New Mearls Article - Skills in D&D

[Yesway Jose]

This might be a stupid question, but isn't something like this a bit simpler/flexible to implement?

Core/basic game
Str 4
Dex 3
Basic climb check = minimal rules, Str or Dex check vs wall DC (in this case, player chooses Str)

Advanced/optional rules
Str 4
Dex 3
Athletics 7
Climb 8
Advanced climb check = expanded rules, Str or Dex or Athletics or Climb check vs wall DC (in this case, player chooses Climb)

Instead of (arbitrarily) basing climb speed on strength (or dexterity), climb distance is something like the skill check minus the DC: bad roll means you climbed slowly due to inexperience or climbed fast but then slipped due to an error, a great roll means you climbed quickly.

At character creation, when you "buy" Athletics or Climb, you subtract your Dex or Str from the cost, so a high Athletics or Climb is cheaper to purchase if you have good Str or Dex. A PC with mediocre Str/Dex but high Athletics/Climb is one who trained hard despite the lack of raw ability. Conversely, a PC without Athletics or Climb represents a warrior who couldn't be bothered.

 

[Gundark]

Just a few things.

I really, really like to hear Mearls think out loud, but was very disappointed by the indication that these musings weren't going somewhere. For a while, I was excited by the thought of a modular, dial-in complexity as desired, and was hoping 5e was being kicked around, design-wise.

Don't kid yourself, he is talking about some kind of big change for D&D. Either 5e or 4.5. I know what he said at GenCon but I interpreted that there is no big 5e announcement in the pipeline.

 

[Stormonu]

I think the idea Mearls is throwing out has some merit, but I'm not keen on the lawyer-speak for the skill.

What I think I'd like to see is a somewhat broad, basic skill list and then talents that let you "do more" with the skill, without taking a penalty to do it ("hey, I'm really good at this use of a skill)". Certain feats would give you entirely new options for the use of a skill ("Ever seen someone do this?" or page 42-like rulings).

For ex:

Athletics (Physical) * Move action
You use this skill to perform activities like running, jumping, swimming or traversing physical obstacles.

(Some) Common Modifiers:
Any: Slippery Surface (+2 DC)
Climb: Sheer Surface (+4 DC)
Swim: Rapids (+4 DC)
Run: +5 feet to Speed (+2 DC) [multiple]

(Physical) skills use Strength, Dexterity or Constitution (modifier), as determined by the DM to which best applies
(Mental) skills use Intelligence, Wisdom or Charisma (modifier) as determined by the DM to which best applies

Talent: Cliffhanger
You suffer no penalty to Athletics skill checks when climbing sheer surfaces.

Talent: Sprinter
You gain +10 feet to Speed when running

Feat: Diving Tackle
If you move at least your Speed, you can make an attack against an opponent using your Athletics skill vs. Opponent's Reflex to knock an target prone. If you succeed the check by 4 or more, you are not knocked prone as well.

 

[Jhaelen]

I have a strong preference for skills to be based upon a combination of ability scores rather than single ability scores (or the 'use your best score for everything' which can sometimes be engineered in 4e!)

Thus climb might be Str + Dex, Swim might be Str + Con, Bluff might be Int + Cha, Diplomacy might be Wis + Cha and so forth.

It helps encourage a spread of abilities rather than the laser-like focus on key abilities which is often the mathematically most advantageous route to take in D&D

that's similar to the approach in the DSA/TDE approach: every skill is based on three attributes (and there are even some meta-skills that combine skills).

Initially, I was intrigued by the idea - suddenly all attributes are important!

There's also a distinct disadvantage, though: It's very difficult to beome really good at something. By averaging three attribute scores you end up being mediocre in just about everything.

My personal favorite is the approach used in Ars Magica and WoD: skills are not tied to attribute scores at all. In theory every skill can be combined with every attribute, depending on the circumstances.

Ars Magica goes even further by allowing personality traits (which are assigned scores from -5 to +5) to be added to or substracted from check results if applicable. I love that!

 

[vagabundo]

For instance, if this came from a new edition, I'd be doing the following: looking up what the heck "combat advantage" means and what it does and under what circumstances in particular it happens, and I would hope to the gawds not to find another "simple table"; then I'd have to look at what the standard actions are now, or more likely, what they are not; I'd have to look at the "effect forces" that moved me in the first place to see what they do or don't do, or both; and then I'd have to know what happens when I'm knocked prone and what all that entails. Granted, these aren't rocket science, but my point is that they do tend towards the "system mastery" that was the inherent problem/assumption with 3x.

These terms are used in 4e, are very common and are fairly simple. With any ruleset you are going to have to learn what the terms they use to describe elements in the game actually mean with regard to those rules. I don't see any way around that.

As 4e goes - and the hypothetical example skill from the new system - there is very little that is complex about it.

 

[The Shaman]

But Mearls continues on to say that a climber with a point in Climb could in fact climb a horizontal surface. See his spider climb. He's saying that a skilled climber can do things an unskilled climber cannot.

And what I'm saying is I prefer to let any character try to climb, but the skilled character has a better chance of success than the unskilled character.

I'm not fond of systems where only a character with skill x or talent y or feat z can attempt an action; I prefer that the skill or talent or feat simply improves the chance of success.

 

[GSHamster]

And what I'm saying is I prefer to let any character try to climb, but the skilled character has a better chance of success than the unskilled character.

I'm not fond of systems where only a character with skill x or talent y or feat z can attempt an action; I prefer that the skill or talent or feat simply improves the chance of success.

But the counter to this view has always been Swimming. Should someone be able to swim without learning to swim?

Or is it if you don't know how to swim, you just can't swim?

 

[dangerous jack]

The latter case alludes to what Mearls was talking about earlier, about layers of complexity that can be stripped out. Climbing, etc. is the province of the class. Breaking down doors is the province of a class. Deciphering runes is the province of a class. If you want such acts available to other classes, then add the skills module.

This is a really interesting point. A thief could potentially have a different way of climbing presented in the class description and could even choose between the two methods when deciding to climb. e.g. maybe the Thief class has an ability to climb any easy wall at 1/2 speed and hard wall at 1/4 speed with no roll needed. But a strong thief might elect to use the Skill system instead because it allows him to climb faster.

(Finally, don't even get me started about another "invisible" layer of useless complexity, the ability scores themselves. So, we generate an ability score to determine our ability bonus? That is, we generate a number to determine another number? I would just rather have STR +4, as opposed to STR 18 = bonus of +4. For that matter, just use Fortitude, Reflex, and Will as the abilities

I totally get this point, but an 18 is a sacred cow for me. Personally, I'd prefer to do away with Fort, Ref, and Will altogether and target the ability scores as is. e.g. you don't target Fort, you target Str or Con depending on if it's a bull rush or a poison attack.

 

[Yesway Jose]

But the counter to this view has always been Swimming. Should someone be able to swim without learning to swim?

Or is it if you don't know how to swim, you just can't swim?

Apparently, there are people all over the world in real-life who don't know how to swim. Even in fantasy stories, if everyone knew how to swim, you wouldn't be able to tell the story of the pirates that can't swim or the dwarf PC who can't swim and is afraid of water. Mechanically, I think it should be cheap to purchase a Swim skill in an optional skills module, so that every player can do so if they want without feeling penalized.

 

[Yesway Jose]

This is a really interesting point. A thief could potentially have a different way of climbing presented in the class description and could even choose between the two methods when deciding to climb. e.g. maybe the Thief class has an ability to climb any easy wall at 1/2 speed and hard wall at 1/4 speed with no roll needed. But a strong thief might elect to use the Skill system instead because it allows him to climb faster.

IMO my quibble with tying these skills to classes is what if I don't want my thief to be a great climber? What if my PC build is a short stocky bald thief with nimble fingers but otherwise non-agile and has trouble hopping a fence? Mechanically, I'm paying for the ability to climb better even if it doesn't fit the character concept. It depends on the class though. A ninja class would almost have to have climbing skills, but a general thief, I'm not so sure.