Do we really need skill system?

[bronzepoem]

 

As the 333 version combine skill and talent, a lot of people feel more satisfied than before.I start to think about this question.

Do we really need the skill system?

In PoE,a charater have four main features:attribute,Talent,Skill,Job.(Race is a minor feature)

 

 

attribute:constant

Talent:Increaing with upgrate

Skill:Increaing with upgrate

Job: constant

 

 

Then what do they determine?

 

We also can number 4 kinds of charaters' powers in PoE:

1. combat ability

2. dialogue ability(include scripted interactions,or we can say the "trditional dialogue" is one kind of scripted interactions)

3. movement ability(traveling around the world,removing barriers)

4. the ability of earning asset(items,money,real estate)

 

attribute:1,2,3

Talent:1,2,3

Skill:2,3,4

Job: 1

 

We can see the talent and skill are very similar.What if we just combine them in a more wise way?Not just roughly add sereval skill points on every talent.We just need to design several new talents(such as crafting apprentice,crafting expert,crafting master,athletics apprentice,athletics expert,athletics master...)We can even design some new non-combat talent such as Smart Trader(decrease the buying price),Leader(easily deal with companions' issues)and so on,then give one charater more talent points for total.Isn't this more clear than now?

 

Before 333 version, the biggest point of skill system is to separate non-combat ability from combat ability,because Tim said that players shouldn't have to choose between magic missile and herbalism. But now Obsidian change their mind.So why don't we straightforward use one talent system?

What do you think?

 

[TMZuk]

YES, we do.

 

One the things I hate about modern RPGs is the removal of all the building stones that makes it possible to create and develop unique and varied characters, All the little things that create variations are good. No "streamlining", thank you very much.

[Foolmonkey]

Yes, there should be a skill system.

 

I agree with Zuk that modern RPG's (and most modern games in general) let the player customize and slop together whatever they want to do with their characters, play through on easy mode, and finish the game with a smile on their face without any sort of unqiueness to the characters or playthrough.

 

The player should have to think about how to balance their party. A big part of an RPG is taking time (or lots and lots of time) to set up your character attributes/skills/talents/equipment. To Obsidian's credit it is very hard to create a new skill/talent/class system that is balanced and fun. I always like to see a game lean more towards, "I put a point into the wrong spot, time to restart my character" rather than "just click something and try it out because it doesn't matter." I just hope they can get everything right by release time.

[kloperius]

I want a skill system, a complex but fun system where i could customize my characters.

[prodigydancer]

One the things I hate about modern RPGs

IE games didn't have skills except thief skills and weapon proficiencies.

 

Just saying.

[forgottenlor]

 

One the things I hate about modern RPGs

IE games didn't have skills except thief skills and weapon proficiencies.

 

Just saying.

 

 

 

You are correct. However, I.E. games had weapon proficiencies, spell books, and multiclassing, and all these added a level of complexity to the game. I don't mind 5 skills, and am a firm believer in a skill system. I have no correct answer how to make that skill system work best, but I think the following should be the goals.

 

*You should feel like you have choices in the skill system. There should be no build which is automatic or almost automatic for your party.

*The game should reward an investment in certain skills and open up different paths for those who invest in different ways.

*This should always be a tradeoff with positives and negatives. I should feel like I'm both being rewarded for the skills I took and punished for the ones

I didn't take.

 

How can this be achieved with only five skills? There are a variety of different ways.

 

*Make some skill checks require multiple characters with the same skill or multiple skills.

*Have a system where one has skill points, but not enough to cover all skills, and require additional investment (either through Items or talents) to

result in mastery.

*Have skill points replaced entirely by outside investment(either by items or talents). However, if one goes this route, please either give talents more often, or make a talent that gives pure skill bonuses.

 

Skills, in my opinion, only enrich a role playing game.

Edited October 28, 2014 by forgottenlor

[Sensuki]

Previous system was okay, it's the RPG design that influences the player's skill choices. The RPG design does not promote dabbling. If conversations and scripted interactions checked multiple skills at once, then yes, people would dabble.

 

Most of the skills combat bonuses are near useless as well.

[rjshae]

YES, we do.

 

One the things I hate about modern RPGs is the removal of all the building stones that makes it possible to create and develop unique and varied characters, All the little things that create variations are good. No "streamlining", thank you very much.

 

Agreed. Role-playing is all about player choice. Removing skills takes away from the player's ability to build the character they want. It's one of the elements I really disliked about DA2.

 

 

 

One the things I hate about modern RPGs

IE games didn't have skills except thief skills and weapon proficiencies.

 

Just saying.

 

IWD2 had a skills system, as it was adapting to the D&D 3e rules. The earlier versions didn't have a skills system because neither did the AD&D rules. Most modern PnP RPGs have skills systems.

[nipsen]

 

However, I.E. games had weapon proficiencies, spell books, and multiclassing, and all these added a level of complexity to the game.

(...)

 

*You should feel like you have choices in the skill system. There should be no build which is automatic or almost automatic for your party.

(...)

Skills, in my opinion, only enrich a role playing game.

 

On the other hand, don't you think they could angle in on a broader part of the games-market, by removing every complexity?

 

I'm convinced that sounds like a brilliant idea, because someone with a very smart suit said it in a panel at an expo once.

[Namutree]

 

One the things I hate about modern RPGs

IE games didn't have skills except thief skills and weapon proficiencies.

 

Just saying.

 

Thief skills encompass a lot of skills and more than just thieves could have them.

[prodigydancer]

IWD2 had a skills system, as it was adapting to the D&D 3e rules. The earlier versions didn't have a skills system because neither did the AD&D rules. Most modern PnP RPGs have skills systems.

That's not the point and I'm not against skills. I'm against bashing modern CRPGs especially when it's not based on facts. Skyrim is a modern CRPG and it has non-combat skills.

[Sensuki]

AD&D did have skills, they were called Professions and they had proficiency levels.

[archangel979]

Actually if I remember well each skill check was part of characters attributes. If you had 13 dex and wanted to jump over a fence you rolled 1d20 and needed to get 13 or less on the roll.

 

IE games didn't use this option.

[wanderon]

Short answer to do we need skills?

 

Yes...

[nipsen]

Then again, I'm guessing the actual question was "do we need a separate skill-panel?".

 

And that could be connected to the need a gm or a designer would have for differentiating characters with the same stats further. And perhaps weighted against the need of a particular demographic to not have to fiddle around with stuff.

 

So isn't it a good question to ask - whether it is possible to make the skill-set derived from stats, or combined with a level up/exp mechanic, etc., without making the characters you get out of the system less different from each other?

 

I mean, it's not a completely bonk question either. Arguably, in DnD, having a rogue simply pick between a "traps" perk and a "lockpick" perk early on, would effectively replace the entire skill-system. Wizards could pick between "sense magic" and the other perks, and it would pretty much replace skills for them as well.

 

So for example, if the skills really have no purpose(other than adding more pointless numbers), or it's not an interesting way to differentiate the characters.. or people see no point with differentiating characters after they've picked the class (certainly, this is how the majority of the games out there are made right now) - couldn't skills be simply removed, with no negative effect?

[Silent Winter]

^You mean keep them as character-creation 'perks' but remove the numbers at level-up?  So you're always 'maxed' at one but never spread evenly across a few?
Not sure if that's what you mean but it sounds limited there - sure, most people might decide early on to specialise in skill-X and then keep that pumped at the max, but some people want to do well enough in 2 skills or 3 without diluting it all the way to 'jack of all trades'.

 

If you mean simply remove the skills altogether, then I think it would be negative.  I don't think 'most' PoE players would prefer to remove it (and 'most' players in the gaming market may prefer fancy graphics and hack'n'slash rpgs so we're not counting them).

 

If it were done a la BG and only rogues could disarm traps and pick locks, it would be ok (though less ideal) for me - but I actually like having the option to specialise your characters further than their class.  So the need is to make the skills equally attractive.

Adding more skills might help too but I'm not sure there's the time to balance it all (maybe in the expansion/PoE2?).  I don't want NWN level of skills, that was too many for me - but a few more might be good - then again, the attributes are also checked in some situations instead of skills (conversations and some scripted interactions) so there may be the necessary variety anyway.

[DCParry]

AD&D did have skills, they were called Professions and they had proficiency levels.

 

NON-WEAPON PROFICIENCIES.

 

In 2nd Edition anyways. 

[nipsen]

If it were done a la BG and only rogues could disarm traps and pick locks, it would be ok (though less ideal) for me - but I actually like having the option to specialise your characters further than their class.  So the need is to make the skills equally attractive.

 

Seems like the most clear cut thing in the world, right? That a well-presented, wholesome character system is actually a lot less complex than.. say.. a constantly changing and ever broadening abstraction for that "press here to roleplay" button.

 

But, it's already been decided skills have to go, because reasons and most gamers. So the only question left is whether or not it's possible to torture in some rationalisation for it that makes a silly simplification seem to be "closer to" the older IE games. So let's go with the "d&d sure had a bunch of useless skills, so therefore none of the skills have any purpose" narrative.

[wanderon]

Then again, I'm guessing the actual question was "do we need a separate skill-panel?".

 

And that could be connected to the need a gm or a designer would have for differentiating characters with the same stats further. And perhaps weighted against the need of a particular demographic to not have to fiddle around with stuff.

 

So isn't it a good question to ask - whether it is possible to make the skill-set derived from stats, or combined with a level up/exp mechanic, etc., without making the characters you get out of the system less different from each other?

 

I mean, it's not a completely bonk question either. Arguably, in DnD, having a rogue simply pick between a "traps" perk and a "lockpick" perk early on, would effectively replace the entire skill-system. Wizards could pick between "sense magic" and the other perks, and it would pretty much replace skills for them as well.

 

So for example, if the skills really have no purpose(other than adding more pointless numbers), or it's not an interesting way to differentiate the characters.. or people see no point with differentiating characters after they've picked the class (certainly, this is how the majority of the games out there are made right now) - couldn't skills be simply removed, with no negative effect?

 

Why should rogues and wizards have to choose from different skill sets - wasn't that supposed to be one of the points  of skills in PE to knock down those walls with skills as well as armor and weapons making all of them available to every class? So whats wrong with a muscle wizard with high mechanics or a naked scholarly fighter with high lore?

 

I don't have any issue with the skills being aligned with talents and backgrounds I just think there should still be some level of skill choices outside those choices and for that yes we do need a separate skill panel at least once at character creation and preferably again every so many levels so not every skill point must be gained on the back of a talent or background choice.

[nipsen]

Why should rogues and wizards have to choose from different skill sets - wasn't that supposed to be one of the points  of skills in PE to knock down those walls with skills as well as armor and weapons making all of them available to every class? So whats wrong with a muscle wizard with high mechanics or a naked scholarly fighter with high lore?

 

Now you're just saying things that my extremely casual gaming mind cannot comprehend. And I'll launch into a tirade about how overlap between skills and classes only proves that they are all redundant any time now. Because rhetoric is a tool to prove that I'm right, not to express something coherent.

 

Seriously, though -- this is the direction they picked with the game. Specifically because complex, varied, and consistent characters - in relation to the gameworld, and the other characters, as well as the enemies - wasn't appreciated. Or so we've been hearing.

 

Collapsing skills into a simpler class and perk system is a result of that. Just like when they collapsed all the character abilities into either fewer of the character attributes, or into the class card. The aim being to make the classes less difficult to deal with. The result unfortunately being that the characters aren't very interesting. While the huge "wall" with all the attributes and numbers still being there.

 

I suppose next someone is going to suggest removing the attribute system. Which probably would also make sense at this point..

[wanderon]

 

Why should rogues and wizards have to choose from different skill sets - wasn't that supposed to be one of the points  of skills in PE to knock down those walls with skills as well as armor and weapons making all of them available to every class? So whats wrong with a muscle wizard with high mechanics or a naked scholarly fighter with high lore?

 

Now you're just saying things that my extremely casual gaming mind cannot comprehend. And I'll launch into a tirade about how overlap between skills and classes only proves that they are all redundant any time now. Because rhetoric is a tool to prove that I'm right, not to express something coherent.

 

Seriously, though -- this is the direction they picked with the game. Specifically because complex, varied, and consistent characters - in relation to the gameworld, and the other characters, as well as the enemies - wasn't appreciated. Or so we've been hearing.

 

Collapsing skills into a simpler class and perk system is a result of that. Just like when they collapsed all the character abilities into either fewer of the character attributes, or into the class card. The aim being to make the classes less difficult to deal with. The result unfortunately being that the characters aren't very interesting. While the huge "wall" with all the attributes and numbers still being there.

 

I suppose next someone is going to suggest removing the attribute system. Which probably would also make sense at this point..

 

 

Never mind I thought you were serious there for minute...

[Karkarov]

 

AD&D did have skills, they were called Professions and they had proficiency levels.

 

NON-WEAPON PROFICIENCIES.

 

In 2nd Edition anyways. 

It was actually a DM's choice thing.  You could either do proficiencies based on individual selection or you had to select a profession or job you had prior to becoming an adventurer and your proficiencies were taken as a group based on that profession.

 

That said, yes we need a skills system, and no 3.33 is not doing it right.

[CatatonicMan]

Should there be a skill system? Yes....but only if the skills will actually be used. There's no point including a skill that will have no meaningful impact on the game.

 

How the skills should be gained is an entirely different question. Should they be bought with points? Packaged with feats/perks? Derived from stats? That is a better question.

[constantine]

Yes we do need a skill system.

 

I love it that PoE has one, kudos to Obsidian for designing it as good as it is. I believe it's a step forward than the classic games & so much better in that department.

[Namutree]

Yes, we need a skill system.