Seminar Transcript - Reimagining Skills and Ability Scores

Hawke · Jan 31, 2012

Primal said:
It is indeed a lot slower; we tried it in 3.5, and combats took forever. Especially at level 15+ it was a pain to roll DCs and opposed defense rolls (vs. attacks). Never again in D&D, never again...

Only way it might work is if the DM didn't roll. Monster attacks were static values, you rolled your "save" or whatever and if you beat the value, his attack failed. (You dodged it, it didn't break your skin, you understood it was an illusion and it failed to affect you, etc)

catsclaw227 · Jan 31, 2012

avin said:
catsclaw227 said:

I can't understand why some are flat out saying that this is gonna suck and they'll never play it when they haven't even seen the rules that haven't even been finished yet...

Click to expand...

Well put.

My grammar has a lot to be desired, but I am glad you got the gist of what I am saying.

(If I could give it to you I would, but I must spread XP around...)

I mostly want to hear from people that actually played the D&Dn-v0.01 rules at DDXP. Most of what I have read was excitedly optimistic.

Aehrlon · Jan 31, 2012

Dice4Hire said:
I like the idea of classes giving an ability score bonus. Training is important.

I agree... furthermore, I would like to see races get their fair shake of Skill Bonuses; your halfling should be better at stealth than a human. Cut down the amount of skill point given out and you won't have god-like bonuses at LV 10 (3.5D&D). I'd also like to see some sort of "Adventuring" skill that all characters have that covers basics such as lighting a fire, lantern, etc. basic riding, using ropes, setting up a camp, some dungeoneering basics. Seriously, shouldn't ALL adventurers know those things??

Hautamaki · Jan 31, 2012

Racial ability scores: It seems to me obvious that members of different races should have wildly different averages when it comes to their ability scores. In the past, this was often dealt with via a simple +2/-2 modifier to certain ability scores. But with people freely able to arrange ability scores however they liked, these sorts of racial modifiers usually get sort of 'lost in the mix'.

Another way to do it may be to not allow players to assign their rolled scores however they like. On the contrary, ability scores must be rolled in order. Of course, this could easily wind up giving you scores that are highly inconvenient for your previously planned out character concept. So you could allow a player to re-roll 1 or 2 scores if they wish (but they must keep the re-rolled scores whether they are higher or lower).

If you do this, you wouldn't be constrained by 4d6 drop 1 roll for all scores. 4d6 drop 1 gives you the HUMAN range of scores. However, for a dwarf, you could be rolling say 5d6 drop 2 on constitution, and a straight up 3d6 for charisma. This would give different averages for different ability scores without going above or below the 3-18 standard limits.

TrickyUK · Jan 31, 2012

My earlier post may have sounded slightly off topic, not helped because I falied to make a point.

Rolling ability scores has its flaws and poor rolls have ruined may players' games. The point buy system is what we use and I can't see this not being included - but if not, then house rule.

I like races to feel different and as no race should be perfect, having bonuses and penalties is fine with me. To support this, the reliance on ability scores needs to be more critical else any penalised score would be a dump stat, and hence not really a penalty. This is one of elements of 4e that contributed to my feeling of not D&D.

I don't think that D&D has ever really mastered non-combat skills and so I remain hopefull that the next iteration will be improved and what I've heard so far sounds OK.

Klaus · Jan 31, 2012

avin said:
That doesn't work well for a game where people come from different worlds, tho. In fact, 4E idea of one world in the center of the multiverse is (in my opinion, which is not better or worst than everybody else) is as bad as the sun turning around earth... I don't want a snowflake special world... I'm with Galileo here, out with geocentrism...

And I didn't find GW so intrusive. All 4E fluff goes around primals vs gods. I was tired of seeing references of it everywhere on monster manual. It was worst than Blood War for a mile and half. Or then when race X was from World and mutated on Shadow or Fey... Geocentrism again...

If 5E insists on this, it will fail to appeal to a lot of gamers... which it's not what's planned.

Thus 5E cosmology should be modular or as neutral as possible.

But I *like* the campaign's world to be the center of the cosmos. It is the battleground worth fighting for (for whatever reason).

As for Primordials vs. Gods, you're forgetting the Gods vs. Tharizdum, Gods vs. Gods, Primal Spirits vs. Gods, Primordials, and Aberrations, Arkhosia vs. Bael Turath, Nerath vs. Gnolls, Demons vs. Gods. There are plenty of top-level wars going on in the 4e cosmology.

stonegod · Jan 31, 2012

Tricky110974 said:
I like races to feel different and as no race should be perfect, having bonuses and penalties is fine with me. To support this, the reliance on ability scores needs to be more critical else any penalised score would be a dump stat, and hence not really a penalty. This is one of elements of 4e that contributed to my feeling of not D&D.

Dump stats have existed as long as I can rember: Fighters with Int 8 and Wizards with Str 6 in my 2E games. 3/4E did tend to make one/two stats more important per class, but dumping is not new.

A balance needs to be reached. If every stat is important, no stat will be special, to misquote a fine movie. If I can't afford to give my Fighter a good strength lest his low Int kill him, everything will be 12s. Trade offs give choice: I know a low score may hurt me, but there is a gulf between hurt and debilitate.

I don't think that D&D has ever really mastered non-combat skills and so I remain hopefull that the next iteration will be improved and what I've heard so far sounds OK.

The 3/4E styles seemed fine to me. What did they do wrong (or conversely, who did it right)?

talok55 · Jan 31, 2012

I am so glad they say that skill challenges need to die in a fire. They sounded okay in theory but ended up being one of the most metagamey, immersion killing things in any edition of the game.

Grazzt · Jan 31, 2012

Aehrlon said:
I'd also like to see some sort of "Adventuring" skill that all characters have that covers basics such as lighting a fire, lantern, etc. basic riding, using ropes, setting up a camp, some dungeoneering basics. Seriously, shouldn't ALL adventurers know those things??

Yep. Hence why you don't need a skill for it. DM can hand wave it, especially the camping, starting a fire, lantern parts. No need for a skill for that.

thzero · Jan 31, 2012

Grazzt said:
Yep. Hence why you don't need a skill for it. DM can hand wave it, especially the camping, starting a fire, lantern parts. No need for a skill for that.

Actually it's called "Survival', at least in 3E, 2E and 1E (via the wilderness survival guide), although 1E did break it down into fishing, foraging, and a few other skills too. And no, not all "adventurers" may have it. City based adventurers probably don't have it or at least their "adventuring" skills may be different, i.e. gather information, appraise, etc. that might be useful in those settings.

Blanket statements, and to the OP, like this defeat the purpose. Letting the system allow you to play this way is good, but making it so that I can't play with more detail should also be just as cool.