How many skills is too many skills?

[Milennin]

Say, you have your average 3- or 4-man party RPG. How many skills per character would you consider the perfect number? At what point does the number of skills become overwhelming, and when is it too little to keep you interested? Taking into account that each skill is at least unique in some way and not just a fire 1, fire 2 and fire 3 that all do the same thing but with different numbers.

 

[Balako]

i think it depends on class rather than being divided on how many party members....


usually a mage would have a large amount of skills, while warrior will have bare minimum...

 

[Atlas Rose]

If you're looking at your list of skills mid battle and can't remember what several of them do, there's too many.

 

[Ms Littlefish]

Drumroll Probably depends. Level cap and total play time probably factor in somewhat. A lot will depend on what each class has been designed to do and that assessment is very wide and open. Likewise, some classes will likely have more skill variety than others. Overall, I think it's still going to naturally be a "quality over quantity" kind of task. Skills should be designed to have synergy with each other and not have too much overlap, especially on the same character. To me, that's pretty open ended depending on what kind of character you can end up designing. I know you mentioned unique skills, but I'd really love to see games move away from "fire 1" and "fire 2" and invent more rewarding ways to branch up those sections of that class's respective skill tree.

 

[Wavelength]

10 to 16 in the endgame is usually good by my count; more options than that is only better if the game has you select a limited number (probably 4 to 12) skills to "equip" for use in battle at any given time.  I like characters to have at least 3 skills apiece when they join my party, even at the very beginning of the game.


A short game (less than 10 hours), or a game that has a heavy strategic emphasis placed somewhere besides Skill use, could make use of a much smaller repertoire.  But besides that, I like 10 different options as a soft minimum for each character.

 

[Victor Sant]

Another from the series "how many is too many" and the answer still always the same: there is no rule.


There are too many variables on how many is too many for one game, and is not for another. It mostly will depend on how the game was built.

 

[Azurecyan]

It depends how each skill would be used in some way imo. I'd say 5-10 physical skills(each character) and 15-25 magic spells(in total), but that's me. It also depends what your game is based. The Atelier series had characters have about 5-6 battle skills and about 4-5 beneficial passive skills because the game was based around alchemy and creating items rather than battles(battles were more so there for the basis of gathering ingredients such as meat, claws, monster items, etc). Other games such as Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest are dependant on what the skills could offer or what each character/class can learn in their quest.


Skills, imo, also shouldn't be an "upgrade"(fire 1 learned at level 5, fire 2 learned at level 15). If it were a branch as that, then replace the fire 1 with fire 2 so that your skill repertoire isn't so cluttered with useless skills. I'd say if you have a large number of skills each one must have some sort of purpose and use in battle.

 

[trouble time]

There is no auto-attack in RPG Maker, the reason it's called an auto attack in a moba is cause it happens automatically when you're close to enemies, it's not a term that applies unless you've scripted your game to do something like that.


Anyway on topic, when it comes to skills I think that it's hard to say, the more skills you can bring into battle I believe the fewer you probably need totally.

 

[kurt91]

Depends. Are you planning on incorporating scripting and various plug-ins into your game, or do you intend on stock RPG Maker features?


I agree with the others in that you should avoid having "The Same but Better" spells, that do nothing that an earlier spell didn't do but with more damage. Sometimes, it helps to look to existing games for examples of what seems to work and what doesn't. For reference, I'm looking up "Final Fantasy Tactics" right now. It has the most abilities that I can think of in a single game, and from what I remembered, things worked out pretty well. FFT has the following number of skill-type abilities per job. (not including counters or passive abilities, just the equivalent of RPG spells/specials)


Squire: 4 abilities, no duplicates


Knight: 8 abilities, all various "breaks"


Archer: 8 abilities, all various "charges"


Monk: 8 abilities, no duplicates


Thief: 8 abilities, all various "steal -----"


Geomancer: 12 abilities, no duplicates


At this point, you get the idea. I really don't feel like looking up the rest and copying them here. Feel free to do that yourself if you want. Anyways, after a cursory glance, not accounting for overlapping abilities in multiple job classes, even when we only look at the initial six Jobs, there are a total of 48 abilities. If you were to compact things like "Break Helmet/Break Armor/Break Weapon" into a single ability with a secondary menu to ask what you're aiming at or how long you intend to power-up (Archer's "Charge" skills), you'd reduce the number of unique abilities down to 26. That's a pretty massive number of unique skills, especially taking the fact that we didn't look at the entire game.


FFT ended up working pretty well, and it had so many abilities. I think that we can safely say from this that players are easily willing to accept huge amounts of skills as long as they aren't "The Same but Better".


Now, back to my original question, do you intend on utilizing scripts or plug-ins? This could help you if you're still not certain. I've played Disgaea, and I remember having to sift through a countless number of "The Same but Better" spells, having a huge list to go through until I found the spells that I wanted. What you could do is have a "shortcut" list, or some sort of way to "hide" the less-used spells so the player has a more compact list of their personal choices at their immediate disposal. You could set it so hitting left/right would swap to a secondary page with every spell, and the initial page would be a list of favorites.


Another thing you could do would be to design your spell list, assign them to various characters, and make a sort of testing game. One of those ones with a number of generic dungeons surrounding a single hub town. You could make a full test game with minimal work on your end, and populate it with the enemies that your full game would have. Get a couple friends or other volunteers to play through the game, and ask them what spells they used most and what spells they never found a reason to use. Cull your lists appropriately, then take your revised version and use it as a base to build the game you want to build.


Off-topic: I've noticed that most posts I make on this site end up being solid walls of text. I should probably try to fix that habit.

 

[stupid enough to like FF13]

When you start shoving in skills that no one will ever use because, no matter if the function is unique from any other ability you have, there's still no point in using it over better abilities.

 

[BadMinotaur]

Like everyone else, I think it depends. I like how Grandia 2 gives all of its party members around 5 skills natural to them, but allows you to equip a Mana Egg to gain more spells. It helps with the memory problem because you learn what each egg has as it gains more spells, so you have a large number of skills to chose from but without a lot of the pain that comes with having them there.


I also know that getting the Master Magic materia in FFVII is sort of a pain. Not only do you not have to worry about what materia to equip on your character anymore (which is half the fun of the system), you now have to sift through everything to get to what you want. In this case, there's definitely such a thing as too many.

 

[Phonantiphon]

I think it entirely depends:


1. what sort of game is it?


2. what sort of characters are they?


3. what sort of skills are you intending to have?


4. what sort of gameplay are you trying to implement?


There are too many things to take into account.


It should have precisely the number of skills that it needs to work.

 

[Pine Towers]

Many have said plenty of good advice already, just let me add the idea of a broad list with small selection.


Outside combat you can attach to your 3 offensive slots anyone of your 15 skills, but once in combat you must work with what you have. This way the player can create his own personal character (focusing more on AoE, or single target, or buff, or debuff, or heal...) without slowing down the combat pace by going through a large skill set. Look at what D&D 4E did (and how it always did before, in the magic department - except for the divine classes).

 

[floralContemplation]

Personally, I think that 10-12 skills is perfect for almost any occasion.


What irks me in many games is that warriors are almost always the least interesting class/archetype, so I suggest you maybe go with, maybe 6-8 skills per character and add some to the more Warrior-ish characters based around their weapons/discipline, like martial arts for example, to give players a reason to be interested in skills outside of your normal "Fire 2" and healing magic.

 

[Wavelength]

What irks me in many games is that warriors are almost always the least interesting class/archetype

I think that's a great point.  The warriors in RPGs tend to be consistent and sometimes the most powerful, but often the least interesting of all battle roles.  It probably stems from balance issues (if their basic attacks are much stronger, their skill pool or skill power usually have to be weaker to compensate, meaning the difference between basic attacks and skills is often extremely small for them).  There are a lot of ways around this (which I think would make a great Design topic of its own), such as giving them renewable resources for skill use (even if those skills are weaker than a mage's skills), making their skills mostly utility-based (instead of damage), making aggro and guarding into powerful and exploitable (but situational) mechanics, and/or dropping the concept of basic attacks altogether.

 

[Azurecyan]

I think that's a great point.  The warriors in RPGs tend to be consistent and sometimes the most powerful, but often the least interesting of all battle roles.  It probably stems from balance issues (if their basic attacks are much stronger, their skill pool or skill power usually have to be weaker to compensate, meaning the difference between basic attacks and skills is often extremely small for them).  There are a lot of ways around this (which I think would make a great Design topic of its own), such as giving them renewable resources for skill use (even if those skills are weaker than a mage's skills), making their skills mostly utility-based (instead of damage), making aggro and guarding into powerful and exploitable (but situational) mechanics, and/or dropping the concept of basic attacks altogether.

This is what a warrior should be. They aren't always the offensive type with simple skills like double slash, omnislash, dragon slash. They need variety. Warriors were built for battle so they have to have at least some tactical skills they know.

 

[Pine Towers]

@floralContemplation, @Wavelength and @Azurecyan, the Fighter always was thought as the no-brainer class. If the player wants to think less about, well, everything, he should get the Fighter.

• Less skills to choose from. Mostly a hit-more-than-one skill and hit-harder skill. No need to think if you should Sleep, Web or Grease the enemies.
  
• High defense. This means he can dive into the action without the fear of getting hit too often.
  
• High health pool. So, even if he gets hit, the can survive long enough to finish the enemies or call for help from the healer.
  
• Medium to high damage. He can rely on just attacking the enemies if no skill is available for use.
  

This for many games, tabletop or electronic. The Fighter is often see as the beginner, newbie or "recommended" class when the player doesn't have the know-how about the game mechanics.

 

[Wavelength]

@floralContemplation, @Wavelength and @Azurecyan, the Fighter always was thought as the no-brainer class. If the player wants to think less about, well, everything, he should get the Fighter.

• Less skills to choose from. Mostly a hit-more-than-one skill and hit-harder skill. No need to think if you should Sleep, Web or Grease the enemies.
  
• High defense. This means he can dive into the action without the fear of getting hit too often.
  
• High health pool. So, even if he gets hit, the can survive long enough to finish the enemies or call for help from the healer.
  
• Medium to high damage. He can rely on just attacking the enemies if no skill is available for use.
  

This for many games, tabletop or electronic. The Fighter is often see as the beginner, newbie or "recommended" class when the player doesn't have the know-how about the game mechanics.

I have no problem with this in a tabletop game where you create your character and choose your class, or for that matter in a video game where you choose your class.  But it's a different story when you hand a player the Fighter as part of a 4-man party that they have to use in battle for part or all of the game, often in the same party as (for example) the Mage or Summoner who has a much more diverse and interesting "kit" of skills to work with.


I believe in designing game mechanics around the player, not around conventions from other genres.  If you're generally trying to cater to a strategic, intellectual crowd, don't make the Fighter boring.  If you're generally trying to cater to a casual crowd who wants the "micro" play to be more straightforward, don't make the Summoner too complicated.  If you really want players to have their choice of a play experience, make the classes feel different (possibly including a simpler Fighter and a more complex Summoner) but restrict the player's main input to a single character (e.g. Star Ocean, Gauntlet Legends, or Recettear).

 

[wintyrbarnes]

I think it could also depend on how the skills scale with the character(s)? Because if, at endgame, my mage has 26 skills but only 10 of them are actually useful, it's kinda annoying and makes the skill choice interface a nightmare. On the other hand, if there's only 5 skills, and they're the exact same skills as at the beginning and the only way they've changed is because the character's stats have improved, then it's also annoying because you lose a sense of progression. So, personally, I like having a mix of simple skills that are useful near the beginning but scale as you go alongside more complex skills you get later. It can also help a lot with the problem of "okay, so these 10 MP skills don't do anything to the Big Boss at the end, so I need to give the player enough MP to constantly spam their high-power moves."


Cooldowns or limited-use skills (eg you can only cast Dragon Rage Storm Ultima IV three times in a battle) also help and make the player think more about what they're doing rather than just spamming their most powerful skills. Cooldowns on healing abilities can also make the strategy a little complex, as long as you keep it balanced. I think TP can also make this work, but I hate balancing TP gain/cost so don't ask me for help with that.


Also, adding the possibility of combo moves! A simple move you get early on that gets powered up when you add a certain class of character to your party and use this skill and the new character's compatible skill to do huge damage. Makes class coordination more fun than "well, I guess I should have a warrior, because otherwise I'm not doing any physical damage... ugh, boring." Isn't it more fun for a player to think, "okay, should I add the archer or warrior? The archer and the dark mage have the combo Night Stun, but the warrior and the light mage do Gleaming Sword together"? It also helps replay battles because you're not going to do the same thing every time; if it didn't work with the water mage and the dragon knight, maybe it's time to switch in the archer. Of course, it's also a headache (for both you and the players) if this gets way too complex and there ends up being metagaming arguments over party builds for each boss that are frustrating if you don't have x, y, and z classes that you basically have to start over to get. 


But, ultimately, I think it should change on a game-to-game basis and a given character's skill set should be relevant to their class and its context within the game world, so you don't end up giving a water mage Omega Flaming Sabre of Doom II. 

 

[Authumbla]

If you're looking at your list of skills mid battle and can't remember what several of them do, there's too many.

This. Beyond this, it's a fairly complicated answer. You'll have to ask yourself how many characters there are and how to differentiate them, and if you have a lot of skills you have to ask yourself how often you're going to use skills. For example, Insta-Kill spells are almost useless because enemy mobs are generally too easy to bother wasting MP on, and bosses are almost invariably immune to them for obvious reasons. Thus, you're going to be using actual offensive abilities much more often.

Also, adding the possibility of combo moves! A simple move you get early on that gets powered up when you add a certain class of character to your party and use this skill and the new character's compatible skill to do huge damage. Makes class coordination more fun than "well, I guess I should have a warrior, because otherwise I'm not doing any physical damage... ugh, boring." Isn't it more fun for a player to think, "okay, should I add the archer or warrior? The archer and the dark mage have the combo Night Stun, but the warrior and the light mage do Gleaming Sword together"? It also helps replay battles because you're not going to do the same thing every time; if it didn't work with the water mage and the dragon knight, maybe it's time to switch in the archer. Of course, it's also a headache (for both you and the players) if this gets way too complex and there ends up being metagaming arguments over party builds for each boss that are frustrating if you don't have x, y, and z classes that you basically have to start over to get. 

This is also a fantastic idea. You'll want to make it possible to use any party member at any time - Chrono Trigger did it (for the most part), and it makes it really easy to customize your party for every boss encounter. You can switch between using a super offensive party, or one focused on defeating the boss through attrition as you heal yourself faster than it can hurt you, or anything in between!


It also makes things slightly more strategic because you have to choose whether to use combo attacks, which take up more of your actions per turn than a standard action,  and since innovation in how battles work in an RPG is an important aspect of determining whether a game is good (for most reviewers, at least), this would help simultaneously give you more abilities to choose from (always nice), but keep you from forgetting which abilities do which things, since you only have a few abilities to work with at any given time.