Seminar Transcript - Reimagining Skills and Ability Scores

LurkAway · Jan 29, 2012

Rob: Right now, Cha is linked to saves for fear and charm effects. However, if you describe it well, you could use different stat. For example the big monster is grappling you, you might use dexterity to save and get out. But you can also have some other ways of getting out that grapple. Maybe there's a gem on that creature's head and you can make an intelligence saving throw to realize that if you mess with it, the creature would die and let you go.

Stalker0 said:
I generally like the ability score idea they are going with, my only real concern is will ability scores be too important?

Kaodi said:
I think that we have a real problem if the word " charisma " in D&D does not at some level mean the same thing as " charisma " in real life. And in real life, charisma and cowardice go together all the time.

And, in fact, certain Socratic dialogues do actually present arguments for courage and wisdom being akin to one another. I do not think I have ever seen one that argues charisma and courage having a similar relationship.

See, this is what really worries me. Ability scores become really important, which creates strong incentives to use a certain ability score that you have a high score, and then players and DMs have arguments about whether this or that ability score is valid for that situation.

Sunsword · Jan 29, 2012

MatthewJHanson said:
The part that I liked the least was that for one attack you roll an attack and a saving throw.

I think if the result of the spell is a hit, the DC for the Save will be the total of the roll. I don't think it will require an additional roll. Or if the spell Auto Hits, you'll roll to generate the DC.

StreamOfTheSky · Jan 29, 2012

Wow, I hated almost everything that I read... It just seemed like a giant pile of really horrible ideas.

teitan · Jan 29, 2012

I kinda miss the old NWP system. It was simple and easy to use, just not enough by the default. We allowed BOTH bonus languages and NWPs to be used simultaneously rather then extra NWPs taking from your languages.

Sammael · Jan 29, 2012

Aaaaannnnndddd... it's gone. My interest in D&D Next, that is. We have several deal breakers here, but the two critical ones are:

1. Using ability scores for everything instead of skills (this is COMPLETELY the opposite of what I want in ANY role-playing game)

2. NPCs don't follow the same rules as PCs.

I want the characters to grow, expand, become more skilled in certain disciplines. The last thing I want is for the character's ability scores to determine how good he is at doing stuff.

Besides, guys, the myriad tiny bonuses IS NOT COOL. It's one of the most frequently cited things people HATE about 3.x.

*sigh* back to developing Fatebinder, I guess. At least they are doing the opposed rolls and moving to a silver standard, just as I did.

Zaukrie · Jan 29, 2012

I liked a lot of what I read here. Given how much I generally like Monte and Mike and Bruce's work, no real surprise to me, frankly.

The only part that made me nervous was the same one as Matthew....will I have to track variable save DCs as a result of attacks or stuff? I want easier bookkeeping, not harder.

I like that several ways of generating your stats will be presented. I like that they talked again about flattening the power curve. Lots of good stuff in this chat.

Windjammer · Jan 29, 2012

Wanting saving rolls back is certainly a step in the right direction.

Making them static target numbers in 4E (apart from that other 'roll above 10' mechanic which was, misleadingly, called 'saving roll') took away something relatively 'iconic' in the game.

Still, like many, many, many other things I found lacking in 4E, little experience with the game makes it dead-easy to port it back into the game. In our games, I use Fort/Reflex/Will save rolls all the time - you simply detract 10 from the PC's saves and you got their modifier on their die roll. So in combat we use the static saves (speeds up play), but for outside-combat stuff we use the 3.x-type saving rolls.

It's surprising how a minute change like that brings back something we loved a lot in 3.x. Accumulate these differences, and 4E quickly gets closer to something that 'feels' like the D&D game you played before (since 2000 at least).

I'm really curious about the playtest document, because I want to see a change in the design where I don't go 'oh, I don't need an edition change for that - I can port it into my 4e games already, thank you'.

Sammael · Jan 29, 2012

Morrus said:
Just change the Xbow fluff to sound magicy.

I'm a big fan of reskinning fluff without changing mechanics. You can make massive changes that way without affecting anything. Everyone should do it all the time. It should be an essential part of gaming.

Not me. I positively hate reskinning. It's lazy design.

Blacky the Blackball · Jan 29, 2012

Morrus said:
I love the idea of not having a skill list at all. It's simply the ability scores, with bonuses to certain actions, and those actions are open-ended and infinite in possibility.

STR 15 (+2 when climbing, +3 when opening jars)
DEX 12 (+2 when doing backflips)
CON 10 (+4 against poison)
INT 14 (+2 when researching, +2 when dealing with the history of Abba)
WIS 9 (+4 when resisting compulsion due to stubbornness)
CHA 10 (+2 initial impression due to good looks, +2 when dancing)

Which is almost exactly how Dark Dungeons handles skills!

They're just bonuses to ability checks in certains situations. Dark Dungeons does have a default list of skills, but encourages you to make up your own in an open-ended manner too.

Needless to say, that's got me really excited at 5e now.

Morrus · Jan 29, 2012

Sammael said:
Not me. I positively hate reskinning. It's lazy design.

"Design"? "Lazy"?

I asked my DM if I could refer to my Xbow as a magical zap for flavour purposes. This is "lazy design" on my part, and "positively hated" by you?

I'm glad we don't game together! I'd hate my flavour choices to arouse such a strong emotion as hatred in those near me!