New Mearls Article - Skills in D&D

[Ed_Laprade]

An invisible force wall has handholds? (Someone had to say it!)

I found the article interesting, something to think about. But I do agree that his inclusion of absolutes is something that needs squashing Right Now! I know next to nothing about rock climbing, but I've read the occasional brief article here and there about some 'handicapped' person or other taking it up with good results. Someone who wouldn't even be allowed to try if what Mr. Mearls wrote went through. (Hopefully something like that would be spotted and removed, but the best way to prevent something like that from getting through is not to write it in the first place.)

 

[Jan van Leyden]

I don't think you could mix the two styles. If one player has invested in a lot of skill talents the DM will have to be careful not to give these abilities to other players for free.

That's right - but only if skills use the same resource as some other part of the character. If a class yields a number of skill selections to a character, "investing" in skills has no effect on other aspects. Likewise a character might receive Talent Points when levelling up can only be used for skill talents.

The trick would be to make the mechanical benefits small enough that it doesn't create a more powerful character but only a different, colourful one.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

An invisible force wall has handholds? (Someone had to say it!)

I figured the NPC wizard wanted to include them for some reason, although, outside of a gonzo dungeon, I can't think of one. If you're tossing up invisible walls of force in your dungeon, go ahead and give your minions a better way around it, if they need one.

 

[Pilgrim]

At first I thought the idea was fairly well laid out, but then after consideration I decided I don't like the implementation. I like the idea of simplistic skills, but I feel as if limiting them to a single attribute is the wrong direction to take.

Many skills simply aren't covered by one attribute. IMO, DEX is just as important to climbing as STR and it doesn't feel right that the fighter class should be better at climbing than the thief class just because on average, the fighter class will have higher STR scores than a thief.

I would really like the developers to look at how skills can be used or based off a combination of attributes, something as simple as averages of two or three. I think this would help eliminate the need for players to feel pressured to place focus of certain single attributes above the rest.

 

[Jan van Leyden]

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?

No, it's not necessary and beneficial only in rare situations. But to know that your CAREFUL climber character can handle a long, dangerous climb with very little risk is a boon.

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.

That'd be true if we were talking GURPS and a character completely optimized for climbing. Or in the 3e world where the skill points per level system produced such large differences between learned and unlearned characters that the PCs with a certain skill had a protected niche with this skill.

 

[Stoat]

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?

In general, I agree. On the other hand, climbing is currently a subset of Athletics, not its own skill. I could imagine a system similar to what Mearls is describing that would give players who trained Athletics the option to be better climbers or better swimmers or better jumpers. I saw a thread on rpg.net the other day bemoaning the fact that "Thievery" covers both small-scale sleight of hand (pick pockets) and mechanical tinkering (open lock, disable traps) Mearls' idea would let a PC specialize a little more.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

At first I thought the idea was fairly well laid out, but then after consideration I decided I don't like the implementation. I like the idea of simplistic skills, but I feel as if limiting them to a single attribute is the wrong direction to take.

Many skills simply aren't covered by one attribute. IMO, DEX is just as important to climbing as STR and it doesn't feel right that the fighter class should be better at climbing than the thief class just because on average, the fighter class will have higher STR scores than a thief.

I would really like the developers to look at how skills can be used or based off a combination of attributes, something as simple as averages of two or three. I think this would help eliminate the need for players to feel pressured to place focus of certain single attributes above the rest.

Or something as simple as double or triple-listing which stats work for which skill. Climbing would be the better of DEX or STR, while fast-talking could be the better of INT or CHA, for instance.

 

[The Shaman]

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."

I think we're talking about modularity in two different ways: I'm referring to character creation specifically, not the relationship of the climbing rule to the rest of the rules for skills or what-have-you.

This actually reminds me of something else, though. I understand that Mr Mearls' example is intended to foster discussion and doesn't represent a playtested, edited, 'final' product, but something jumped out at me, something I don't care for in a number of games, particularly d20 games: the attempt to eliminate ambiguity by creating a seemingly 'comprehensive' rule.

"When you climb, you must be standing up and have both hands free." Really? No amount of skill will allow a character to climb with only one hand free?

"You can climb a vertical surface, but cannot climb across a ceiling or similar surface without a special ability." Really? No amount of skill will allow a character to brachiate along the roof of a cave, frex?

One of the immediate problems for me is that I've seen, first-hand, real-life humans do both of these things.

Why does this need to be defined this way? Are gamers incapable of exercising sufficient good judgement to understand what climbing entails?

 

[Pilgrim]

I think we're talking about modularity in two different ways: I'm referring to character creation specifically, not the relationship of the climbing rule to the rest of the rules for skills or what-have-you.

This actually reminds me of something else, though. I understand that Mr Mearls' example is intended to foster discussion and doesn't represent a playtested, edited, 'final' product, but something jumped out at me, something I don't care for in a number of games, particularly d20 games: the attempt to eliminate ambiguity by creating a seemingly 'comprehensive' rule.

"When you climb, you must be standing up and have both hands free." Really? No amount of skill will allow a character to climb with only one hand free?

"You can climb a vertical surface, but cannot climb across a ceiling or similar surface without a special ability." Really? No amount of skill will allow a character to brachiate along the roof of a cave, frex?

One of the immediate problems for me is that I've seen, first-hand, real-life humans do both of these things.

Why does this need to be defined this way? Are gamers incapable of exercising sufficient good judgement to understand what climbing entails?

+1, I was reading the description and thinking the very same thing. It should be pretty common sense to know what would and wouldn't hinder a character climbing.

 

[The Shaman]

No, it's not necessary and beneficial only in rare situations. But to know that your CAREFUL climber character can handle a long, dangerous climb with very little risk is a boon.

You can accomplish the same thing with rules like d20's take 10/20 and Flashing Blades' skill mastery - when you reach a certain skill level, routine tasks don't require a roll at all.

That'd be true if we were talking GURPS and a character completely optimized for climbing. Or in the 3e world where the skill points per level system produced such large differences between learned and unlearned characters that the PCs with a certain skill had a protected niche with this skill.

*looks at thread title*

So 3e isn't D&D anymore?