New Mearls Article - Skills in D&D

[wrecan]

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?

I think that should be campaign-specific. The default in D&D is that the PCs are heroes. Heroes know how to swim, and any Swim skill merely improves swimming. If you want a grittier campaign world, you might rule that you can't swim unless you've taken the Swim skill.

 

[dangerous jack]

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.

2 solutions:
1) DM disallows class-based "skill powers" from every class and only uses the Skills section (Thieves don't get Climb Walls, Fighters don't get Bend Bars / Life Gates, etc.)
2) Use the Bandit class?

 

[Stormonu]

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.

You could also go with "Deficiencies" - some sort of system where you could choose to "always fail" a skill check in return for some other benefit. For example, you could argue that in 3.5 th barbarian had a Linguistics deficiency with the "illiterate" limitation.

A similar thing could be done to represent non-swimmers. The default would be everyone is assumed to be able to attempt to tread water, unless you had the "Can't Swim/Landlubber" deficiency. What would it give in return? Dunno, maybe a bonus to hold your breath?

 

[Yesway Jose]

I think that should be campaign-specific. The default in D&D is that the PCs are heroes. Heroes know how to swim, and any Swim skill merely improves swimming. If you want a grittier campaign world, you might rule that you can't swim unless you've taken the Swim skill.

A similar thing could be done to represent non-swimmers. The default would be everyone is assumed to be able to attempt to tread water, unless you had the "Can't Swim/Landlubber" deficiency. What would it give in return? Dunno, maybe a bonus to hold your breath?

If swimming is the rules default and a player voluntarily gives up swimming ability, then I think it's up the DM and player to decide otherwise, but I don't the official rules should explicitly reward the deficiency. I understand that can be exploited by power-gamers loading up on mechanical drawbacks in order to max out on extra mechanical perks. The perk of roleplaying, say, a dwarf deathly afraid of water should be the reward in itself.

For clarity of worldbuilding, I'd personally go with the status quo that most NPCs do not know how to swim by default, at least in medieval societies that don't have the luxury or inclination or access to swimming.

I don't think that all PCs should be assumed to be able to swim specifically because they're heroes per se. Even the most exceptional hero may not have ever gotten around to swimming lessons. However, I can imagine a great knight having the wits to tread water and swim albeit badly. I guess it's not mechanically unbalancing for PCs to get a "free" swim skill, and fictionally, I guess most PCs could squeeze in a swimming lesson on the side during their class training. So if a player chooses that their PC can tread water or swim, I'd say it's not because he's a hero, but because the player just chose a PC that happens to be able to swim.

EDIT: I think it is possible IMO to have skills that are listed as costing 0 points to purchase, although it reads a little silly, the player realizes that the skill is not automatically inherent to every PC and NPC but that players can buy it at no cost if it fits their character concept AND it provides transparency for the DM to pick and choose what elements fit in a custom tailored campaign.

 

[howandwhy99]

Skill systems are bad game design. They're not systems at all in my book. But I do understand storytelling without game rules could be somewhat more focused with such topics as skills openly stated. And I would support the "ability score" topic list Mearls suggests for such open group storytelling, but not the unnecessary complications beyond them.

If he wants games and game complexity, I suggest he defines rules that refer to something in a system just like any non-RPG game they put out. Complexity doesn't come from simply adding more text to the game manuals. It isn't massive tables or lengthy lists. It's about multiplication of potential results and growth from a small, but powerful initial set. Games really are about the interacting connections between elements within them. Their rules can be simple and short, but result in high complexity. Skill lists are only additively long or short.

 

[The Shaman]

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?

Apples and oranges.

You might as well compare Climb to Starship Piloting. One is something garden-variety humans can attempt without any specific training, the other is very clearly not.

And as far as swimming goes, there's a difference between swimming and not-drowning; an untrained character can, at a minimum, attempt to stay afloat.

 

[ashockney]

Feedback - what an honor to participate in the dialogue!

By now, Gen Con has come and gone and you’ve heard that we’re releasing a new D&D skirmish game for next year.

Where can we get more information on what a skirmish game is and what this means? Very interesting. I'm particularly intrigued if you're considering moving the D&D tabletop/board miniatures tactical game from the rpg.

Hopefully, you’ve also heard that we’re doing an open play test for the game.

Brilliant! Kudos to you for pulling it off.

A game with lots of rules may require more lookups during play or have conflicts between rules. They might also create the sense that the rules, not the DM, are in charge of the game.

Agreed. Simpler is better, universally. A degree of complexity to challenge, particularly for those that enjoy this complexity. Keep it intuitive and easily referenced.

Here’s what I propose as a starting point: A skill gives you something new to do or it makes you better at something you already can do. In other words, if you removed the skill chapter from the rulebook, the game would still be playable. Set out the basics of how to do common actions that you expect anyone to be able to do, give the DM a robust mechanic to improvise or make a ruling, and then focus skills on customization.

I love the concept of character "customization" by adding features as you gain experience.

Here’s an example that tackles climbing in D&D.

I would like climbing to be a function of movement.
Like most features of the game, it should likely be modified by:
An attribute, skill, feats, race, class, and magic.

Movement is used to overcome an obstacle, explore, engage, shift, escape, retreat, track, and trail. Your movement is based upon:
easy 60' DC10
moderate 30' DC15
hard 10' DC20
Your movement is modified by either STR or INT.
Your movement is modified by Athletics or Acrobatics.
Your movement is modified by racial modifiers.
Your movement is modified by class modifiers.
Your movement is modified by magic modifiers from items and spells.

Examples:
Halfling Racial modifier, all base movements are reduced by 5'.
Athletics/Acrobatics Skills grant a +2 modifier to obstacles, shift, escape checks.
Ranger Longstrider class ability (3rd level) - all base movements are increased by 5'.
Spider Climb - magic effect - allows you to make climb obstacles with no check.

In some cases, you might need to climb a treacherous surface. If you try to climb a rope covered in grease, a crumbling rock wall, or a statue as a hill giant rocks it back and forth, you risk falling to the ground. When you attempt to climb, the DM may ask you to make an ability check to see if you can complete the climb. If your check fails, you make no progress on your climb. If your die roll is a natural 1 or your result is 10 or more less than the DC, you fall.

Obstacle: Exceptionally difficult = +5 to target DC (obstacles grant xp)

Failure does not mean the end of the encounter, it can mean a setback. Skill Challenge system, baby. I love it.

Instead, we can let the DM set DCs based on what a player wants to do using a robust set of guideline DCs. The abilities that a player opts into are simply new talents that the character can use at will.

DC's are static, unless they are opposed or obstacles. In both of the latter instances, these become XP generating opportunities, based upon the skill challenge system.

Further reflections (edited):
This type of system lends itself to some tactical advantages like:
Skill focus: +1
Skill specialty: +2
Skill expert: +4

This system also lends itself to the ability to have a more even playing field from levels 1-20 by taking out the "linear" building effect (Level+1 or 1/2 level) bonus, and the scaling difficulty classes. It is possible to hold a "tomb of horrors" type of adventure with lower level characters, and is statistically IMPROBABLE of any low level success, but they could at least tag along. More similiar to "earlier" editions of the game.

 

[Hussar]

I have to admit, reading this, my first thought was that he was removing the skill system and replacing it with feats. Is that a bad interpretation?

I could see it working. The basic character comes with "adventurer" skills. Again, not a terribly unreasonable assumption. Actually, thinking about it, 3e already does this with the idea of "untrained" skills - skills you can use with only your base stat.

Make most skills - particularly physical ones - untrained, give the bonus of Stat+1/2 per level and you're good to go. Wrap up all those physical skills within the description of the stats themselves.

About the only skills I can see this being very problematic for would be knowledge skills. Although, really, that's probably not a big deal either. It's not unreasonable that a 10th level character would know a troll and it's weaknesses on sight, even without ever having watched the Fantasy Wild Kingdom show. A bit of tweaking with the DC's and you can make more esoteric knowledge out of reach of anyone who doesn't have special training.

 

[vagabundo]

About the only skills I can see this being very problematic for would be knowledge skills. Although, really, that's probably not a big deal either. It's not unreasonable that a 10th level character would know a troll and it's weaknesses on sight, even without ever having watched the Fantasy Wild Kingdom show. A bit of tweaking with the DC's and you can make more esoteric knowledge out of reach of anyone who doesn't have special training.

I would like to see trained in knowledge and maybe expert. Expert would give access to the more obscure kinds of knowledge. There could be an expert section in the monster entry. I suppose there would be some dcs with a rider, trained only or expert only.

 

[pemerton]

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

But how do you know that they didn't have the requisite "feat"/"skill talent"?

The easiest solution is for the GM to just be forthcoming with the DC before the player decides the character attempts the action.

<snip>

I think the specific modifiers Sammael has been discussing are a mistake to put in place as hard rules, but useful in summing to a general DC.

As to the hand-waving climbing difficulty, I would prefer more GM guidance, but I don't consider GM fiat for DC setting to be "horrible design". The elimination of a list of climb-specific DCs is a plus and a minus (plus for simplicity, minus for unpredictability) - exactly the sort of tradeoff that good designs will differ on.

It goes beyond this. The 4e approach to most skills (Athletics tends to be an exception) is to set DCs in relative terms ("This is Hard for 10th level PCs") and then to narrate the situation around this decision.

This approach has very different implications for play from an approach of setting the DC in an "objective" way based on the physical details of the ingame situation. It's not just about trading off simplicity for predictability (DCs in 4e are generally pretty predictable!) but about what the intended relationship is between the action resolution mechanics and the fiction.

And whether or not to be transparent with DCs is a part of this. It is pretty crucial to a 4e-style metagame approach. It's less obvious that it is essential to a simulationist approach.

An added bonus (or is it a disadvantage if it becomes argumentative?) that the player can suggest modifying the DC like 'oh but i have these rubber sole boots, does not change the modifier you added because of slippery ice?'

Is there a limit on the number of such bonuses that a player can lobby for? 4e generally assumes that +2 to the check is the best you will do from this sort of stuff. A simulation-heavy approach like Rolemaster doesn't impose limits - but then you get the problem of having to decide when benefits are cumulative and when they overlap.

And removing that chance of failure when it should be there is futzing with the drama.

<snip>

The potential for failure, even in the best-laid plans, is part of any game.

But whether it should be achieved through simulationist-oriented mechanics (as eg in Rolemaster) or through some other mechanical approach is an open question.

An illustration from the BW Adventure Burner (pages 248-49, under the heading 'Roll the Dice or Say Yes"):

In a recent campaign, our characters were crossing a narrow span over a chasm. The GM, Pete, described the bridge in vivid detail. One of the players, Rich, described his character hopping up to the railing and caperingalong. Should Pete have called for a [skill or attribute check]? No. Never. . . Certainly "in real life" there's a chance of falling, but in the story, it just didn't matter. . .

[W]hat would the [check] have accomplished? He would have succeeded and stayed on the bridge. Success would have kept him at the same point. Or hw would have fallen and we would have had to save him. . . like . . . in a bad action movie. There would have been quick cuts and close ups but nothing really would have happened. . .

Later those same characters needed to cross a narrow ledge to gain entry to a lost tomb. Pete described wind whipping along the cliff walls. We would have to make [checks] to cross and get in. This was a totally legit [check]. The tomb was the goal of a long quest. Would we get in unscathed? Or would this cost us? . . . If we failed, we'd lose . . . precious resources!​

How to handle failure, and the drama to which the possibility of failure gives rise, is a big question in designing a system.

If the design intent is "heroic OR gritty" fantasy, is it feasible to bake in a easier baseline DC for heroic campaigns and a higher baseline DC for gritty campaigns?

In my view no, because it's not just about the difficulty of things, but the way that the possibility of failure, and failure mitigation, and predictability of success, and player control over success or failure, is built into the system.