I, like many d20 players, have always thought that it would be perfectly reasonable to replace the entire concept of a base attack bonus with weapon skills. Weapon skills would be very easy to implement, and ensure that high level characters without combat training aren't automatically better combatants than lower-level characters with combat training.
Theoretically, saving throws could also be replaced with skills. However, does it make sense to have a high-level character who isn't at least a little better than lower-level characters at surviving attacks that allow saving throws? I can see reasonable arguments for either answer, so I'm curious to know other CBGers' thoughts on the matter.
Quote from: Epic MeepoI, like many d20 players, have always thought that it would be perfectly reasonable to replace the entire concept of a base attack bonus with weapon skills. Weapon skills would be very easy to implement, and ensure that high level characters without combat training aren't automatically better combatants than lower-level characters with combat training.
Theoretically, saving throws could also be replaced with skills. However, does it make sense to have a high-level character who isn't at least a little better than lower-level characters at surviving attacks that allow saving throws? I can see reasonable arguments for either answer, so I'm curious to know other CBGers' thoughts on the matter.
Natural save bonuses should probably stay. After all, most characters obtain higher levels by doing what they we're 'built' to do. Naturally, that should improve your reflexes, immune system, and willpower.
I would think the way to make this work would be that every one progresses at the poor level (1/2 bab and 3 poor saves), then their skill points can be used to improve specific save and their attack bonus with either types of weapons (slashing/piercing/bludgeoning), style of fighting (light one handed/two-weapon/ranged/two-handed), specific weapons, or however you decide to break it up.
I also always though that certain feats little weapon focus, specialization and imp crit (among others) could be tied in directly to how many skill ranks you tied into a partivular weapon or style. These feats could actually take the form of skill tricks from Complete Scoundrel (i really like that system).
I've played in a few systems that replace Base Attack Bonuses with Weapon Skills, namely BESM and my friend's custom system. I found them complicated, overly restrictive, and down right annoying.
In my friend's system, and if I recall correctly, in Tri-Stat BESM, skills and weapon skills were grouped together, meaning that I'd have to trade off a skill for a weapon skill, or vice versa. In the end, I had a highly skilled character who was only proficient in one single kind of weapon.
I have not found it the best way to go.
Thread Ev's idea I kind of like. It would allow for a lot of customization of characters. I wouldn't group by damage type though. It would either be weapon grouns (ala UA), or fighting styles (I previously planned to use these, and did work developing groups, but never implimented them - the basic idea though, would be whatever weapons are learned in a real world fighting style would fit, even if they are radically different).
What if they got grouped by both weapon groups and weapon styles. So there are two different things here.
People start off with 1/2 BAB ala wizard.
There are weapon groups like axes/swords/mace/bow/throwing/etc which you can use skill points to advance. Then, based on your ranks in these skills, you could gain skill tricks like improved crit, weapon spec, or those other cool fighter things from PHBII. Using a kind of weapon you have maxed out ranks for would grant you extra BAB equivalent to and extra 1/4 BAB (so if you use a weapon group you are good with, then you have 3/4 BAB like a monk rogue or cleric)
Then there are weapon styles such as TWF, big weapons (two handed things like greatwords and halberds), small weapons (kinda duelist style), sniping, multishotting, weapon and shield, and don't know what else. These can also grant you up to another 1/4 BAB on top of the other things - so to have a full 1/1 BAB you have to use a type of weapon you know, and in a style you know. These styles all also have assorted skill tricks you can buy (basically the appropriate feats).
ex. (not gonna include tricks yet cause they need to be worked out and this is all prelim ideas that i'm throwing out there)
A warrior who has maxe out the Sword group and the TWF style will have full BAB when fighting with 2 swords, 3/4 when fighting with a sword and shield (or a two handed sword, or a rapier and nothig else), 3/4 when fighting with 2 maces or 2 axes, or some other combination, and will have 1/2 BAB when using an unfamiliar style and typ (mace nd shield for example).
Now this warrior would probably have at least some ranks in mace/axe or in sword and shield, and as such would have a bit better than just 1/2, but this is just an example.
Thius is starting to get kinda complicated, but i am going to mull this over some more. I'm liking these ideas more and more, and may try to develope a system using some of the stuff i just said.
The inevitable question I always find myself with when going down this road is, if more realistic progress and combat is desired, why not just use a different system...There was a time when I thought house ruling D&D more likely to produce something more players would like. But if they want D&D, they'll want D&D. And if they're open to new things, they'll try a new system. Sometimes.
I've attempted to do weapon skills as well. The problem with them is that it encourages specailization and does not reward diversification. Most characters will just have one weapon skill and that's it; even with cross-class implimentation, you'll still have almost every character maximizing a weapon skill.
Similarly, there is a disparity between the power of skill points and attack bonuses. Look at Skill Focus, which grants +3 to a skill, vs. Weapon Focus, which grants +1 to attacks with a single weapon (or weapon group).
If you look at Mutants and Masterminds or True20, 1 character point gets you 1 melee attack bonus or 1 ranged attack bonus, or 1 character point gets you 4 skill points. Obviously, they think there is a difference.
I agree with Xev that you'll always get heavy specialization that way. Of course, whether or not that is a problem is debatable. It would make sense most warriors would train especially with just a few weapons. That advantage of fighting styles over weapon groups is that, besides adding a realistic feel, it will mean that learning a style means some diversity.
A PS I meant to put earlier, but the site went down before I left for work.
Some serious combatants and recreationists have told me that weapon proficiency is an odd issue, and that 3rd Edition D&D has handled it pretty well really. When you learn how to fight (read: martial weapon proficiency), you tend to be reasonably good with all weapons you know how to use. As you get more skilled, your skill with other weapons increases to. But, you can learn to especially utilize certain types of weapons (read: weapon focus chain).
I'm afraid that a d20 system with combat skills instead of the BAB wouldn't be as fun. Here's why:
It would force PCs to pick one or two weapons and use them exclusively. It leaves no room for them to change their minds (for example, if they find a powerful weapon as treasure, or if they want to disguise themselves as enemies who use different weapons.) Imposed weapon exclusivity doesn't make PCs much less powerful, but it can be frustrating as hell for players. This is already a concern, especially for fighters, but the system you suggest would make it even more frustrating.
It dissolves the difference between fighting-oriented classes and other classes. Assuming that simple weapons would still be class skills for classes like the rogue and cleric, their attack bonuses would become closer to those of fighters and barbarians. On a related note, classes that get a lot of skill points would become much more beastly in combat, while fighters would have no points left to spend on non-weapon skills.
It would lead to higher total attack bonuses all around (especially if they could still put four skill points into weapon skills at first level and if they could take Skill Focus in weapon skills.) Something would need to be done to increase everything's AC to preserve balance.
It doesn't really lead to more nuanced character customization. The fighters, rogues, and some of the divine spellcasters will max out their ranks in weapon skills as a matter of course, and everyone else won't bother buying any ranks at all. That doesn't sound like much fun.
Also, a few questions: what would you do about touch spells and other spells that require attack rolls? Would these get their own skills? What would Tenser's Transformation do? How would you handle natural weapons, particularly the natural weapons of mindless creatures who therefore have no skills?
Quote from: Bill VolkIt would force PCs to pick one or two weapons and use them exclusively. It leaves no room for them to change their minds (for example, if they find a powerful weapon as treasure, or if they want to disguise themselves as enemies who use different weapons.)
On a related note, classes that get a lot of skill points would become much more beastly in combat, while fighters would have no points left to spend on non-weapon skills.[/quote][A weapon skill system] doesn't really lead to more nuanced character customization.[/quote]Also, a few questions: what would you do about touch spells and other spells that require attack rolls? Would these get their own skills?[/quote]What would Tenser's Transformation do?[/quote]How would you handle natural weapons, particularly the natural weapons of mindless creatures who therefore have no skills?[/quote]Since a weapon skill system converts weapon proficiencies into skill points, mindless creatures would actually have a few skill points. However, being mindless, they could only spend these points on weapon skills. (The existing rules already make similar exceptions; skeletons, as mindless creatures, are not supposed to have feats, yet they are allowed to have feats specifically related to weapon attacks. Weapon skills for mindless creatures would parallel this example.)
For the most part, a weapon skill system doesn't cause much, if anything, to differ from the BAB system. Ideally, a weapon skill system just reproduces most the same results as the existing system so long as players are optimizing their characters for combat. The only real change is that non-combat characters (such as an expert mathematician) can trade "BAB" for additional non-combat skills by giving up weapon skills that most players consider to be "must-haves."
I see. Might it be easier if you phrased it in the opposite way? If you simply said "A character can gain x skill points instead of a point of BAB whenever she levels up," that would yield the same result and wouldn't result in extra bookkeeping for all the combat-optimized characters whom the rule wouldn't affect much anyway.
Ooh, and I thought of another question! When a druid uses wild shape or when someone polymorphs himself, would they automatically gain max ranks in their new forms' natural weapons? Alternatively, would they have to buy ranks in "claw," "bite," et cetera?
If you're going to have 4 skill points, for instance, increase your BAB by 1, that amounts to the same thing as a feat, as I adressed earlier. If you want to treat feat chains as skill chains, that's something entirely different.
Quote from: XeviatIf you're going to have 4 skill points, for instance, increase your BAB by 1, that amounts to the same thing as a feat, as I adressed earlier.
Very true. I could replace skill ranks with any equivalent unit that is accumulated at a fixed rate, be it feats, power points, gold pieces, or units of gettin'-jiggy-with-it. :D
To side-step the issue of skills vs. feats vs. other units, here's the original question in a (mostly) unitless form:
Are good saving throws an intrinsic part of becoming more powerful, or could a character realistically forfeit one or more saving throw bonuses in order to train in another area? I can eaily imagine an experienced character having no combat ability, but I'm not sure if I could imagine an experienced character with very low saving throws (or a very low hit point total, for that matter).
Quote from: Bill VolkMight it be easier if you phrased it in the opposite way?
When a druid uses wild shape or when someone polymorphs himself, would they automatically gain max ranks in their new forms' natural weapons?[/quote]Well, druids are normally proficient in all natural weapons, so I guess they'd get enough skill points to account for natural weapon skills. As for people who polymorph, I don't really know if they gain proficiency in their new form's natural weapons as it is (I don't rememeber reading anything that says they do), so I'm not really sure.
Quote from: Epic MeepoAre good saving throws an intrinsic part of becoming more powerful, or could a character realistically forfeit one or more saving throw bonuses in order to train in another area? I can eaily imagine an experienced character having no combat ability, but I'm not sure if I could imagine an experienced character with very low saving throws (or a very low hit point total, for that matter).
Yes, good saving throws are an intrinsic part of becoming more powerful. In Mutants and Masterminds, a system which you have to purchase your BAB, Skill Points, Saves, Ability Scores, Feats, and Powers via the same points, most players I've seen so far skimp on their saves. They're just something that gets forgotten (aside from the ever necessary Toughness save).
Quote from: Side NoteIn fairness to the skimping M&M players, in that game, its much more economical to max out your Dexterity, Constitution, and Wisdom scores than it is to max out your saves. Doing so both maxes out your saves and gives you bonuses on lots of other useful stuff.[/spoiler]
I take it you don't think its a good thing that the M&M system gives players the option of skimping on saving throws as they become more powerful. Is that an accurate assessment of your thoughts on the matter?
My own two cents:
Skimping here and there can be a fine thing, to create a little characterization and uniqueness. But you do have to be careful whether a system actually encourages the form of hyper-specialization that ends up in caricaturization instead.
Just as an (off-topic) ferinstance, it always bothers me that you can be a high-level, well-traveled, world-weary adventurer, and have no ranks at all in Sense Motive. I mean, if you've been around the block - seen a little of everything - you'd think you'd have at least a little ability to read people.
In a similar vein, a character whose been around ought to be at least a little tougher (Fortitude save), better at reacting to things (Reflex save), and harder to control (Will save). Not to say everyone would be equally good in all respects, but at least some progression.
If you want the extra characterization of having areas of unusual weakness, you might consider using some kind of tradeoff between flaws and benefits. For example, a character taking a flaw for -2 on Will save could gain a +1 on Reflex save or +1 BAB or something.
Quote from: Epic MeepoIn fairness to the skimping M&M players, in that game, its much more economical to max out your Dexterity, Constitution, and Wisdom scores than it is to max out your saves. Doing so both maxes out your saves and gives you bonuses on lots of other useful stuff.
I take it you don't think its a good thing that the M&M system gives players the option of skimping on saving throws as they become more powerful. Is that an accurate assessment of your thoughts on the matter?
Yeah, I don't particularly care for saves in M&M, because it is easy to forget about them. Maxing out Dex and Wis does boost your saves, but they only really effect Saves and some skills. Con is limited by your toughness save first, and the Fortitude cap is higher than the Toughness cap.
It's a good system as far as point based d20 goes, but the fact that nothing is intrinsically tied to level (aside from caps) makes it easier to abuse.
Quote from: Epic MeepoAre good saving throws an intrinsic part of becoming more powerful, or could a character realistically forfeit one or more saving throw bonuses in order to train in another area? I can eaily imagine an experienced character having no combat ability, but I'm not sure if I could imagine an experienced character with very low saving throws (or a very low hit point total, for that matter).
I consider the poor saving throw progression to be a simple measure of improvement due to experience. Everyone gets it, even for stuff they are bad at. The good saves though, are only in areas that their training (class) specialises in. So i would think the poor save progression is natural, while the amount different between good and bad would be their training and as such shpould be able to be improved by their skill points.
I included this in my earlier description of my thoughts for the point system, but didn't give my reasons.
Just a thought, but couldn't spell casting and other class features all get done using skill progresions too? maybe the spellcasting would be something more similart to the truenamer (few abilities, cast as often as you like, using skill checks). I was working on a system like all of this (point based everything with no levels) for my setting Vorsatz, but that has fallen by the wayside of late.
Just as another Mutants and Masterminds reference if I didn't say it before:
1 feat will buy you +1 to hit in melee or in ranged; 2 "feats" will buy you +1 to hit with all attacks.
In Mutants and Masterminds, 1 feat will buy you 4 skill points.
In D&D, 1 feat will buy you +1 to hit with 1 weapon. 1 feat will also buy you 5 skill points, or +3 to a single skill.
Both systems feel that to hit is worth more than skills. This is why I don't think attack rolls should be skills.
PS: L5R, an almost entirely skill based system, has weapon attacks as skills. There is no such thing as class skills (aside from the fact that your "class" gives you 1 free rank in certain skills). We only played for a little, but almost every character maximized one weapon skill unless they were a spellcaster, and even then, they considered it too.
Quote from: XeviatYeah, I don't particularly care for saves in M&M, because it is easy to forget about them. Maxing out Dex and Wis does boost your saves, but they only really effect Saves and some skills. Con is limited by your toughness save first, and the Fortitude cap is higher than the Toughness cap.
Again, this isn't about the system, it's about the players. Whenever I play M&M I'm looking very carefully to my saves, not just the ability scores that go with them. Bad players does not equal bad system.
Quote from: XeviatIt's a good system as far as point based d20 goes, but the fact that nothing is intrinsically tied to level (aside from caps) makes it easier to abuse.
It also makes it easier to ignore the mechanical areas that don't fit a character concept, such as attack accuracy and resistance to injury.
I think the idea of allowing a player to trade BAB for skill points is a great way to do this if you're sticking with D&D. The question is, is going the other direction fair? Is the original idea even mechanically sound? D&D puts a lot of emphasis on combat and being able to hit things, and the system is designed around the assumption that certain characters will be able to hit with a certain accuracy. At the least it's probably best if you don't let 1/1 BAB classes get any more.
There's also the question of the fact that skill points take on one's Int bonus to increase their number. While M&M was brought up as an example of a system where statistics are traded, the poster forgot to mention that M&M doesn't include Int bonus when figuring skill points. Int bonus isn't balanced between classes. I would likely guess that when BAB to skill point trade is figured out the character should not be allowed to add in their Int bonus. That keeps with the earlier statement that classes seem to be figuring their own BAB/skill point trade.
As for saves, I can't comment on a skill-based variant, but I can propose a medium solution: allow a class to pick good and poor saves based on how many they get normally (cleric: 2 good, 1 poor). Then allow the choice of keeping a good save or splitting it into two medium saves (and idea I saw in Arcana Evolved, seems to be abou 1/2 level rounded down). This introduces some variation, while still keeping an ordered progression.