Legends & Lore: Loyal Opposition

[GameDoc]

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20110823

I have enjoyed the last few columns deconstructing the concept of skills, but honestly my first reaction to this one was:

"Congradulations, Mike - You just discovered Castles & Crusades."

While presented a bit differently, when you drill down, this is pretty close to how C&C handles skills, or more precisely, the lack thereof. Same concept, slightly different application.

That said, I am not trying to flame Mike or the column. I enjoy his discussions of game design and theory.

EDIT: I apparently misread the article. The comparision to C&C is not all that valid.

 

[Scribble]

I'm kind of wondering though... Isn't this kind of how it is today just with more words.

I mean if a skill is useable untrained then technically it's just a rule like any other.

You could say the same things about a low strength person who sinks a lot of skill training and feats into athletics now...

 

[erleni]

I'm kind of wondering though... Isn't this kind of how it is today just with more words.

I mean if a skill is useable untrained then technically it's just a rule like any other.

You could say the same things about a low strength person who sinks a lot of skill training and feats into athletics now...

Well, not exactly. Today if you train and take a skill focus feat you get a +8. If you have a low ability modifier to the skill the +8 will put you roughly in the same boat of a character with an high ability modifier (especially at high levels) who has no training at all in the skill.
Under the "new" system you will be definitely better than the untrained character as your "skill name level" will be much higher.

 

[Scribble]

Well, not exactly. Today if you train and take a skill focus feat you get a +8. If you have a low ability modifier to the skill the +8 will put you roughly in the same boat of a character with an high ability modifier (especially at high levels) who has no training at all in the skill.
Under the "new" system you will be definitely better than the untrained character as your "skill name level" will be much higher.

I'm still missing it. Wouldn't that be the same though?

 

[GameDoc]

I rescind my statement about C&C. I reread the article and realized I misunderstood the concept.

Apologies to Mr. Mearls.

 

[GameDoc]

I'm still missing it. Wouldn't that be the same though?

In the current 4e system:

High ability score (18-20) gives you a +4 or +5 bonus. You can raise this ability every 4th level, eventually getting an additional +3 by mid-epic tier.

Skill training gives you a +5 bonus. You can get an additional +3 with the Skill Focus feat.

So, a person with no bonus or penalty to their ability (score of 10-11) can use a skill to gain a slight advantage overy someone with no training that has a 20 in that ability. The untrained person will catch up to them at higher levels.

​

Under the proposed system:

You don't get any skill bonus. Your level of training tells you what sort of tasks you can automatically succeed at. (I am an expert Acrobat, and this action is set at the "journeyman" level of difficulty, so I automatically succeed - no roll needed).

If you are not sufficiently trained to warrant an automatic success, you then make an ability check (in this case Dexterity) and add your modifier.

​

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I'm still missing it. Wouldn't that be the same though?

The description of how it would work somewhat muddies the water, because there is still that provision in there for the person with the higher training to get a bonus to the roll. Ignore that part for a moment.

Mr. Athletically Inclined has a +4 from Str. He needs to dog-paddle when dumped in water. He gets to add a +4 to his roll. He has no training in swimming. About all he can do is dog-paddle in place or short distances.

Mr. Trained Swimmer has a +0 from Str. (More likely a +1 or +2, but work with me here.) He also is a Journeyman swimmer. He has to swim across a (relatively placid but deep) stream. If this is a Novice check, he can do it automatically without rolling. If it is a Journeyman check, he gets to try but with no modifier.

Mr. Athletically Inclined can't even attempt the Journeyman check, or in some ways this ruleset has been presented, even the Novice check. Meanwhile, if Mr. Trained Swimmer decides (for some bizarre circumstance) to dog-paddle in place, he still gets his +0 to his roll. So say both are dumped into an underground stream with a rope tied around their feat, and just able to keep their heads above water. The strong but untrained guy has a better shot in this narrow circumstance. You can easily think of others, but they are mostly niche.

Now, what confuses all this, is the supposition that the trained guy also gets a modifier to his roll. If he gets a +10 to "untrained" checks for having two levels of swimming (Novice and Journeyman), then a lot of that distinction goes away, and you are correct. There isn't much point to the system at that point, beyond saying what people can do at each level of training. That is, all that is left is that instead of untrained can do A, trained can do everything else, you get untrained can do A, Novices can do A+B, Journeyman can do A+B+C, and so on.

I think even that last little bit is valuable, but to me the real value of this approach is not to get crazy with the modifiers from training. Then natural aptitude and training govern very different aspects, and there really are differences in how they play. Usually, you'd prefer to be highly trained, but there are definitely niche points where training gets effectively nullified and having some raw talent is more helpful.

 

[Scribble]

But in this case I'm talking about untrained skills.

It's specifically the part where he says it's easier to describe what an untrained high stat person is vrs a trained low stat person.

I just don't see a difference there really.


Also if you are at +whatever in your skills already and the DC is set to basically your bonus won't you auto succeed anyway?


Granted, for me this new system is easier to work with. I find it easier to just set tasks to Journeyman, as opposed to figuring out what the numbers should be.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

But in this case I'm talking about untrained skills.

It's specifically the part where he says it's easier to describe what an untrained high stat person is vrs a trained low stat person.

I just don't see a difference there really.


Also if you are at +whatever in your skills already and the DC is set to basically your bonus won't you auto succeed anyway?


Granted, for me this new system is easier to work with. I find it easier to just set tasks to Journeyman, as opposed to figuring out what the numbers should be.

Well, we already have 3 difficulties. All this system is equivalent to is that you slide all DCs down to level 1 on the standard DC chart and eliminate all scaling bonuses. There are now 5 difficulties instead of 3, but they are separated from each other by "infinity" points.

The thing is, it doesn't seem like to me it depicts 'natural talent' at all. No matter how much natural talent you have, you're not even able to make a journeyman check, period. Even if theoretically there are some kind of corner cases that is just an oddity of the rules.

My question is why is Mike messing around with the skill system? I mean, sure, someone will complain about ANYTHING, but the skill system WORK, and works WELL, and has the added advantage that it is exactly parallel to the combat system, all checks work the same.

So now instead we're getting a different system, which BTW has a hard time with only having 5 total gradiations, so there are big level jumps, is totally different from all other checks, etc.

It also tends to make it so that the DM can't create a situation that is hard for one guy but possible and is pretty easy for another guy, it just instantly ramps itself to 'you can't do that', and then oddly the low bonus guy is almost essentially one rank less than he really is because with STR of 10 you sure don't want to be making skill check, especially when you don't get a training bonus...

 

[Crazy Jerome]

My question is why is Mike messing around with the skill system? I mean, sure, someone will complain about ANYTHING, but the skill system WORK, and works WELL, and has the added advantage that it is exactly parallel to the combat system, all checks work the same.

IMO, it works, but not well. It is good enough to have some skills tacked onto a game that blends into the traditional ability scores, but nothing special. And I felt the same way about 3E/3.5. I think that is why he is messing with it.

As it stands now, it is very hard to keep the current structure while also catering to different styles. If you happen to like the style catered to by 3E or 3.5 or 4E, then it works "well enough" and is simple, which is a bonus. But even people that do like the style, like I enjoy 4E, still see scaling problems with skills as written. They also don't work so hot for larger groups, though group checks help a lot there compared to 3.*.

It also isn't exactly parallel to the combat system, though both of them using a d20 versus a difficulty make them seem so. (Or is that what you meant by parallel?) The role of hit points, spells and weapons are all notably different, as are several other things on the edges.

I'd thought about this with last weeks article, because it occurred to me that using the proposed skill system for combat has some interesting possibilities ...