Well, this post/thread on RPG.net forums makes me remember what I dislike about the 3.x D&D, why I don't digg Pathfinder or even less 4e.
Still I like SOME ideas of 3.x even knowing that they are issues themselfs, but that's probably related to tastes or some of my interest in fiddly things (eg. when I try to simulate some things) vs. simple things (eg. when I try to run a game for many players).
Reading both of these two blog entries (again), I see people thinking along similar practical lines when it comes to running games.
- Akratic Wizardy - Why I Dislike Feats
- RPG Crank - Too Fiddly
- For the next d20 evolutionary step (another RPG.net forums post/thread)
So lets get straight to the point: Most games make actions that aren't "I attack" more difficult. However "acting smart" should not be penalized.
So what do they do, they add "ok, I can do Special-Action-X better then others" making one trick (or a few) valueable if you invest something into being able doing X pretty well.
As a side-effect this allows "snowflakes" to gain meaning. Making an interesting character becomes a game-mechanics thing, not an how-it-actually-turns-out thing.
So how-you-play-is-what-you-get becomes what-you-mechanically-play-is-what-you-get.
No question that there should be SOME mechanical-support if you (in this example a not so eloquent player) play a super great smooth-talker, but there needs to be a limit in mechanically-complexity to this whole thing.
As a flat line there should rarely be more then 2 factors affecting a single check.
To stick with the smooth-talker: Charisma and some skills should be basically enough.
What about skill-boosting-feats? - you may ask this question very well.
Well practically: What are they for?
Actually: It probably was a pretty a late discovery of D&D 3.x that 2+INT skillpoints will rarely get you anywhere beyond a certain level, so they thought "Let's stretch it a bit". However that fix is usually a really bad trade-off.
SW:SE & 4E went with a leaner base skill-progression, that helps a lot in this regard. A flat levelbased-bonus somewhat makes sense - unfortunately it also is a disconnect with reality - you don't become better at EVERYTHING just because you're generally more experienced.
So what would have been a useful Fix for 3.x ? Hand non-spellcasters 6+INT skillpoints (rogues/thiefs/bards get 12+INT) or halfing the skill list
alternatively you could have (again) automatically gained skills + skillpoints
Some again may say this is fiddly, but maybe one should consider the Modifiers of 3.X Attributes an unnecessary detail - similar to what True20 said before but maybe we should drop the modifiers instead of the original value ...
Maybe I'm going in circles during this monologue as I mentioned some of these Ideas before.
But here are some ideas
Weapon Proficiencies as Example
Well, 3.x made a real crazy thing out of weapon proficiencies as it also turned "Fighter only" Weapon Specialisation (as done in AD&D 2E) into a feat chain as well.
So 3.x has:
- BAB / Level
- Attribute Modifier
- Not-Proficient-with-X-Penalty (-4 to attack rolls)
- Weapon Proficiencies*
- Feats that interact with Proficiencies*
- Feats that allow Specialisation*
Well 4E did a simple solution by keeping something from 3.x (1/2 LVL as minimum BAB becomes the standard progression), being proficient with X, gives a +4 Bonus.
That is a simplification.
However if you - as I wrote above - want to stick to the 3.x System this is a bit odd once you go beyond lvl 8 - you have to rethink a lot as your Fighters will become worse and worse.
Ok, you can redefine Weapon Fokus/Specialisation Feats for them.
But on the other hand you get another problem: Your "I can use crossbows" wizard now becomes a sniper at lower levels and at higher levels (s)he will (maybe) freak out doing spell-novas.
That results in a "loose loose" situation for fighters. Your only hope is an ineffectively played caster ...
Specialisation - a different & simple way
Ok, so how do we get it ? Do you remember how 4E gave classes roles ?
Well let's simply say:
- Fighters (So Fighter, Paladin, Ranger) get weapon specialisation as a class feature
- Rogues (So Thiefs, Bards, Rascals) get skill specialisation as a class feature
- "Plain old Fighters" get a better variant of that thing
- Rangers might get both - weapon & skill specialisation (making them our Special OP dudes)
- Spellcasters (well anyone having more spellcasting then Rangers or Paladins) don't get access to this subsystem
Weapon related
Base Roll: 1d20 + 1/2 Level + Proficiency Bonus + Stat Modifier + Magic
All classes get automatic weapon training and "weapon training points" to a total depending on their level. That way
Proficiency Bonus Table
You must spend one point from your weapon-training-pool to increase one step on this table
- +0 to hit for untrained attempts with a weapon
- +2 to hit for Proficiency (best for spellcasters)
- +4 to hit for Focus (best for rogues)
- +4 to hit/+4 to damage for Specialisation (best for fighter types, requires lvl 4)
- +6 to hit/+6 to damage (plain-old-fighter only, requires lvl 12)
- +8 to hit/+8 to damage (plain-old-fighter only, requires lvl 16)
Well, every class gets some proficiencies to start with that are in addition to what this listing shows.
- Magicans: 1 point per 5 levels
- Rogues: 1 point per 3 levels
- Fighter-types: 1 point per 2 levels
- Fighter-fighters: 1 point per level
We get a lean subsystem, don't need feats therefor so that we can enforce some archetypes.
Skill related
Base Roll: 1d20 + Related Attribute + Skill Bonus + Magic
Basically we can clone the Weapon System for skills. And we see that we're using the Attribute instead of the Attribute Modifier. That way Skills become a bit more fine-grained, but also there is no need for something silly such as a DC 0 Skill check ...
Additionally we eliminate a Zero-to-Hero progression that is incredibly strange when it comes to 3.x Skills and might also work for 4E Skills.
Proficiency Bonus Table
You must spend one point from your weapon-training-pool to increase one step on this table.
- +0 to checks for untrained attempts, some actions cannot be performed
- +2 to checks for Proficiency (best for specialists of a different field)
- +5 to checks for Focus (rogues generally, some classes may have limited access to this)
- +10 to checks for Mastery (rogues only)
I think Class Skills as done in 3.x were some sort of simplification from the skills-per-class tables of AD&D, but also some sort of drawback.
So let's talk about the single-skill-list-approach
The PROs
- simple Cost to train a skill (1 pt or 2 pts) vs. the complicated Tables (something like 1pt or 2pts for class skills and up to 5pts for some other skills)
- one place to look up Skills
- split into Skill, Feat or automatic/choosen Class-Feature
- Skills & Feats interact
- Class-Features & Feats interact
- Some Class-Features interact with both Skill & Feats
Skill Tricks
Well some people like allowing "special stuff" or extra regulations. I think that's where we should provide two options
- Spend a Skill Proficiency Point to gain a special Trick
- Spend a Feat to gain a special Trick
Skill-Training-Points gained
Well, every class gets some skill-training-points to start with that are in addition to what this listing shows.
- Magicans: 1 general point per 4 levels plus some automatic/stereotypical skills
- Rogues: 1 point per 1 level
- Fighter-types: 1 point per 2 level
