Spellcasters, Non-Casters, Skills, and Ability Scores

Hi everyone.

I care a great deal about game balance. I know the only game that can be "perfectly" balanced would be a game where all players have the same options, but an RPG like D&D can be balanced in it's choices. No choice should stand up as better than others. In 3E, this was really hard to comeby, and classes like the Fighter languished in suboptimal hell when your friendly Druid came alongside with a bear who was better than you (being a little hyperbolic, but not much). 4E got closer to balance, but with the drawback of feeling "samey" and "not like D&D". 5E has gotten close, at least close enough that I can't think of character concepts I strictly wouldn't play because they were too weak, or options I feel I'd outright ban because they're too strong (okay, maybe I wouldn't play a TWFing Fighter without a custom subclass that made it good past 4th level).

So what am I here to discuss today? The title does have a lot in it. I wanted to talk about expanding 5E's skill system a bit more. I miss 3E's skill system. I don't miss skill points, because a skill not maxed really didn't feel like a skill worth having. What I miss is having a lot of guidance on what skills can do. In another discussion about feats recently, I realized how many of the skill feat options really feel like things those skills should already be able to do. I'm not even going to list them; most I think should be skill checks. This could free up feats to balanced around largely being combat things, which would make it a lot easier to balance them.

Where do spellcasters come in? Well, in my thought of expanding the skill system, I wanted to put in some new skill requirements on spellcasters to make it so they benefit less from an expanded skill system. If skills are expanded without limiting casters some how, then such an expansion doesn't really help empower non-casters. If casters have all the same toys, what makes the non-casters special? What do I mean by this? Well, if spellcasters needed a knowledge skill (Arcana, Nature, Religion), and perhaps something else (3E had spellcraft and concentration, though I'm not entirely sure we want to go back down that rabbit hole), then a portion of their skill budget would get tied up in those, limiting the other skills they could get.

Where do ability scores come in? I've been thinking a lot about having Int grant skills, languages, or tool proficiencies, as part of an effort to rebalance the non +attack/dc/damage portion of the ability scores (Dex and Con are too valuable for everyone, Wis probably leads the way in mentals because of it's saves and perception). Int often feels easily dumped, so having it give skills might make others pick it up again (but that would also expand a wizard's skill options, devaluing what I just said earlier; we could always give the wizard no skills and just make them go off their int and background, lol).

Mostly just musing here. If characters could use their skills to do extraordinary things, and eventually heroic, epic things, I think they could feel a lot more closer to casters in full utility. In a low combat game, a spellcaster can use their spells for utility things, greatly contributing to social and exploration challenges. Give the non-casters more toys to play with here too.

For what it is worth, one of our house rules grants additional languages, kits, skills, or tools for each bonus from Intelligence. If INT is 9 or lower, the character loses a language, skill, tool, or kit.

We like it.

I'm interested in what others musings you have about this. We've buffed fighters slightly and made some other modifications.

It sounds to me like the OP has a complaint about the game putting too much emphasis on combat options, which has always been a point of contention in every edition. Many of us want to make it something more than just an endless series of battles and leveling up. But there has not been a whole lot of rules or mechanics in the game to support or encourage anything outside of combat. So most of these changes will not have much of the desired effect unless they can change the play of the game, which largely falls on the shoulders of the GM running the game and the group of players who participate.

In order for skills (and ability scores) to have more value for any character, they must have more impact in the game. Creating more skills with little or no use during play is not going them any more desirable or useful to a player if they need to choose between that and an option that gives them some advantage on something like an attack or damage roll, which they are likely to use more often in a D&D game.

The problem with spellcasters is they can get specific abilities (called "spells") that undermine everything in the game. That, in essence, is the nature of magic. Choosing a non-spellcaster option is basic acceptance that your character will be doing things the hard way, or leaving it up someone else. The best way to even the playing field is to remove those spells which make skill use obsolete, or make them (or their effects) accessible to everyone.

Granted, some ideas will help but they won't solve this old problem without redesigning the system. I suggest looking at some similar games that don't place so much emphasis on combat for ideas. The One Ring is a really great system that emphasizes the journey and the fellowship. It also emphasizes a low-magic setting, which helps mitigate some of the inherent issues of a magical D&D setting. The 5e version, Adventures in Middle Earth, loses some of its original luster in the translation, but it still offers a number of good ideas and inspiration.

The value of any trait or combo of traits is (in rpg terms) how much it is needed or helps. That comes down to "what are the challenges the heroes will face, how often, how serious?"

So, whenever I start looking at "fine tuning balance" (anything more precise than grossly out of whack) I look at the external demands put on by the GM and the setting or campaign, not tweaks and minutiae of rules interactions.

In short, I do not seek a fine tuned balance in the rules but a playable and balanceable in play set of rules.

See, to me it seems obvious, the more precision in game balance you try to get by rules alone, the more the sway of the in-play GM just busts up all that extra fiddly faux-precision.

Its analog in science is the concept of "significant digits".

It doesnt matter if you measure one ingredient down to the micro-gram if the other ingredient uses bucketfulls as its measure.

Xeviat said:

I care a great deal about game balance.

Click to expand...

And you play D&D.
My condolences.

I know the only game that can be "perfectly" balanced would be a game where all players have the same options

Click to expand...

That'd be a /fair/ game. Those options may still be imbalanced, players of any skill which just ignore the inferior ones.

an RPG like D&D can be balanced in it's choices.

Click to expand...

If it is, it'll be pointed out that its "Not D&D" and "lacks the classic D&D feel." So, how much "an RPG /like/ D&D can be balanced..." eh... debatable.

No choice should stand up as better than others. In 3E, this was really hard to comeby, and classes like the Fighter languished in suboptimal hell when your friendly Druid came alongside with a bear who was better than you (being a little hyperbolic, but not much).

Click to expand...

Hyperbolic enough, that if this had been Gleemax in 2005 you'd've set me off again... ;|

...oh, what the heck: No, the Animal Companion of a 1st level 3.x Druid does not compare to a 1st level 3e Fighter. The fighter's hps & AC will be higher, he can use ranged/reach weapons, and hiss feats will give him** advantages in combat that the animal can't begin to match. Sure, the "Tier 5" Fighter is /profoundly/ inferior to the "Tier 1" Druid & Companion considered together, and doesn't exactly stack up well to the Druid by herself**.
But he's better than the darn Animal.
(...sorry, old rant)

4E got closer to balance, but with the drawback of feeling "samey" and "not like D&D".

Click to expand...

"Samey?" No, just no, dems fight'n words. You sucked me back into the Fighter SUX rant, that was enough.

But, yeah, what did I just say, above? Not feeling like D&D? That's what balance feels like, because that feel of D&D in this context /is/ the imbalance.

5E has gotten close, at least close enough that I can't think of character concepts I strictly wouldn't play because they were too weak, or options I feel I'd outright ban because they're too strong (okay, maybe I wouldn't play a TWFing Fighter without a custom subclass that made it good past 4th level).

Click to expand...

5e is not as utterly, systematically, intentionally*, imbalanced as 3.5: there are arguably no Tier 6 classes in 5e (that may not sound like much of an accomplishment, but it's a sign of solid design to not just outright screw up a class that bad, even the classes 5e had terrible trouble with, like the Ranger, aren't Tier 6 - and, 5e's major accomplishments are in other areas, and not to be discounted, indeed, balance is trivial by comparison, even a negative).
There are Tier 1-4, for sure, and some sub-classes, considered on their own, would be lucky to be counted in Tier 5. Also, 5e is top-heavy, that way. The Druid, Cleric, & Wizard are joined in Tier 1 by the Bard (quite the leap) at the very least, and the Paladin & Warlock have also clawed their way up substantially, though whether both have joined the Sorcerer in Tier 2 or one or the other has surpassed it is debatable (or, if, indeed, the Paladin is only Tier 3 in spite of its sheer power). The fighter is an amusing case, with each sub-class arguably in a different Tier: the BM, in the Zenhtarim-variant Fighter's coveted Tier 4 position, the EK possibly rising to Tier 3, and the Champion languishing in Tier 5.

So what am I here to discuss today?

Click to expand...

Some kind of Edition Cold War where we say what's so awful about every ed in ways sure to annoy the single-ed-fans out there?

The title does have a lot in it. I wanted to talk about expanding 5E's skill system a bit more. I miss 3E's skill system. I don't miss skill points, because a skill not maxed really didn't feel like a skill worth having. What I miss is having a lot of guidance on what skills can do. In another discussion about feats recently, I realized how many of the skill feat options really feel like things those skills should already be able to do. I'm not even going to list them; most I think should be skill checks. This could free up feats to balanced around largely being combat things, which would make it a lot easier to balance them.

Click to expand...

I see some potential issues, there. First of all, that bonus feat at 6th level is about the only thing a fighter is even going to have an option to put towards a meaningful non-combat ability. Second, there are no skills or skill checks in 5e, not really - no, hear me out, please - in 5e, they're all ability Checks, a skill or proficiency /might apply/. So anything you can do with a check, anyone, with or without the skill or proficiency, can do (unless the DM rules otherwise, and he probably should, he should also set different DCs for different characters based on their class/skills/background, back/story/ etc...).

Where do spellcasters come in?

Click to expand...

Wherever they want, it's their game.

Well, in my thought of expanding the skill system, I wanted to put in some new skill requirements on spellcasters to make it so they benefit less from an expanded skill system. If skills are expanded without limiting casters some how, then such an expansion doesn't really help empower non-casters. If casters have all the same toys, what makes the non-casters special?

Click to expand...

OK, you could've started here, actually.

That reminds me of a pretty terrible game back in the day, DragonQuest, that did something like that, probably by accident. It used a system of several arrays to generate stats and the player arranged them. There were 6 or 7 stats, all of some value to anyone, and one, MA, of value /only/ to casters, period (it wasn't your defense against magic or anything). So casters were automatically MAD, and everyone else had a prime dump stat, letting them take the array with the greatest high-low spread, too. Didn't save the game, but in that one aspect, yeah, it was better than 5e's doing with arrays & casters v non-casters, right now.

What do I mean by this? Well, if spellcasters needed a knowledge skill (Arcana, Nature, Religion), and perhaps something else (3E had spellcraft and concentration, though I'm not entirely sure we want to go back down that rabbit hole), then a portion of their skill budget would get tied up in those, limiting the other skills they could get.

Click to expand...

Only going to work if the Spellcasting skill has little/no value outside that application. Spellcraft fits the bill, for instance. Concentration is about the only meaningful restriction left on 5e casters, so making it a skill (that might be cheesed up with Expertise) instead of a CON save would be potentially fraught. Maybe if you require the Concentration skill /every round/ in addition to forcing CON saves when you take damage?

Where do ability scores come in? I've been thinking a lot about having Int grant skills, languages, or tool proficiencies, as part of an effort to rebalance the non +attack/dc/damage portion of the ability scores (Dex and Con are too valuable for everyone, Wis probably leads the way in mentals because of it's saves and perception). Int often feels easily dumped, so having it give skills might make others pick it up again (but that would also expand a wizard's skill options, devaluing what I just said earlier; we could always give the wizard no skills and just make them go off their int and background, lol).

Click to expand...

You could give bonus Languages, only, one per INT bonus. It's not that big a deal, it's very old-school, and it doesn't make wizards instant skill-masters. Tool Proficiencies, other than thieves tools, also seem pretty low-value, so maybe a restricted list of Tool Proficiencies?

Mostly just musing here. If characters could use their skills to do extraordinary things, and eventually heroic, epic things, I think they could feel a lot more closer to casters in full utility. In a low combat game, a spellcaster can use their spells for utility things, greatly contributing to social and exploration challenges. Give the non-casters more toys to play with here too.

Click to expand...

I did something like this back in the day, somewhere in that big D-ring binder of yellowing college-ruled notepaper, I still have the variant. The details aren't important, but, by level, I rated skills as Apprentice, Journeyman, Master, and Legendary. Legendary let you do crazy stuff, like a Legendary Healer could revive the recently dead, a Legendary Cook (I actually had one in my campaign, so I had to come up with something) could prepare edible, nourishing meals from rocks or given the right ingredients, make food that would heal you like you were a Gauntlet sprite, or have other potion-like magical effects (the Legendary Cook went on a quest the Moon to acquire ingredients once), others were more prosaic, when a PC finally collected enough adamantine to make a magic sword he went to a Legendary smith who was the only living person who could work that metal.

If you're willing to toss concerns of realism and verisimilitude to the winds without resorting to magic, there's all sorts of things you can do with very high-level skills. Of course, when your bonus is only 6 or 10 higher than a talented amateur, it might ring a little hollow, but that's just a cross BA must bear - and the DM can lighten by simply narrating exemplary success for the Legendary One on any task he'd call for a roll from the talented amateur, and narrating disastrous failure if the amateur tries to imitate anything the Legendary needs a check to do.













* to reward 'system mastery' 3e designs intentionally included 'best' choices and metaphorical M:tA 'Timmeh Cards' - choices designed to look cool, but underperform in play, aka: Trap options. Cook casually admitted that in Ivory Tower Game Design, just while laying a foundation for the actual point of the essay. He ultimately had to take it down...
[sblock="...but the internet never forgets:"]
https://4thmaster.wordpress.com/2014/06/26/ivory-tower-game-design/
"Magic also has a concept of “Timmy cards.” These are cards that look cool, but aren’t actually that great in the game. The purpose of such cards is to reward people for really mastering the game, and making players feel smart when they’ve figured out that one card is better than the other. While D&D doesn’t exactly do that, it is true that certain game choices are deliberately better than others."
https://www.google.com/search?sourc...+Tower+Game+Design&oq=Ivory+Tower+Game+Design[/sblock]
** why, yes, I am hypothetically talking about Regdar and Vadania, here, because iconics were 3e's pronoun dodge, pretty neat, huh.

The way 5e handles "skill checks" (it's really ability checks) is one of my favorite things about the system. The key ability scores for each class already differentiate classes with these checks.

Wizards suck at strength checks compared to fighters naturally just based on ability score allocation, for example. The last thing I would do is grant additional ability check benefits based on int bonus. All that accomplishes is changing the natural difference to move wizards into more ability check bonuses.

"I realized how many of the skill feat options really feel like things those skills should already be able to do. "

Then do them. That was the point of bounded accuracy and a simpler system. If you think you can do something with a skill you are empowered to to so by trying. The DM is empowered by responding with an automatic success or failure, and expected to determine difficulty if neither is automatic.

The role feats play into that is in facilitating success and does not limit possibility.

Spells don't create a big gap over ability checks. Spells typically require ability checks as they enable or enhance what the character is trying to accomplish. Spells need to be learned or known. Unlike ability checks, spells are codified to restrict what magic can do. Spell slots are extremely limited when ability checks are not. Spells are superfluous when they accomplish the same thing as mundane options at which point they are little more than flavor.

This is an argument I see on the internet that I never see in games after years of gaming. Convenient doesn't equal better when the end result is the same. Just saying.

My 2cp.

Tony Vargas said:

And you play D&D.
My condolences.

Click to expand...

Haha. What can I say, I'm a masochist at times. I'm also loyal. I like D&D. Just because I think it could be better doesn't mean I don't like it.

I'm glad you caught all of my favorite edition war things though.

As for not being afraid to push the bounds on what mundane things could be done with skills ... I mean ability checks ... I'm definitely not. I liked 4E's Paragon/Epic tier nomenclature for that type of thing. Legendary heroes can do things ordinary mortals can't; Level 11 and up, I'd be fine with extraordinary things. Level 17+? Yeah sure whatever.

I like where you are going with this, but I think a "skill tax" for spellcasters might not be the right approach; it's usually just better to reduce their number of skills.

One issue that Mearls mentioned during 5E development was the trouble of the skill rules doing "double-duty" of both 1) helping to define your character and 2) describing how to mechanically resolve certain situations. I think this is why 5E's skill descriptions are so atrophied. Skills are presented as subservient to the ability scores; this is why climbing is considered a "Strength (Athletics)" check. They're trying to link ability scores to resolution mechanics, to free up skills to be more about defining your character.

This is just my theory. But I have to wonder, looking at the skill list, whether they succeeded in making skills be defining characteristics. I kinda feel like they went half-way.