Skill Points on a Curve? (Cross-Post) [Archive] - Wizards Community

Skill Points on a Curve? (Cross-Post) [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
hawaiianbrian
04-02-07, 12:53 AM Hi all,

I put this on the d20 Modern board, but I thought I'd cross-post it here because this seems like a pretty good forum for such a question.

I start a d20 Modern game pretty soon and I want to try out some experimental rules. Specifically, I'm not using Attacks of Opportunity, because I feel like they slow the game down and turn combat into a tactical miniatures game. Maybe that was intentional by WOTC to sell more miniatures, I'm not sure. But either way, I want to play without them.

But more importantly, I'm getting rid of BAB and creating new skills that cover weapon areas. They are: Simple, Archaic, Exotic (by specific weapon), Unarmed, Ranged (bows, etc.), Thrown, Handguns, Longarms, and Heavy. [I'm toying with reducing this number to six skills, not nine, but still am not sure.] Rolling to hit will require using one's skill points in the corresponding skill, added to a d20 roll, like usual.

This means the characters need more skill points. "Fighter-types," who usually get less, need a lot more to cover their extensive combat knowledge, wheras "techie-types" who already get tons of skill points don't need much to cover their limited exposure to weapons. So I've decided to give every class a flat rate. At each level, you get 10 points (plus your INT modifier) to spend on skill ranks. Unspent points are saved and can be spent between adventures where you feel like, or hoarded until the next time you level. I'm also thinking about making it so Action Points and unspent skill points are one and the same (but this might require giving them a few more skill points per level, like 15).

Here's the catch: ranks are bought on a "curve" system, where it costs as many points to buy a rank as the rank *number.* Thus, going from 5 to 6 ranks in a skill will require 6 points. Going from 8 to 9 ranks will require 9, etc. Buying the first rank in a skill costs 3, just to simulate the initial learning investment (though that "buy-in" rate is ignored at first level).

One other thing: if you try to use a skill you have no ranks in, you take a -4 penalty to the roll. Skills that cannot be used unskilled still can't be used.

Crunching some numbers, I found that a character with 10 Int will have 200 points to spend over the lifetime of his character, whereas a character with an 18 Int will have 280. If the first character wishes to sink *every point* she ever earns into a single skill will end, at 20th level, with 18 ranks total. The second, smarter, character will end up with 23 ranks.

To see how someone might spend their points, I took those two characters (average and smart) and bought them skill ranks through 20th level, trying to use as many skill ranks as possible each level, and keeping them to 10 skills apiece. Here's what I ended up with:

Average INT (ranks at 1st level): 4, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2.
High INT (ranks at 1st level): 5, 4, 3, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2.

Average INT (ranks at 10th level): 9, 6, 6, 4, 4, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2.
High INT (ranks at 10th level): 10, 8, 6, 6, 4, 3, 3, 2, 2, 2.

Average INT (ranks at 20th level): 11, 9, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 2, 2.
High INT (ranks at 20th level): 12, 10, 8, 7, 6, 5, 5, 4, 4, 3.

As you can see, the 20th-level character's skills match what you might find on a mid-level character under the regular d20 system. To compensate, I've lowered DCs:

Difficulty levels
Basic: 2
Simple: 7
Easy: 10
Average: 12
Hard: 15
Difficult: 17
Very Tough: 20
Expert: 23
Almost Impossible: 25
Impossible!: 30

Ideally, the game would be played with a smaller die, perhaps d10 instead of d20, to match the lowered skill ranks, but I'm still planning to use a d20. So, my question is probably obvious by now: Some of you guys have more statistics and number-crunching experience. Can anyone see a problem with this method that might arise down the road? See any obvious flaws (or unexpected boons?) to using this method?

-Brian
BrotherKane
04-13-07, 08:19 AM Here's the catch: ranks are bought on a "curve" system, where it costs as many points to buy a rank as the rank *number.* Thus, going from 5 to 6 ranks in a skill will require 6 points. Going from 8 to 9 ranks will require 9, etc. Buying the first rank in a skill costs 3, just to simulate the initial learning investment (though that "buy-in" rate is ignored at first level).

This is an awesome idea. I was thinking of doing this myself, because it gives interesting possibilities between specialisation vs generalisation of skills. However I was also going to apply a skill point advancement system on a curve as well.

It's work like this: Skill points upon leveling up = character level + int modifier + class modifier + any unused skill points. The nature of the progression is such that it isn't possible for lower level characters to buy really high skill ranks because they don't earn enough points. So you can keep class preferred and cross-class abilities, but you don't have to muck around with calculating the maximum skill ranks.

One other thing: if you try to use a skill you have no ranks in, you take a -4 penalty to the roll. Skills that cannot be used unskilled still can't be used.

I wouldn't use this myself, but perhaps you could instead make it that if the character has no ranks in it, then they don't get to add their ability modifier to the roll? (Since they have no training, it could be argued that they don't have enough knowledge to know how to use their natural talent in it)
CadeShadow
04-16-07, 01:50 PM Did you also get rid of the rule that said that the highest rank you could have in a skill is Character level+3?
hawaiianbrian
04-17-07, 10:42 AM Yes, I got rid of that.

This method would provide most 1st level characters with potentially a skill up to 5 ranks or so at first level, but as they advance their level catches up with and surpasses this. 20th level characters would rarely have more than 13 skill ranks. So the difference between 1st and 20th gets squeezed down so that it becomes possible for high-level characters to decently challenged by low-level ones. I like this, especially in conjunction with combat/defense as skills instead of BAB. It means that characters do get better with time, but not to the point that they are untouchable war gods. They're still human. But they still tower above low-level characters by virtue of their talents, feats, saves, etc.

My Modern game has been pushed back another three weeks, so I haven't had a chance to playtest yet. I'll be sure to do so when this thing finally starts up.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
hawaiianbrian 04-02-07, 12:53 AM	Hi all, I put this on the d20 Modern board, but I thought I'd cross-post it here because this seems like a pretty good forum for such a question. I start a d20 Modern game pretty soon and I want to try out some experimental rules. Specifically, I'm not using Attacks of Opportunity, because I feel like they slow the game down and turn combat into a tactical miniatures game. Maybe that was intentional by WOTC to sell more miniatures, I'm not sure. But either way, I want to play without them. But more importantly, I'm getting rid of BAB and creating new skills that cover weapon areas. They are: Simple, Archaic, Exotic (by specific weapon), Unarmed, Ranged (bows, etc.), Thrown, Handguns, Longarms, and Heavy. [I'm toying with reducing this number to six skills, not nine, but still am not sure.] Rolling to hit will require using one's skill points in the corresponding skill, added to a d20 roll, like usual. This means the characters need more skill points. "Fighter-types," who usually get less, need a lot more to cover their extensive combat knowledge, wheras "techie-types" who already get tons of skill points don't need much to cover their limited exposure to weapons. So I've decided to give every class a flat rate. At each level, you get 10 points (plus your INT modifier) to spend on skill ranks. Unspent points are saved and can be spent between adventures where you feel like, or hoarded until the next time you level. I'm also thinking about making it so Action Points and unspent skill points are one and the same (but this might require giving them a few more skill points per level, like 15). Here's the catch: ranks are bought on a "curve" system, where it costs as many points to buy a rank as the rank number. Thus, going from 5 to 6 ranks in a skill will require 6 points. Going from 8 to 9 ranks will require 9, etc. Buying the first rank in a skill costs 3, just to simulate the initial learning investment (though that "buy-in" rate is ignored at first level). One other thing: if you try to use a skill you have no ranks in, you take a -4 penalty to the roll. Skills that cannot be used unskilled still can't be used. Crunching some numbers, I found that a character with 10 Int will have 200 points to spend over the lifetime of his character, whereas a character with an 18 Int will have 280. If the first character wishes to sink every point she ever earns into a single skill will end, at 20th level, with 18 ranks total. The second, smarter, character will end up with 23 ranks. To see how someone might spend their points, I took those two characters (average and smart) and bought them skill ranks through 20th level, trying to use as many skill ranks as possible each level, and keeping them to 10 skills apiece. Here's what I ended up with: Average INT (ranks at 1st level): 4, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2. High INT (ranks at 1st level): 5, 4, 3, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2. Average INT (ranks at 10th level): 9, 6, 6, 4, 4, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2. High INT (ranks at 10th level): 10, 8, 6, 6, 4, 3, 3, 2, 2, 2. Average INT (ranks at 20th level): 11, 9, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 2, 2. High INT (ranks at 20th level): 12, 10, 8, 7, 6, 5, 5, 4, 4, 3. As you can see, the 20th-level character's skills match what you might find on a mid-level character under the regular d20 system. To compensate, I've lowered DCs: Difficulty levels Basic: 2 Simple: 7 Easy: 10 Average: 12 Hard: 15 Difficult: 17 Very Tough: 20 Expert: 23 Almost Impossible: 25 Impossible!: 30 Ideally, the game would be played with a smaller die, perhaps d10 instead of d20, to match the lowered skill ranks, but I'm still planning to use a d20. So, my question is probably obvious by now: Some of you guys have more statistics and number-crunching experience. Can anyone see a problem with this method that might arise down the road? See any obvious flaws (or unexpected boons?) to using this method? -Brian
BrotherKane 04-13-07, 08:19 AM	Here's the catch: ranks are bought on a "curve" system, where it costs as many points to buy a rank as the rank number. Thus, going from 5 to 6 ranks in a skill will require 6 points. Going from 8 to 9 ranks will require 9, etc. Buying the first rank in a skill costs 3, just to simulate the initial learning investment (though that "buy-in" rate is ignored at first level). This is an awesome idea. I was thinking of doing this myself, because it gives interesting possibilities between specialisation vs generalisation of skills. However I was also going to apply a skill point advancement system on a curve as well. It's work like this: Skill points upon leveling up = character level + int modifier + class modifier + any unused skill points. The nature of the progression is such that it isn't possible for lower level characters to buy really high skill ranks because they don't earn enough points. So you can keep class preferred and cross-class abilities, but you don't have to muck around with calculating the maximum skill ranks. One other thing: if you try to use a skill you have no ranks in, you take a -4 penalty to the roll. Skills that cannot be used unskilled still can't be used. I wouldn't use this myself, but perhaps you could instead make it that if the character has no ranks in it, then they don't get to add their ability modifier to the roll? (Since they have no training, it could be argued that they don't have enough knowledge to know how to use their natural talent in it)
CadeShadow 04-16-07, 01:50 PM	Did you also get rid of the rule that said that the highest rank you could have in a skill is Character level+3?
hawaiianbrian 04-17-07, 10:42 AM	Yes, I got rid of that. This method would provide most 1st level characters with potentially a skill up to 5 ranks or so at first level, but as they advance their level catches up with and surpasses this. 20th level characters would rarely have more than 13 skill ranks. So the difference between 1st and 20th gets squeezed down so that it becomes possible for high-level characters to decently challenged by low-level ones. I like this, especially in conjunction with combat/defense as skills instead of BAB. It means that characters do get better with time, but not to the point that they are untouchable war gods. They're still human. But they still tower above low-level characters by virtue of their talents, feats, saves, etc. My Modern game has been pushed back another three weeks, so I haven't had a chance to playtest yet. I'll be sure to do so when this thing finally starts up.