mearls: A Simple D&D Stunt and Skill System

Mearls (

mearls) wrote,
@ 2006-11-12 14:44:00

A Simple D&D Stunt and Skill System
Ditch all skills that can be used untrained.

Everything that doesn't match a remaining skill is now an attribute check. Cut every class's skill ranks in half. When you buy a skill, you buy the right to make checks using its relevant attribute. Don't keep track of ranks. You get access to a new skill at levels 5, 10, 15, and 20.

An attribute check is d20 + the relevant ability score (not the modifier; the entire score).

DCs range from 10 to 30 for most tasks, with 5 point increments. The (DC - the ability score + 1) times 5 is the chance of success. Some checks are opposed, just as per the rules now.

Everything else is up to the DM.

My thinking behind this is that a skill system is only as interesting as the players and DM want to make it. Adding more rules to the D&D skill system, such as for stunts, doesn't make it more interesting. It just bloats the system. These rules allow a DM and players to find their own level of importance for skills.

These rules don't tell you what you can do with them. They just provide a framework for doing stuff.

(Post a new comment)

Proficiencies! Neat.

benlehman
2006-11-12 11:02 pm UTC (link)

Okay, if I'm parsing this correctly, you're saying that Rogues should start with 4 skills, Bards with 3, Rangers with 2, and Fighters with 1, and then add one skill /5 levels.

That seems mighty slim, particularly for Rogues, who barely have enough to do their core class tricks, let alone branch out into interesting things.

Better to gives each class it's starting base, I think (rogues 8, and so on.) It gives the skill classes the ability to spread out a bit and not just pick up the mandatory skills.

Skill Focus becomes a +4 on checks for a specific skill.

Couple of new feats: Attribute Focus for +2 on all skill checks in one attribute, and Extra Training for a free skill slot.

yrs--
--Ben

P.S. Another option would be to give everyone 2 skills at level 1 and 1/5 levels thereafter, but each class gives certain class-necessarily skills as part of its advancement (Rogues get Hide and Move Silently, Bards get Perform, Rangers and Druids get Wilderness Lore, etc.)

(Reply to this) (Thread)

	Re: Proficiencies! Neat. kesh 2006-11-13 04:59 am UTC (link)
	It's actually not that bad. With all the stuff usable untrained available as an ability check, this just means you have a limit on stuff you get that must be trained. 4 trained-only skills isn't too bad for a rogue. Plus, I would assume you can still factor Int bonuses/penalties into this. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	spiderhood 2006-11-12 11:44 pm UTC (link)
	Wonderful! Now we're back to AD&D second edition! (Reply to this) (Thread)

	(Anonymous) 2006-11-13 03:47 pm UTC (link)
	Heya, Not everything in Second Edition was bad. In fact, I envy the skill system in 2nd eddition. It was much quicker and user-friendly, IMHO. I did like the expanded skill lists in 3rd, but I didn't care for how user-intensive it got keeping track of all the different ins-and-outs. In my mind, this is a good improvement to 3.5 edition. Peace, -Troy (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	spiderhood 2006-11-13 04:09 pm UTC (link)
	Who said it was bad? I know a whole bunch of people who are still playing AD&D2 and are happy with it. And I still use second edition books as a source of nice ideas myself, on a regular basis. It is just a little weird to bring back something from an older version of a system and say: hey, look, this is a new improvement to 3.5! (Reply to this) (Parent)

buzzmo
2006-11-13 12:18 am UTC (link)

So, fiat? :)

FWIW, I think that you already made D&D skills way, way more interesting in Iron Heroes. Skill Groups + stunts are a better way to go, IMO. I think the key is not go go uber-simple; D&D's skills are already pretty basic in application. The key is to give players interesting things to do with their skills, and provide useful guidelines for adjudicating stunts and corner-cases.

That, and combine Hide + Move Silent into Sneak, and Spot and Listen into Notice. :) And fix Diplomacy, and...

I love ya Mike, but the above smacks too much of Castles & Crusades, and I think C&C is pretty weak.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

wik666
2006-11-13 05:02 pm UTC (link)

You know, I'm not a huge fan of Iron Heroes' skill system. We didn't mind the skill groups (although I don't like how big some of them are, in terms of they contain a bunch of useful skills rolled into one package), although the stunt system was never used out of fear of the rules.

I do like the idea of combining skills - that's something we do in a D20 modern Post-Apoc game I run. We have Sneak (as you mention), Perception (Spot, Listen, Search), Machinery (Craft - Mechanical + Repair things mechanical), Electrical (Craft- Electrical + Repair Electrical), etc... I think it's a good system, and I really like how my "scavenger" game's skill system is set up.

All in all, I like this system o' Mike's. But then, while i haven't taken a look at it, I'm partial to what C&C is trying to accomplish, so maybe I'd be happier with the idea of "Simpler skills".

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

buzzmo
2006-11-13 05:57 pm UTC (link)

It's interesting that, since Mearls' post, I've heard comments from people (here and on ENWorld) about not liking the IH skills chapter. This is weird to me, as I found it teh aw3som3, and wanted to port it to my D&D game immediately. :)

Stunts aren't very difficult. Their only failing IMO is that the guidelines for adjudicating them could have been clearer. Another reason I'm sad there probably won't ever be a second edition of IH.

Anyway, C&C is anathema to me, ergo my obvious hesitation at this skill idea. D&D could use some simplification overall, but I'd hate to see it made "lite."

(Reply to this) (Parent)

(Reply from suspended user)

	the_gneech 2006-11-13 01:05 am UTC (link)
	No thank you! I don't get to play with skills enough as it is! How do you, with this proposed system, make somebody who's a decent climber other by cranking their STR? What about the whole reasoning about who should get Spot and Listen and who shouldn't and why? I don't want to go back to cookie-cutter characters. -The Gneech (Reply to this)

mysticalforest
2006-11-13 01:59 am UTC (link)

>Adding more rules to the D&D skill system, such as for stunts, doesn't make it more interesting. It just bloats the system.

Dunno what stunts are but adding more rules to D&D is the very last thing it needs. It's as bloated as a Microsoft product as it is.

And I agree with previous comments: This simple system doesn't improve. Also, I've never liked attributes taking the place of skills because then all you have to do is raise one attribute and pow you're a world class expert in everything that applies to the attribute.

Skill + attribute is always better. I like how Serenity allows you to float which attribute you couple with the skill.

(Reply to this)

	boymonster 2006-11-13 04:46 am UTC (link)
	Isn't this kind of the direction Star Wars: Saga Edition is going? (Reply to this) (Thread)

	hedgehog39 2006-11-13 01:53 pm UTC (link)
	I was going to ask this very question. The answer won't make much difference, as I'm going to be getting Saga edition come hell or high water, but it'd be nice to know. (Reply to this) (Parent)

buzzmo
2006-11-13 04:12 pm UTC (link)

Another quick comment...

"Adding more rules to the D&D skill system, such as for stunts, doesn't make it more interesting. It just bloats the system. These rules allow a DM and players to find their own level of importance for skills."

I don't think stunts add bloat. I think they give a framework allowing for players and DM to think outside the box w/r/t skills. I don't think you need to dive into the deep end of DM fiat ("Roll an attribute check, and the DM makes something up") in order to accomplish what you're trying to.

(Reply to this)

buzzmo
2006-11-13 04:20 pm UTC (link)

Still thinking...

Here's some other ways to add flexibility without oversimplifying.

1. Make synergy bonuses situation-specific and non-fixed. This is who SWd20 works. If it makes sense to you and the DM that in a given situation a secondary skill would be helpful, you get +2 to your main skill if you have at least 5 ranks in the secondary. I loved this rule from SWd20, and was bummed 3.5 went with a fixed list.

2. Allow skills to be used with any attribute bonus. I.e., you don't choose which attribute adds to the skill until you know what the specific situation is. I believe that Spycraft 2.0 does this.

(Reply to this)

wik666
2006-11-13 04:54 pm UTC (link)

"Adding more rules to the D&D skill system, such as for stunts, doesn't make it more interesting."

Sort of goes against Iron Heroes, a bit. Actually, I agree with the statement. We'd been doing something similar to Iron Heroes' stunt system for years, only without the rules. When I read the stunt rules to Iron Heroes I said "Finally!"... then we started playing, and no one wanted to do stunts, because they were unsure of the rules. My group is weird.

I like this set-up. Fits a simpler form of D&D that I think is sorely needed - most days, I'm not a huge fan of the rules glut that is D&D.

"These rules don't tell you what you can do with them. They just provide a framework for doing stuff."

My BIGGEST BEEF EVER. I hate playing and suddenly having a player saying "I Intimidate the Ogres. They have to do X, against my skill check, and the odds aregood that they'll be intimidated. What? No, it doesn't really matter that they're larger than me, and not smart enough to realize they should be scared. You can look it up in the skill's description - I can do this!" We've been free-forming skills since 3e came out, pretty much (Save that one player, and it annoys the hell out of me).

Nice stuff you got here. I know we'll never see it on the wotc site, but I wish we could.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

	buzzmo 2006-11-13 05:59 pm UTC (link)
	You hate it when players are fully informed about the rules that apply to a situation and can make use of their system expertise? (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(Anonymous)
2006-11-14 09:18 pm UTC (link)

No, not really. I do hate it when the players can point at the rules and say "this is how it will happen" when common sense says it would happen another way. I just don't understand why I need a half page of rules for the intimidate skill - what happened to the ol' days, when I got maybe a paragraph?

Very well-defined skills, to me, are one of the ways that the game has been put into the player's hands and not the GM's. As a GM in 2e, I'd say something along the lines of "look, there's no way you could intimidate ogres" (to use an example). In 3.5, the player can point at the rules and clearly make his case... there's just something that bothers me about legalistic interpretations of the rules as opposed to looking for the intentions of the rules that is present in other game systems.

That being said, I do like 3.5 - I just don't like having my player surprise me with a "legal" use of the skills that absolutely boggles my mind.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	wik666 2006-11-14 09:18 pm UTC (link)
	whoops, that was me. My bad. (Reply to this) (Parent)

justin_alexande
2006-11-13 07:27 pm UTC (link)

There are basically different types of utility to be gained from a skill system:

At one extreme, you give a unified mechanic for setting difficulty levels and skill checks. This system is extremely simple to use because all a GM has to do is decide how difficult he wants a task to be (or thinks a task should be). It gives complete flexibility, but no support. For some people this is great: The GM is capable of making consistent, on-the-fly decisions that are satisfying for his players and the rules are extremely easy to learn and remember.

By adding more complexity to the system, you can offer more support to the GM in setting difficulty levels. This is what the core rulebooks do: For any given skill, there are specific guidelines for how difficult various tasks are. For some people this is great because it hard codes a consistent into the system: Players are able to anticipate how hard a task is going to be, and the difficulty of a task will remain consistent from one session to the next and even from one group to the next.

(What I like about this approach in the core rulebooks is that you ALSO have a unified mechanic for determining DCs: It's the best of both worlds. If you want or need the support of the specific guidelines, they're there for you. If you don't

By adding complexity to the system, you can also make using skills either more interesting or more precise. Examples of this include the Craft skill (which already includes a mini-mechanical system for more precisely handling the crafting of items), but could also include stunt systems designed to let you use skills in more complicated and inter-related ways.

Thus, when Mearls says: "Adding more rules to the D&D skill system [...] doesn't make it more interesting. It just bloats the system." I don't follow the logic. Certainly adding more rules CAN be nothing more than bloat, but they don't NEED to be nothing more than bloat.

For example, let's take a non-RPG example in an attempt to weed out people's biases. We could talk about Monopoly and Candyland and Chutes & Ladders, for example: Sure, you can strip out all the rules about collecting rents and buying properties from Monopoly. Similarly, you can strip out all the rules about Rainbow Trails and Lollipop Woods from Candyland. But, in either case, you've simply stripped the game down to a mechanic of: "Use randomizer. Move piece around board."

Similarly, you could remove all the rules for combining cards into more powerful hands in Poker, and thus boil the game down to "high card wins".

Now, there are lots of people who don't play RPGs in order to experience a game which is MECHANICALLY interesting. They don't want interesting gameplay from the system, they just want a mechanical structure on which to hang their storytelling and roleplaying. That's why lots of people want nothing more than a simple, unified mechanic with no bells or whistles: Roll a die, add a modifier, compare to a DC.

For people who want a mechanically interesting game, however, that simplicity is boring. You need more rules in order to make the mechanics interesting -- in order to make Monopoly a different game from Chutes & Ladders.

To be continued...

(Reply to this) (Thread)

justin_alexande
2006-11-13 07:28 pm UTC (link)

Now, certainly, that doesn't mean that "more rules = more fun". For example, Monopoly probably wouldn't benefit from a system in which you had to re-calculate variable interest rates for loans and mortgages, with those variable interest rates also impacting the rental rates for various properties.

But if you've got a stunt system in D&D which does nothing except "bloat the system", then what you've got is a very poorly designed stunt system. Which is why it's fairly shocking to hear Mearls, the designer of very good stunt systems (IMO), repudiating them as bloated design.

Also, Mearls' math is wrong. He claims that: "The (DC - the ability score + 1) times 5 is the chance of success." It's not. Take a DC 10 task attempted by someone with an ability score of 10, for example. Mearls claims that the chance of success is 5% (10 - 10 + 1 = 1 x 5 = 5%). It's not, it's actually 100%.

(The DC is 10. Your check is d20 + 10. Even with a roll of 1, your result is 11 and you succeed at the check.)

Mearls actually meant that the chance is (DC + the ability score + 1) times 5 is the chance of success.

Adding further perplexity is the fact that Mearls talks about this in connection to a house rule which is primarily about how skills are selected at character creation/advancement, rather than about how DCs are calculated.

Which leads to the other problem with Mearls' system: There's no mechanic for advancing skills. Since the DM is apparently supposed to just set a difficulty based on the percentage chance of success he wants a character to have, this isn't a big deal... except when it comes to opposed checks.

So, boiling it down, I feel here are two points trying to be made here:

1. It would be nice if you didn't have to spend skill points. Particularly from the POV of GM prep, having to spend all those points is time-consuming.

2. If you just want a barebones mechanic for determining success or failure, it would be nice not to have all these other rules and guidelines "bloating" the system for you.

Both strong points, but Mearls' suggested solution is over-wrought and ill-thought, IMO. Here's an easier solution:

1. Characters have a skill bonus equal to "class skill max ranks". Thus, a 3rd level character has a skill bonus of +6.

2. Characters select a number of skills equal to their class' skill points per level + their Intelligence modifier (minimum 1).

3. Skill checks are d20 + ability modifier + skill bonus.

4. Ignore all of the suggested DCs in the Skills chapter. For an average person the task is:

DC 0: Automatic
DC 5: Simplistic
DC 10: Easy
DC 15: Average
DC 20: Difficult
DC 25: Very Difficult
DC 30: Almost Impossible
DC 40: Impossible

There you go. For prepping characters, all you've got to worry about is selecting which skills they have. For resolving an action, the DM just picks the DC he feels is appropriate. Plus, the system is completely compatible with the existing rules.

(Note: You are expliciting ignoring the class/cross-class distinction between skills. You are also ignoring synergy bonuses.)

http://www.thealexandrian.net

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

buzzmo
2006-11-13 07:45 pm UTC (link)

"1. It would be nice if you didn't have to spend skill points. Particularly from the POV of GM prep, having to spend all those points is time-consuming."

As a GM, this is time-consuming. As a player, however, this is a good chunk of the fun of chargen.

The simple fix is to (again) take a page from Spycraft: DON'T HANDLE NPCs THE SAME WAY YOU DO PCs. Give DMs a quick system to generate level-appropriate NPCs. Both Spycraft's system and Mearls' Villain classes from IH are excellent steps in this direction. Monte even outlined a system for this in a recent Dungeoncraft article.

*This* is the kind of stuff D&D needs. It does not need to be turned into C&C.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	david_chunn 2006-11-16 03:55 am UTC (link)
	You're heading in my direction, Mearls. We use the Rules Cyclopedia without the general skills option. Everything is done with an ability check. I do employ a house rule that gives a bonus to the ability checks based on level. We even use ability checks for finding traps and what-not. (Reply to this)

Username:		Create an Account Forgot your login? Login w/ OpenID
Password:
	Remember Me
	English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…

About

Help

Get Involved

Legal

Store

LJ Labs