. So Rogues might be able to pick 4 skills from a list of 12, say, and have 4 points left over to spend anywhere. Meanwhile the Fighter might get 6 free skills, but only has two points to stick anywhere.

[Dr_emperor]

I like that idea.  It then becomes easier to balance within the current system as well, but it does have a way to shoehorn people.  I might have picked rogue to be the party face, who might never even consider sleight of hand, worth their time or sneaking.

I also like the idea of backgrounds for one skill couldn't each skill get a background that makes it a already chosen skill, choosing a profession or other generally weak skill could give other bonuses.  If the skill was already a class skill even further bonuses/extra uses/skill trick things/powers.

[Unbeliever]

What if Class Skills didn't represent skills that are cheaper, but gave you your starting skills instead?

This is kinda sorta the SAGA approach with its trained/not trained dynamic.  It's not a bad way of going about it.  It's not really something that bothers me, to be honest. 

If I play a Rogue, I want to be good at some set of things, which might vary from concept to concept.  I know how to spend skill points to do that. 

[Bronzebeard]

I do sort of miss the Secondary Skills from AD&D.  And, have always wanted to encourage some semi-useful basketweaving.  I'll take a look at the d20 Modern backgrounds (referred to as Starting Occupations) and see if there's anything worthwhile in there to pillage from.

I really liked the idea at the time but thought of the implementation as uninspired.

What if Class Skills didn't represent skills that are cheaper, but gave you your starting skills instead?

Like, every class gets X class skills and Y skill points per level.

At 1st level, they get Z points in their X class skills, and Y points to spend anywhere they damn well please.

At 2nd level, you'd just get the Y points, and so on and so forth.

Sign me up in favor for skills costing the same. I'm not sure about the class related bonus thou


BTW, skill ranks scaling and DC meter are more of a problem, IMHO.

[Maelphaxerazz]

That, and potentially Knowledge. Being educated could make sense as a background trade, but Knowledge skills can have a pretty tangible effect in combat.

They can, but should they? I don't think how Knowledge works right now is good for the game.

A PC approaches a monster, and the player recognizes the hints the DM dropped. Only comes out at night or when overcast... noble's house with windows shuttered, and no mirror to be found... he approaches the creature, AND! fails the Knowledge (religion) check, so must pretend he does not know it is a vampire. Its just as bad the other way around, too. The PCs are surprised by the Bugblatter Beast of Traal, and the guy with Knowledge (nature) rolls high, so the DM must stop and explain what this thing's weaknesses are, and the player starts making battle plans OOC because in-game the PC knew what the beast was all along, and recognized it from his prior studies.

I recommend removing Knowledge altogether, and let the DM decide what the PCs should know, as appropriate to his campaign. If the setting's religions, nobility & royalty, history, local culture, or whatever is relevant to the plot, the DM will give his setting document to the players and if the player remembers a detail from it during a game session he may use it, no roll required. Likewise any sourcebook has an in-universe Equivalent, so if the players can know it the PCs can know it too. If the DM wants something to be a secret, he won't share it with the PCs, and if the DM wants to leave it up to chance Gather Information can be used as a substitute for the occasional use of Knowledge. The knowledge skill uses that aren't "know about X" are folded into other skills, and things that give Knowledge bonuses or bonuses based on Knowledge get removed or replaced.

2. Cut some excessive skill choices for "flavor".

Another option is to have two pools of skills. One could be close to what they are now, called Skills, and the other could be the more flavor-oriented ones, called Trades. This would allow people to put some mechanical representation of the fact that they have a background in hunting, blacksmithing, or underwater basket weaving on their character sheet without dipping into the same pool that fuels Knowledge, Concentration, and UMD.

Yet another option is to eliminate "fields". For example, instead of Craft, Profession and Perform, I use just two skills: Trades and Performer. Trades covers whatever sorts of background professions the character has: a PC tradesman can be the butcher, the baker, and the candlestick maker at no extra cost, and if the PC tradesman wants to acquire a trade he didn't already practice in the background, he roleplays out an appropriate training sequence and adds it to his list at no cost. Likewise, a Performer can know how to play string instruments, wind instruments, dance and sing as a single skill, or whatever else he uses in his performance. This is simpler than using two pools of skills, and I think the combined skills are useful enough to compare with adventuring skills.

- - - - - - - - - -  - - - - - - - - - -  - - - - - - - - - -  - - - - - - - - - -  - - - - - - - - - -  - - - - - - - - - -  - - - - - - - - - -  - - - - - - - - - -  - - - - - - - - - -

My own approach to skills is to combine skills into a shorter list (23 skills), and to give everyone the same number of skill points per level (5) no matter their class or int score, and eliminate the class/cross-class distinction (everything's a class skill for everybody). Thus skills are effectively separate from the class system, and nobody is shafted.