skill proficiencies point buy

Mistwell · Jun 6, 2019

FrogReaver said:
I have blocked you. Please abide by the spirit of the block rules (even though you are apparently immune to the condition) and refrain from posting in my threads and replying to my posts. Thanks.

Oh. Uh...but you're replying to me?

I'm fine not replying to you further. But I was talking to others in this thread. People don't "own" threads here as far as I know. I'll continue to do so, and I'm unaware if any rule or spirit of a rule which says or implies I shouldn't? If there is, I guess report it and a mo can clarify?

Cap'n Kobold · Jun 6, 2019

Mistwell said:
I dispute your premise. "Many" people? Show me. Name some. Or show me a poll where many people answer that way.

"Many" does not have to mean anything like a majority.
It might just mean "more than ten".

ART! · Jun 6, 2019

FrogReaver said:
Many people complain about skills being imbalanced.

Mistwell said:
I dispute your premise. "Many" people? Show me. Name some. Or show me a poll where many people answer that way.

The spirit of FrogReaver's OP is "I have heard people complain about" etc., not "I have a list of people who have complained" or "as evidenced by probably non-scientific* polling...", let alone "i have scientific proof that..." Clearly, they have encountered complaints, and are curious about a particular kind of solution.

Mistwell said:
We're 5 years into this edition and there is virtually no noise about skills for this edition, and it didn't show up as an issue the surveys detected as a common problem even among a vocal minority.

So... because you haven't encountered complaints about skills being imbalanced, FrogReavcer's experience with complaints is somehow invalid? His simple and obvious interest in a variant rule to address a problem he has experienced does not require evidence for your satisfaction.

Mistwell · Jun 6, 2019

ART! said:
The spirit of FrogReaver's OP is "I have heard people complain about" etc., not "I have a list of people who have complained" or "as evidenced by probably non-scientific* polling...", let alone "i have scientific proof that..." Clearly, they have encountered complaints, and are curious about a particular kind of solution.

So... because you haven't encountered complaints about skills being imbalanced, FrogReavcer's experience with complaints is somehow invalid? His simple and obvious interest in a variant rule to address a problem he has experienced does not require evidence for your satisfaction.

I think it's fair to ask if this is isolated to him, and hes claiming "many" as an appeal to authority or something similar, or if it really is many.

Yeah, my being here, the WOTC boards, Reddit, other boards, the FB groups, from day 1, this issue should have come up if "many" have an issue. WOTC surveying THOUSANDS of people was specifically intended to detect any issue "many" have with the core game.

Also, seeing the objection helps others understand what the objection really looks like.

Aren't you maybe curious to see many peoples issue with a core rule which previously seemed to have been met with wide ranging acceptance and welcome?

Mistwell · Jun 6, 2019

Okay I thought about it some more and I'm not sure my asking what the objection is really helps anyone with this thread. I guess I'll back out. I really was just curious to know what the objection is and how many people really do feel that there is some issue with skills but if that's not relevant to most people here then that's fine.

5ekyu · Jun 6, 2019

FrogReaver said:
You miss the issue with trying to fix the problem at the play level.

No, you ignore reality when pretending it can be fixed at the points level.

There are systems out there with skills systems and such and 500 pages of point buy construction for everything from languages to skills to fear of flying to thermal long johns and nuclear weapons with over three decades of hashing and rehashing and so on and so forth and yet, today, they still have the same kinds of "but this needs to be that cost and that needs to be rolled into" they had all along.

"In play" is where the value is seen. "In play" is where the value matters. It doesn't happen in the white room.

If you reason for the call to action is that you have seen some folks unhappy with the perception they have of the in-game value of skills and the course you want to lay out to a solution is to turn the skills into a point-buy based on some pre-defined assigment of costs based on value of value, show a system with skills breakdowns and costs where that is not the case from some of those systems which have been doing it for decades?

I am sure you must know of several since you propose this as the way to go to fix it here...

we will wait...

one or two likely will be enough...

i will go grab a soda and be back later to see...

5ekyu · Jun 6, 2019

Mistwell said:
We're 5 years into this edition and there is virtually no noise about skills for this edition, and it didn't show up as an issue the surveys detected as a common problem even among a vocal minority.

Well, maybe thats what you have seen. I have seen a small number of folks who bring up skills often enough for me to remember. Within that small pond often its medicine, often its the knowledge and a few others. Then again, off the top of my head its not gotten more play time than the rapier and trident weapon gripers.

But to me the issue is not served by addressing it at a cgar-gen cost phase at all, because **many** (threw that in just for you) non-classed systems have done skills and costs in a variety of ways including some long long lasting point-buys and they still had the same kind of complaints.

Skills tend to get less focus in part (5e) because they are not powers and major p-layers in combats as much as some other big things are. So, more noise goes that other way.

But the risk here is if we start going down the train wreck which is "if we just make it point buy and make things more complex at purchase we can fix in=play balance" with skills, thats paving the way for the same kinda thing with ability scores (really, shouldn't dex cost about 50% more than dex and Int be half as much)) etc etc etc.

FrogReaver · Jun 6, 2019

5ekyu said:
Well, maybe thats what you have seen. I have seen a small number of folks who bring up skills often enough for me to remember. Within that small pond often its medicine, often its the knowledge and a few others. Then again, off the top of my head its not gotten more play time than the rapier and trident weapon gripers.

But to me the issue is not served by addressing it at a cgar-gen cost phase at all, because **many** (threw that in just for you) non-classed systems have done skills and costs in a variety of ways including some long long lasting point-buys and they still had the same kind of complaints.

Skills tend to get less focus in part (5e) because they are not powers and major p-layers in combats as much as some other big things are. So, more noise goes that other way.

But the risk here is if we start going down the train wreck which is "if we just make it point buy and make things more complex at purchase we can fix in=play balance" with skills, thats paving the way for the same kinda thing with ability scores (really, shouldn't dex cost about 50% more than dex and Int be half as much)) etc etc etc.

That's why I see an integral part to a point buy system is empowering the DM to adjust the point costs and starting allotment to fit his campaign. Medicine won't be important in your campaign then give it a low cost of 1. Survival is the most important skill. Give it a high cost of 3.

5ekyu · Jun 7, 2019

FrogReaver said:
That's why I see an integral part to a point buy system is empowering the DM to adjust the point costs and starting allotment to fit his campaign. Medicine won't be important in your campaign then give it a low cost of 1. Survival is the most important skill. Give it a high cost of 3.

Which means your solution is "hey gm, set your own prices for these" with the hope that the gm will then ** in play ** run a campaign that makes those prices "right" for their campaign, but not any other. You are even setting up that the starting allotments will need to be figured out by the gm too.

Uh huh.

Seems like more math but less of an actual system (since table to table it's very different at its core) and it still hinges on whether or not the Gzm runs the in-play to match the choices and costs the players made.

Nebulous · Jun 7, 2019

77IM said:
The only one that I think is truly broken is Perception. In my experience, that gets rolled way more than any other skill (at some tables, it is rolled more than all other skills combined). And, it is super useful; it feels fun to spot an ambush/trap/clue, and it feels sucky to get surprised or walk face-first into a trap. Some of the weaker skills (Nature, Medicine, Performance) can be made useful by a creative or flexible DM, but it's very hard to make Perception less useful.

I've been considering forbidding Perception as a background or racial skill pick unless it's part of your race or class list (limiting it to elves, barbarians, druids, fighters, rangers, and rogues). I've also considered making it cost double, so you need to burn two skill slots in order to pick Perception.

Perception is totally messed up, especially when you have someone with Observant and a Passive DC of 22+ and the game doesn't adequately give examples. After 5 years of 5e we still confuse Investigation and Perception because of the overlap.