Probably A Not Smart Idea...

[Xaotiq1]

Like many of us, I have been toying and futzing about with various house rules and alterations to 3.X. The most recent iteration involves an attack vs defense opposition a`la Star Wars SAGA where most physical and ranged attacks are made vs a Reflex Defense. I'm thinking about a parry mechanic like Green Ronin's True20 game based off strength; but that isn't what this thread is about.

SAGA made "Initiative" a skill. Let's say in a system where skills worked like Pathfinder (max rank in any skill = character level w/ +3 given to any class skills you have a rank in) with a stipulation that unless a skill is a class skill for ALL of your classes, your max ranks are equal to the sum of the levels that share that skill. Example: A character is a Fighter 2/ Cleric 1/ Crusader 5. Knowledge (Religion) is a class skill for Cleric and Crusader; but not fighter. Therefore the character can only have 6 ranks in Knowledge (Religion). In this system, would making Unarmed Combat, Armed Melee combat, and Ranged Combat skills better than a base attack bonus; or would it turn things into a puddle of sludge?

I look forward to constructive criticism and helpful comments with thanks in advance! Heiwa to niwatori no gurisu!

[Zireael]

Replacing BAB with a skill has long been on my list of ideas. Your idea of splitting it even further between unarmed/armed/ranged is even better.

Other than that, I don't have much to say, I'm afraid I don't play PF.

[Xaotiq1]

Thanks for the response, Zireael!

I promise, folks, I'm not trying to instigate an flame war or anything like that. I'm really looking for some feedback on this. Please!?

[Veklim]

The problem with making attacks a skill is the way you can buff that skill v.easily and cheaply. If you do away with the conventional approach of AC and use an attack/defence system instead then it should be fine, as long as the defences are also scaled to run along the same lines as the attack skills. If not, it'll all go tits up pretty sharpish.

[Xaotiq1]

The problem with making attacks a skill is the way you can buff that skill v.easily and cheaply. If you do away with the conventional approach of AC and use an attack/defence system instead then it should be fine, as long as the defenses are also scaled to run along the same lines as the attack skills. If not, it'll all go tits up pretty sharpish.

The plan is to use Defenses a`la Star Wars SAGA Edition. Essentially a base 10 with various modifiers. Some spells will be altered to better fit (lookin' at you, Divine Power and Divine Insight). Masterwork tools for these skills already cost an additional 300gp, an only get you a +1 to hit. Of course, you could use War of the Lance's Master base class to tweak it; but that's HIGHLY situational.

Was wondering if I should break ranged combat into "shooting" and "throwing". Thoughts?

[Veklim]

Splitting them up makes some sense, since they are very different skills. You don't want to split basic combat up too much though, since it's already somewhat underwhelming when compared to magic, also by this standard the skillmonkey classes will actually have more varied combat prowess than the hitty buggers will, so you may wish to address that somehow too.

[Xaotiq1]

Splitting them up makes some sense, since they are very different skills. You don't want to split basic combat up too much though, since it's already somewhat underwhelming when compared to magic, also by this standard the skillmonkey classes will actually have more varied combat prowess than the hitty buggers will, so you may wish to address that somehow too.

Well, in this iteration, classes that have no spell casting will fewer than 4 skill points per level. Also, those skills will not appear on every classes list. No full caster (9th level slots) has any of them. That said, magic in general is getting a bit of an overhaul as well. The game is a mish-mash of d20 stuff: True20, Star Wars SAGA, D&D 3.5, Pathfinder, and others)

[Xerlith]

I actually toyed around with a system like that, building around the Pathfinder chassis:

Depending on a class, classes gained skillpoints for Physical, Scholarly and General skills differently. Intelligence modifier on top of them.

Every school of magic was a skill of its own. Your maximum spell level was 1/2 skill ranks, Caster Level I did not think through so I was torn between it being assigned to the skill rank OR made into a skill of its own.

(Using PoW/ToB) Base Attack Bonus was broken into Ranged Attack Bonus and Melee Attack Bonus, both bought with Physical Skill ranks. They were also the Initiator Level for maneuvers and determined what level of melee/ranged maneuvers you can learn. The tables were by class, or, in case of a maneuver-less class, a generic one.


Basically, there were two parts of every "type":

Type	The Prowess	The Skills
Physical	Ranged/Melee Attack Bonus	Acrobatics, Swim, etc.
Scholarly	Magic Schools, Domains, etc.	Spellcraft, Knowledges, etc.
General	-	Diplomacy, Sleight of Hand, etc.

They were all bought using the skillpoints, but Prowesses differed by that they were all using the standard BAB/Caster Level/HD rolling rules, while Skills were, well, skills.

Then I actually realized to truly make it work, I had to make the system classless.

It didn't help that at the same time I was trying to make a working Armor As DR variant with working, active shield defense (Yes, I know how Game Of Thrones d20 and Conan d20 did it, they don't really fit with classic D&D or Eberron, which is cinematic, though) which in turn lead to completely reworking weapons AND Class Defense Bonuses and how attack rolls work...
I think I ended up at d20+BAB+ Weapon modifiers (Dex or Str + inherent) versus 10+ half BAB (+2 if full BAB) + Dexterity to hit, then rolls vs armor DR... And gave up.

So, anyway - I got tired of how clunky it was and laid it off. Still have the notes and will probably go back to it, though.
I have just one thing to tell you: That was a brand new system in the making, because when you take so much from the base d20 assumptions and try to work around them, suddenly a lot of complications sprout from your dabbling and you have to deal with them to keep the RNG intact.

Overall, I love the idea, but it needs more than one person to work through.

[Deepbluediver]

@ Xaotiq1

My first thought is that if you make combat based on skills, is there any reason for people to not max them out? In my experience, 3.5 and Pathfinder were at their best in combat scenarios, and everything so kinda so-so. The result though was that most groups spent most of the time in combat, which would make a fighting-based skill highly popular.

Regarding the separation of Melee, Ranged, and Unarmed, ....I could see this type of system differentiating them a little better but only because the original system was kinda crappy in that respect. Just for comparison, I preferred to improve the feats available to each style instead. It might end up being 6-in-one, a half-dozen-in-the-other kind of scenario though, mostly based around player/GM choice.


@ Xerlith
I've discussed something like this with people before- since it does seem a little odd in the original system that all skillpoints, even ones for physical skill, are still heavily based on one stat. What I eventually decided was that trying to make multiple types of skillpoints (or yet another reource to spend during character creation) just got really wonky and confusing, and there were better ways to fix the skill system.


This isn't to say that either of the ideas discussed in this thread can't work at all, just that at the moment I foresee almost as many potential pitfalls as under the existing formats. I'd need more details before I could evaluate if they were objecting better or bjorked in some way.