thecasualoblivion
First Post
At the very least, its a definite and further moving away from the 3E skill system.
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
New Legends and Lore:Difficulty Class Warfare
- Thread starter Gundark
- Start date
I'm A Banana
Potassium-Rich
A few cons that leap out at me:
More generally, I'm not entirely sure what this accomplishes that a more expansive "Take 10"/Passive Check-style rule wouldn't.
"Take 5": Assume a roll of 5; for routine tasks. (Novice)
"Take 10": Assume a roll of 10; for basic tasks. (Trainee)
"Take 15": Trained only; assume a roll of 15; for advanced tasks. (Expert)
"Take 20": Trained only; assume a roll of 20; for very precise tasks. (Master)
So for balancing on a tightrope at a circus, it's DC 15. Our trained performer can take a Passive 5, assuming at least +5 in bonuses. Our Dexterous Elf can do the same thing. Our heavily-armored dwarf probably won't make it, but it's not unbelievable.
When the earthquake hits, its DC 20. Suddenly our dwarf is less sure of himself, though there's still a chance of making it, on the outside, if he's lucky. Our Elf can Take 10, if he's got a high bonus, but chances are he'll have to roll. Our acrobat can Take 15, though -- she's still solid.
Then, the rope is greased. It's DC 25. The dwarf has basically no chance. Our Elf can possibly make it, but it's a challenge. Our trained acrobat can still take her time and assume victory, though it'll take some time.
Possibly in combat, we'd use the Action Economy to make sure Taking 15 or 20 would be difficult, though still something a player could dedicate some time to, if they opted into it.
This accomplishes the "certain tasks are routine" virtue that Mearls was talking about, and incorporates the scaling DC's, and the natural ability, giving you a feeling of increasing power with level and of not needing to take a test to play your character right. If navigating the Dark Wood is Nature DC 15, you've got a precise number you can hit to go out and navigate the Dark Wood, that you can't do otherwise, but you can hit this through training and bonuses, or through natural ability.
Now, there's a second issue that is still possibly an issue: rising DC's can give trained characters a chance of success while limiting untrained characters.
The first thing is the general rule of "Only roll dice when there's a challenge." Some things don't really need a DC. Can I bluff the town guard? Yeah, probably. Even if I'm not trained? Sure. Even if I have a Cha of 7? Well, maybe not...
But when there is a challenge, I think 4e's "everyone gets better at everything" is a pretty good solution, personally. Flatten the curve, like how it is done for attack rolls and AC's/Defenses, and you should be fine. Only a limited number of small bonuses can actually be applied at any one time. Make training +2 instead of +5. Ditch the Armor Check Penalty (it is mostly pointless bookkeeping and a penalty for actually bothering to wear armor anyway). Don't have backgrounds grant static always-on skill bonuses (access to new or "free" training = still cool). No Out Of Combat At-Wills (e.g.: Encounter Powers) that give you +4 to a skill check. In fact, for that last one, don't let things give you a +4 skill check when you wouldn't let those things give you +4 to an attack roll.
There's also the "more than one way to skin a cat" method. Crossing a tightrope is one way to cross that gap. But taking a flying leap (using Str to jump!) or conjuring a cloud chariot (using Int to make magic!) or convincing a passing Roc to give you a lift (using Cha to persuade!), or climbing down one side and up the other (the Slow Ride!) are all ways to do it.
To encourage folks to diversify rather than specialize, make sure that even the untrained and unspecialized have to contribute to a challenge. I don't care if you're a big clumsy dwarf and you have a Dex of 5, you are going to HAVE TO try somehow to cross this gap, and your failure -- if indeed you do fail -- is going to hurt your party, while they drag your tin can butt up the other side. The current Skill Challenge system is rather inadequate for that, but certainly there's ideas out here.
That lets everyone participate, and keeps the DC's reasonable. It's also more streamlined than this "two difficulty classes" system is. I would not miss the ACP, and I don't think training needs to be +5, and giving the players more than one way to accomplish their goals is always a boffo idea.
And a general word of advice: If you don't want people to be able to do things, just don't allow it. I don't need a rule telling me that flapping your arms can't make you fly.
- No sense of increasing skill as you gain levels. Everything becomes exceedingly binary. This actually exacerbates the problem Mearls mentions at the top of the article: some people being able to do the thing automatically, while others just have no chance to do it at all.
- Complexity Without Payoff: Hooray, everything now needs two elements to measure difficulty: a DC AND a difficulty rating.
- "Impossible": Do you for reals need a rating for something the DM just tells you you can't do? A rule that says "you can't fly by flapping your arms" seems mostly unnecessary to me.
- No Rating for "Natural Ability": What, my Dex 24 Elf can't balance on a rope because I didn't check the right box at character creation? Pfffft.
- No Surprising Results: So I guess I can't even try to be awesome with a good die roll? No? You're just gonna shut down my fun right there? Great. Thanks. Guess I'll keep chugging along on this railroad you've helpfully laid for me. Choo Choo.
More generally, I'm not entirely sure what this accomplishes that a more expansive "Take 10"/Passive Check-style rule wouldn't.
"Take 5": Assume a roll of 5; for routine tasks. (Novice)
"Take 10": Assume a roll of 10; for basic tasks. (Trainee)
"Take 15": Trained only; assume a roll of 15; for advanced tasks. (Expert)
"Take 20": Trained only; assume a roll of 20; for very precise tasks. (Master)
So for balancing on a tightrope at a circus, it's DC 15. Our trained performer can take a Passive 5, assuming at least +5 in bonuses. Our Dexterous Elf can do the same thing. Our heavily-armored dwarf probably won't make it, but it's not unbelievable.
When the earthquake hits, its DC 20. Suddenly our dwarf is less sure of himself, though there's still a chance of making it, on the outside, if he's lucky. Our Elf can Take 10, if he's got a high bonus, but chances are he'll have to roll. Our acrobat can Take 15, though -- she's still solid.
Then, the rope is greased. It's DC 25. The dwarf has basically no chance. Our Elf can possibly make it, but it's a challenge. Our trained acrobat can still take her time and assume victory, though it'll take some time.
Possibly in combat, we'd use the Action Economy to make sure Taking 15 or 20 would be difficult, though still something a player could dedicate some time to, if they opted into it.
This accomplishes the "certain tasks are routine" virtue that Mearls was talking about, and incorporates the scaling DC's, and the natural ability, giving you a feeling of increasing power with level and of not needing to take a test to play your character right. If navigating the Dark Wood is Nature DC 15, you've got a precise number you can hit to go out and navigate the Dark Wood, that you can't do otherwise, but you can hit this through training and bonuses, or through natural ability.
Now, there's a second issue that is still possibly an issue: rising DC's can give trained characters a chance of success while limiting untrained characters.
The first thing is the general rule of "Only roll dice when there's a challenge." Some things don't really need a DC. Can I bluff the town guard? Yeah, probably. Even if I'm not trained? Sure. Even if I have a Cha of 7? Well, maybe not...
But when there is a challenge, I think 4e's "everyone gets better at everything" is a pretty good solution, personally. Flatten the curve, like how it is done for attack rolls and AC's/Defenses, and you should be fine. Only a limited number of small bonuses can actually be applied at any one time. Make training +2 instead of +5. Ditch the Armor Check Penalty (it is mostly pointless bookkeeping and a penalty for actually bothering to wear armor anyway). Don't have backgrounds grant static always-on skill bonuses (access to new or "free" training = still cool). No Out Of Combat At-Wills (e.g.: Encounter Powers) that give you +4 to a skill check. In fact, for that last one, don't let things give you a +4 skill check when you wouldn't let those things give you +4 to an attack roll.
There's also the "more than one way to skin a cat" method. Crossing a tightrope is one way to cross that gap. But taking a flying leap (using Str to jump!) or conjuring a cloud chariot (using Int to make magic!) or convincing a passing Roc to give you a lift (using Cha to persuade!), or climbing down one side and up the other (the Slow Ride!) are all ways to do it.
To encourage folks to diversify rather than specialize, make sure that even the untrained and unspecialized have to contribute to a challenge. I don't care if you're a big clumsy dwarf and you have a Dex of 5, you are going to HAVE TO try somehow to cross this gap, and your failure -- if indeed you do fail -- is going to hurt your party, while they drag your tin can butt up the other side. The current Skill Challenge system is rather inadequate for that, but certainly there's ideas out here.
That lets everyone participate, and keeps the DC's reasonable. It's also more streamlined than this "two difficulty classes" system is. I would not miss the ACP, and I don't think training needs to be +5, and giving the players more than one way to accomplish their goals is always a boffo idea.
And a general word of advice: If you don't want people to be able to do things, just don't allow it. I don't need a rule telling me that flapping your arms can't make you fly.
Last edited:
Sammael
Adventurer
Last week, I commented on the Climb skill example and noted that it was "horrible design" (perhaps a tad harsher than I should have, but I stand by that opinion).
This week, I have to say that I believe this new approach by Monte and Mike has the potential to become one of the most elegant mechanics in D&D ever. To be clear, I am looking at this mechanic in light of the "dials of complexity" agenda that was declared at the beginning of this series of articles.
With this version of the skill system, the math is completely hidden and that is A Good Thing. Players and DMs who dislike the skill/NWP system are likely to handwave it anyway - and this creates a solid foundation for that handwaving, eliminating much of the guesswork and providing consistency.
The beauty is that every challenge in the game can now be described and not depend on the current level of game complexity because it is incredibly easy to move the complexity dial up. Just assign objective DCs to each step like so:
Novice - DC 10
Journeyman - DC 15
Expert - DC 20
Master - DC 25
Grandmaster - DC 30
Impossible - either no assigned DC, or DC 50+
If your game is high-powered, increase DCs across the board by 2, 5, 10, or whatever.
Now give PCs skill points and a guideline as to how many ranks constitutes which level of proficiency (e.g. if you put in 3-5 ranks, you are a Novice; 6-8 Journeyman; and so on).
To account for ability scores, when a PC has a high ability score appropriate for the task at hand, either reduce difficulty by one (or more) steps, or give him "virtual" ranks. For instance, the elf mage may not have any ranks in Acrobatics, but his 18 Dex means that he can still succeed at Novice difficulty challenges.
Magic and equipment can likely reduce difficulty or give "virtual" ranks.
Example of play:
Crossing a chasm via a rickety rope bridge with missing planks is normally a Novice task, but since the winds are high and it's raining, the difficulty increases to Journeyman level.
The above mentioned elf mage casts Cat's Grace on himself which increases his virtual rank in Acrobatics-related checks by one. He is now a Journeyman and crosses the bridge safely.
Half-orc fighter likewise has no ranks in Acrobatics, and wears heavy armor which means that he must somehow gain three virtual ranks to cross. He removes the armor and puts it in the Bag of Holding (1). Next, he takes out a length of rope with a grappling hook and tosses it across the chasm, giving him something to hold onto (2). Finally, he takes out his tanglefoot bag and treats the soles of his boots with the slimy goo (3). It took some effort, but he can now make the Journeyman challenge.
The halfling rogue is a Master of Acrobatics and can waltz across the rope bridge at her leisure.
At a higher layer of complexity, the DM would check and see that a Journeyman challenge is DC 15. The elf mage with no ranks in Acrobatics would make a check with a +4 bonus (for Dex) and another +4 (for Cat's Grace), for a total of +8 (70% chance of success). The half-orc would lose his armor check penalty, allow himself to take 10 (grappling hook with line) and gain a +4 bonus via tanglefoot bag improvisation; since he already has +1 from Dex, that's enough to succeed. Finally, the rogue has 14 ranks in Acrobatics which is high enough that she doesn't even have to make the roll.
Kudos for a great idea, guys.
This week, I have to say that I believe this new approach by Monte and Mike has the potential to become one of the most elegant mechanics in D&D ever. To be clear, I am looking at this mechanic in light of the "dials of complexity" agenda that was declared at the beginning of this series of articles.
With this version of the skill system, the math is completely hidden and that is A Good Thing. Players and DMs who dislike the skill/NWP system are likely to handwave it anyway - and this creates a solid foundation for that handwaving, eliminating much of the guesswork and providing consistency.
The beauty is that every challenge in the game can now be described and not depend on the current level of game complexity because it is incredibly easy to move the complexity dial up. Just assign objective DCs to each step like so:
Novice - DC 10
Journeyman - DC 15
Expert - DC 20
Master - DC 25
Grandmaster - DC 30
Impossible - either no assigned DC, or DC 50+
If your game is high-powered, increase DCs across the board by 2, 5, 10, or whatever.
Now give PCs skill points and a guideline as to how many ranks constitutes which level of proficiency (e.g. if you put in 3-5 ranks, you are a Novice; 6-8 Journeyman; and so on).
To account for ability scores, when a PC has a high ability score appropriate for the task at hand, either reduce difficulty by one (or more) steps, or give him "virtual" ranks. For instance, the elf mage may not have any ranks in Acrobatics, but his 18 Dex means that he can still succeed at Novice difficulty challenges.
Magic and equipment can likely reduce difficulty or give "virtual" ranks.
Example of play:
Crossing a chasm via a rickety rope bridge with missing planks is normally a Novice task, but since the winds are high and it's raining, the difficulty increases to Journeyman level.
The above mentioned elf mage casts Cat's Grace on himself which increases his virtual rank in Acrobatics-related checks by one. He is now a Journeyman and crosses the bridge safely.
Half-orc fighter likewise has no ranks in Acrobatics, and wears heavy armor which means that he must somehow gain three virtual ranks to cross. He removes the armor and puts it in the Bag of Holding (1). Next, he takes out a length of rope with a grappling hook and tosses it across the chasm, giving him something to hold onto (2). Finally, he takes out his tanglefoot bag and treats the soles of his boots with the slimy goo (3). It took some effort, but he can now make the Journeyman challenge.
The halfling rogue is a Master of Acrobatics and can waltz across the rope bridge at her leisure.
At a higher layer of complexity, the DM would check and see that a Journeyman challenge is DC 15. The elf mage with no ranks in Acrobatics would make a check with a +4 bonus (for Dex) and another +4 (for Cat's Grace), for a total of +8 (70% chance of success). The half-orc would lose his armor check penalty, allow himself to take 10 (grappling hook with line) and gain a +4 bonus via tanglefoot bag improvisation; since he already has +1 from Dex, that's enough to succeed. Finally, the rogue has 14 ranks in Acrobatics which is high enough that she doesn't even have to make the roll.
Kudos for a great idea, guys.
I'm sorry - how does this occur? Are you thinking "At level 1, you choose your skill levels and that's it?" This seems extremely unlikely.
Err... no. The Difficulty Rating replaces the DC.
Amazing how often it *is* necessary - and it's often for the greyer areas. In 3E, you can tunnel through a wall at speed...
Again, you make an assumption about how the initial levels are generated.
Interesting - you now are flying by using your arms. Doesn't this conflict with your point above?
Taking it a little more seriously, not having surprising results is something I prefer - good surprising is a small loss compared to losing bad surprising - which is mostly what I see.
LostSoul
Adventurer
You might be able to get away from that if you had open-ended skills that were simply descriptors - of backgrounds, racial traits, training, whatever.
"Trained by the Thieves Guild", for example.
Frostmarrow
First Post
I like it. You could actually tie this to ability scores. Say you are an 18 Strength Novice, you are an amazing athletic talent with very little training. As in, you are good at new things but you haven't yet perfected routine tasks.
I enjoy where this is going. "At 3rd level and every 3rd level there after you increase proficiency level in one skill one rank." Or some such.
I enjoy where this is going. "At 3rd level and every 3rd level there after you increase proficiency level in one skill one rank." Or some such.
LostSoul
Adventurer
This discussion about surprising results makes me think about what, exactly, the skill system is being used for.
I'd call "surprising results" a feature of skill systems that, when engaged, change the in-game situation in a pleasing and unexpected way. Is that what D&D needs in a skill system, though?
From the article:
It encourages smart play and engagement. A player with a clever idea can shift the DC one level and turn a check into an automatic success, or an impossible challenge into one with a chance of success. I personally like this because it gives the DM a lot of leeway to use the system to shape his or her game.
I think that is a better goal for a D&D skill system. You'll still get surprising results, but they will come from the player's ingenuity, not a lucky die roll. Focusing the skill system to make player skill an priority is a good thing in D&D, in my opinion.
Sammael
Adventurer
I'd actually allow the player to improve several skills (number of skills improved depends on the total number of skills in the system) every odd level. That creates nice granularity and ensures we don't have grandmasters before 9th level or so.
Dire Bare
Legend
Whether you like his ideas or not, I think you guys (and others) are seriously misinterpreting what Mearls is doing with this series of "Legends and Lore" articles, despite his repeated statements to the contrary. If I'm misreading the two folks I'm quoting above, then I apologize.
1) The articles do not present a united design, but rather separate ideas. Some of Mearls ideas may play well together in some future hypothetical version of D&D, others not so much.
2) The articles are not showing us "5th Edition" or even the "Mearls Edition" of D&D. Mearls is merely throwing out design ideas and looking at the feedback, for several reasons. A) He's a designer, he simply enjoys this kind of design brainstorming, B) He's looking for player feedback to improve his ideas and help him separate the wheat from the chaff, and C) He's also looking for what types of ideas will enflame the fanbase and what types of ideas we might be willing to embrace.
Some of Mearls ideas just may show up in the eventual 5th Edition (or perhaps even a later edition), some will not. Some will in an "evolved" form.
Similar Threads
