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
04-12-07, 08:04 PM Hi all,

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

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. Note: This was created with d20 Modern in mind, so using these rules for D&D would require changing some of these combat skills to better match the weapons commonly used in a fantasy game.

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
Arcade
04-13-07, 08:55 AM Well, you should consider all the bonuses to skills- such as skill focus, ability bonus, synergy, and items. These bonuses can end up being huge now. Take skill focus and a +4 ability bonus. If you only have 1 rank in the skill, it's like having an extra 35 skill points. If you have 10 ranks in the skill, it's like having an extra 98 skill points. That's a huge difference. However, if you want to make abilities more substantial than skill ranks, that's fine. If you want to skew it the other way, consider adding the bonuses on like skill points. The person with 1 rank and and extra +7 in bonus would really only be at 3 ranks (8 skill points). And at 10 ranks, that extra +7 wouldn't even give you an extra +1 bonus (though it would make you only 4 skill points away from getting that bonus).

I'll also assume that things like synergy bonus and other special abilities that occur at 5 ranks now occur at 2 ranks to keep the same balance?

The combined skill/BAB system has come up before. My opinion is that it generally unbalances things. Rogues give up some skills to get a fighter's BAB and sneak attack. Fighters get a bunch of skills by not specializing in weapons they didn't plan on using anyway. Wizards never planned on using their BAB and they ignore it to get a huge increase in skill points.

The exponential skill increase is interesting, but I don't see the advantage it has over the normal system given the extra complexity. I've considered using a similar system, but only when used with bell-curve rolls where the distribution matches the exponential progression more closely.
SlinkyTWF
04-16-07, 03:14 PM My rules set is class-devoid and completely skill-based. As such, I had to devise a mechanism to make specialization mandatory and place restrictions on the exponentiation of mini-maxer power. I set a simple system whereby your next skill rank costs a number of skill points equal to the new rank. i.e., rank 1 is 1 point, rank 2 is +2 (running total of 3), rank 3 is +3 (running total of 6), etc.

This system will not work in the standard class-system where some classes get 1 or two points per level, of course, but it's a relatively painless and self-balancing way to moderate skills within the d20 framework, especially if you do as I did and eschew "classes."

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
hawaiianbrian 04-12-07, 08:04 PM	Hi all, I put this on the d20 board, but I thought I'd cross-post it here because this seems like a pretty good forum. 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. Note: This was created with d20 Modern in mind, so using these rules for D&D would require changing some of these combat skills to better match the weapons commonly used in a fantasy game. 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
Arcade 04-13-07, 08:55 AM	Well, you should consider all the bonuses to skills- such as skill focus, ability bonus, synergy, and items. These bonuses can end up being huge now. Take skill focus and a +4 ability bonus. If you only have 1 rank in the skill, it's like having an extra 35 skill points. If you have 10 ranks in the skill, it's like having an extra 98 skill points. That's a huge difference. However, if you want to make abilities more substantial than skill ranks, that's fine. If you want to skew it the other way, consider adding the bonuses on like skill points. The person with 1 rank and and extra +7 in bonus would really only be at 3 ranks (8 skill points). And at 10 ranks, that extra +7 wouldn't even give you an extra +1 bonus (though it would make you only 4 skill points away from getting that bonus). I'll also assume that things like synergy bonus and other special abilities that occur at 5 ranks now occur at 2 ranks to keep the same balance? The combined skill/BAB system has come up before. My opinion is that it generally unbalances things. Rogues give up some skills to get a fighter's BAB and sneak attack. Fighters get a bunch of skills by not specializing in weapons they didn't plan on using anyway. Wizards never planned on using their BAB and they ignore it to get a huge increase in skill points. The exponential skill increase is interesting, but I don't see the advantage it has over the normal system given the extra complexity. I've considered using a similar system, but only when used with bell-curve rolls where the distribution matches the exponential progression more closely.
SlinkyTWF 04-16-07, 03:14 PM	My rules set is class-devoid and completely skill-based. As such, I had to devise a mechanism to make specialization mandatory and place restrictions on the exponentiation of mini-maxer power. I set a simple system whereby your next skill rank costs a number of skill points equal to the new rank. i.e., rank 1 is 1 point, rank 2 is +2 (running total of 3), rank 3 is +3 (running total of 6), etc. This system will not work in the standard class-system where some classes get 1 or two points per level, of course, but it's a relatively painless and self-balancing way to moderate skills within the d20 framework, especially if you do as I did and eschew "classes."