On 5E Skills (aka How Game System Affects Immersion)

[Wrathamon]

I think you are right about the basic rules being more player described actions instead of using predefined actions. But, I think they will have an advanced skill module that we can buy and add to the core game for those people who want more structure.


not all players are very good (or dont enjoy) at "the describing what they do or acting" part of role-playing games and the new versions of the game helped those players have as much fun as the creative problem solver or the role-player.

I'm also fearful that this will slow down play as player's who aren't as quick on their feet try to figure out what their character is saying or doing... then I use this ability or this skill and let the experienced DM describe the outcome.

As a player, I dont mind either way. I actually do more role-playing and describing my actions in 4e then I ever did in 3e or 2nd. I play 4e like I played 1st ... guess I'm weird.

 

[TheGrandNuge]

What I don't really know is, What's the check like, actually?
My rogue with an 18 dex can succeed at more stuff without rolling than my barbarian with a 12. But when encountering something they both have to roll against, what is the actual check? What bonus does my ability score translate too? Is the rogue really only 2 better, maybe 4 with a specialized background, at sneaking around the villain? Even though I can do a lot more w/o even rolling than the barbarian?

I also worry about the narrowing of the gap 'tween an expert and someone who happens to have a good natural ability score. I understand wanting everyone in the group to be willing to try to sneak around a bad guy sometimes, and the like; but I also like having the 'go to' guys in the party for certain tasks. The guy who is always scouting ahead, etc...A +2 difference does not really create that.

So a +2 from background and that's it? To differentiate my 8th level assassin from a 3rd level bard with the same dex? Something still has to be missing here. What if I don't choose a supersneaky background, can I become supersneaky somehow later? I think maybe an assassin should have a better chance at becoming supersneaky than the court rogue apart from one choice at the beginning of my career.
Can you be an expert sneaker? Or expert anything? I wonder how that is to be accomplished.

 

[prosfilaes]

The sad fact is, even though his character might make the attempt, as a player, he looks at the 85% chance of failure and decides not to attempt the roll.

If the player wants to roleplay his character as brash and charging in where only fools dare to tread, then go ahead and make the attempt. But if the character has any wisdom, they shouldn't try that.

Furthermore, if my rogue has DEX 18, perhaps he makes the DC 15 stealth check automatically? We still don't know entirely how that works, but that would do a nice job of rewarding characters for being masters of their field without punishing those who want to try things they aren't ideally suited for.

At a certain point, we can do that right now by lowering the DCs. If you want those good in it to do it automatically and those unskilled in it to have a chance, just make it a low enough check. Either way, you're toning down the challenge.

Personally, I like my characters being good at things. I want to play wizards that can rattle off the mating habits of the Western Limnorm, despite the fact only one has shown up on this plane. I want to play the rogue that can climb a 50 feet tall glass wall without equipment. In neither case do I want the fighter honing in on my skills. I want characters to do the impossible, not things that anyone else in the party could have done on a good roll.

 

[Morrus]

If that distinction helps your group, great, but I doubt it's something you can generalize, and I don't think the 5e team should be especially concerned about it.

My group plays the current iteratons of D&D and Pathfinder, not 5E (on account of it not having been written yet). Whether it would help my group specifically or not, I don't know; I'm just making observations on what I believe WotC's design direction is.

If you don't think that's what they're trying to do, fair enough. As my original post indicates, it's what I think they're trying to do.

 

[Thotas]

I'm guessing that the times the DM just says "yeah, you make it, no roll needed" are the replacement of the "take 10" rule.

 

[DimitriX]

My group plays the current iteratons of D&D and Pathfinder, not 5E (on account of it not having been written yet). Whether it would help my group specifically or not, I don't know; I'm just making observations on what I believe WotC's design direction is.

If you don't think that's what they're trying to do, fair enough. As my original post indicates, it's what I think they're trying to do.

I agree that this is what the designers of 5e would like to do. The problem is that I don't trust WotC enough to fully believe that this is what they will be allowed to do. WotC has many other considerations other than what constitutes the best game design. Because WotC has gotten away from just plain old tabletop games with a small group of friends, they have to make other considerations. With D&D Encounters, they have to allow for a standardized game experience in which a player can go from one store in one town to another store in another town and still be playing the same game. Rules, skills, powers, and abilities all have to play the same way regardless of which gaming group you are in. This means that the level of creativity that the DM and players are allowed to us must be controlled. So, I'm afraid that unless the whole WotC concept of marketing is changed, then we might get some variation of 4e instead of a true 5e.

 

[BASHMAN]

My only concern with the emphasis on ability scores is that ability scores are already too important with regards to which race is chosen, which magical items are desired, etc.

By placing even more importance on ability scores, I fear we will see even more characters starting with 20 in their primary ability, and dumping everything else, and that parties will feature one guy who does all the lifting, one who does all the talking, one who does all the thinking, etc.

And that would make the party the A-Team! I love it when a plan comes together.

 

[DMBrendon]

I recently started playing with a guy who says things like "I'll roll a perception check on the door" - it totally weirded me out the first time he did it. His character never looks, listens or pushes - he make perceptions checks or strength checks. Maybe I'm just old school, but that doesn't really seem like role-playing for me, and when I'm playing beside him, it breaks my immersion. I think that 4E D&D was the first version he played, which may have something to do with it.

 

[N'raac]

In a 4th edition game right now, my rogue has a +17 bonus to stealth. He's trained, he's dextrous, and he has some items to round it out. The warlord in our party only has a +4 or so, mostly from half-level. There's a 13 point difference. So let's say we're sneaking past a guard post. What's the DC? If the DM puts the guards' perception at 22, it means I need to roll a 5 on a d20, while my warlord friend needs to roll an 18. Rather than attempt to steal quietly past the guards, the warlord will, in all likelihood, stay behind and wait. The sad fact is, even though his character might make the attempt, as a player, he looks at the 85% chance of failure and decides not to attempt the roll.

I would suggest that 22 Perception is the issue. Why are these guards so amazingly perceptive? If the intent is that these guards are extremely alert, the post well-designed to limit the opportunities to sneak past it unseen, the type of challenge that most look to and say "No one could do that!", then it seems appropriate that the Warlord should have little to no chance. If it's a typical fantasy source material guard post with sleepy guards playing cards, perhaps it should be no challenge at all for that stealthy rogue, and much more do-able for the Warlord (say DC 12).

One of the potential charms of 5th edition is to decrease the spread between someone who's specialized and someone who isn't. Let's use the same example; my rogue has a +4 from Dexterity, and a +2 bonus while moving quietly. He's also got +2 for some magic boots. That winds up being a +8, for a considerable bonus on stealth. The warlord, on the other hand, has no dexterity bonus, but we'll give him a +2 bonus from a background that has something to do with hunting. So a +2. That's a 6 point spread.

That's a difference in chance of success of 30%. Is that what we want? Is the best an expert vs someone with no training can achieve is, say, a 40% improvement (removing that +2 background bonus) in his chance of success? There are points in its favour - the warlord steps out of his comfort zone and tries to be stealthy. There are also points against it - that specialization in a skill doesn't seem so "special" any more when anyone can manage the same feats with just a little more luck.

We always have a die roll plus a modifier. As we reduce the spread on the modifiers, we reduce the impact of skill on success, and increase the impact of luck. If you want a more luck-based success model, this change is a plus. If you want the truly skilled to shine by achieving tasks viewed as impossible by those less skilled , this system will not deliver.

Auto-success at some level would help, but it means the skilled have less risk of failure when the task is less difficult, rather than shining by achieving the task lesser men view as impossible. It is the latter that seems, to me, to best mesh with heroic fantasy.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

There is another side to this:

One thing clear and codified rules do is to allow the player to make an educated decision when interacting with the game world. You have a good idea what your own capabilities are, and can act with an accurate idea how it will turn out.

When using a system heavily dependent on DM discretion, it's like interacting with the game world while blindfolded, having only a vague idea what is in front of you.