New Mearls Article - Skills in D&D

[Gundark]

I was very pleased with the full example.

Also, FWI, at Gencon, he made a statement that seamed to imply these were to test out ideas for 5E, but that wasnt just around the corner. (the new minis game at the top of the article is).

+1 . Yeah i read the same thing out of this. I think that being transparent (or at least partially so) is a good first step to rebuilding creditability with the community. I think open playtests for 5e would be a great idea

 

[KidSnide]

(1) is something we can all agree on. However, I am vehemently opposed to (2). Skills represent a subset of abilities that a character can become better at. Skills are gradual and variable. Feats, OTOH, are binary - you either have them or you don't. Merging the two is not desirable, IMO.

There are a host of issues here, some of which are about how we're applying different meanings to the same words:

* We're not really talking about "merging" feats and skills. In fact, I think we're talking about separating non-combat non-class abilities from combat non-class abilities. I think that's a great idea, both for rules consistency and because it allows GMs to customize the focus of their games: more skill-feats and fewer combat-feats generates a game with more intricate skill resolution and less complicated combat.

* There's nothing intrinsic about skills that requires that they be gradual and variable and makes feats binary. Yes, people in real life have different levels of skill in climbing (not just on or off), just as people have difference levels of proficiency with certain weapons (not just "I know how to use a longsword or not"). It's just a design question about how much granularity you want to put in that part of character creation.

It may be a quirk of my play style, but I end up making a lot of characters for people and 95% of the time, they are significantly above 1st level. I hated assigning skill points in 3x. It was a real PITA.

* Mearls' suggested design actually is fairly granular. For each "climb" ability you take, your modifier goes up. It's like a more granular version of Skill Training and Skill Focus. If you replaced "Climb" with "Athletics" and provided one or two climb special abilities on the list of Althetics talents, it might even be workable.

-KS

 

[DEFCON 1]

Ask any mathematician. +5 per 2 points of Str which changes to +5 per 1 point of Str once Str hits 20 is not a linear function.

You're correct here... but I also would venture a guess that this was either a typo or Mearls' misspoke. He probably meant that it's indeed an extra five feet per point of modifier, not per point of strength score.

So the intention is that it would be linear.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I am honestly frustrated as hell because Mearls is moving in a direction which is completely opposite from my interests. His proposed rules look like something found in an OSR game (several people already commented on that), and not something found in a modern RPG. In fact, I know of several OSR games that have more elegant solutions to these problems.

I think that the OSR-style basic engine will just be the underlying math. I think all of the modern stuff will be the bolted-on modules. Maybe the basic boxed set, presuming there is one in UD&D, would just use the OSR-style math, but the core books would add 4E-style play atop that. People who like 4E could use the core books, but the OSR crowd would have a "basic" line that they could glom onto and build off of on their own.

 

[Umbran]

Calling me a liar is grounds for reporting, but I'll let it slip since I think you don't know what "linear" means.

P1nback won't be back in the thread.

But I wanted to note, just saying, "Gee, Mearls did say there'd be guidelines, so maybe I was wrong about the baselines thing," would probably have gone a long way in defusing the conflict.

 

[Sammael]

You are correct, of course, and I apologize. I would like to state for the record that I did not report that post nor request any moderation on my behalf.

 

[The Shaman]

. . . Mr. Mearls seems to take some pains to ensure modularity. The climbing rules given work with or without the skills. You'd be perfectly OK to let your character climb without any Skill involved, but your friend who wants to build his FAST CLIMBER can do so without making your character in the same game any less useful. That would be scalability at its best.

My issue is with this perceived need for modularity. Is it really necessary or beneficial to distinguish between, "I'm the FAST climber!" and "I'm the CAREFUL climber!" in a roleplaying game?

I think this is taken to ridiculous extremes in many games, and in my experience in encourages a style of play in which every character is expected to possess a narrow, inviolable niche. Personally, I find the idea that a party of adventurers is supposed to emulate a SWAT team turned to eleven very limiting.

 

[KidSnide]

My issue is with this perceived need for modularity. Is it really necessary or beneficial to distinguish between, "I'm the FAST climber!" and "I'm the CAREFUL climber!" in a roleplaying game?

I think this is taken to ridiculous extremes in many games, and in my experience in encourages a style of play in which every character is expected to possess a narrow, inviolable niche. Personally, I find the idea that a party of adventurers is supposed to emulate a SWAT team turned to eleven very limiting.

I agree that the example climb rules are far too granular with the "skill-feats" (for lack of a better term). But what does that have to do with modularity? The modularity is in the fact a the same climb rules could be used without the "skill-feat module."

-KS

 

[Eric Tolle]

(1) is something we can all agree on. However, I am vehemently opposed to (2). Skills represent a subset of abilities that a character can become better at. Skills are gradual and variable. Feats, OTOH, are binary - you either have them or you don't. Merging the two is not desirable, IMO.

I actually think in the theoretical game described, the role of skills would mainly be taken up by attributes, and skills would be more akin to feats in current D&D, giving bonuses and special abilities. In this respect it resembles a version of FATE which has only six broad skills, and a bunch of stunts for individuality.

Now, if only the game added aspects, we'd be going somewhere.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

My issue is with this perceived need for modularity. Is it really necessary or beneficial to distinguish between, "I'm the FAST climber!" and "I'm the CAREFUL climber!" in a roleplaying game?

To turn this back on you, "Maybe?"

I recall playing in an Ars Magica game many, many moons ago, and one of the things I recall doing was picking what I recall to be something like D&D 3.X-ish feats.

One of the guys I was playing with picked some ability that helped him cast more or better spells of a certain kind; I can't recall which. He was, though, choosing to make his character the "Fast Climber."

Me, on the other hand, I picked the "Flawless Magic" perk / feat / ability. It's benefit was, essentially, that I could never botch a spellcasting roll - I would always achieve at least the minimum success. I made my character into the "Careful Climber" of the group.

We each played differently enough, even in a relatively short campaign, that the differences between being the fast climber and the careful climber were borne out. And if you can do it in one aspect of one system, why not another?

I'm not saying that the specific examples are exactly the best, but I don't think Mike's saying that, either.