Non-Weapon Proficiencies

[Halivar]

Apologies if this has been hashed out already.

I'm taking a fresh look at AD&D (and trying to convince my gaming group to run a campaign with it), and one of the things that immediately stands out to me is how pleasantly non-weapon proficiencies differ from 3E and 4E.

In 3E, you can take non-combat role-play skills, but do so by using skill points you could have placed in spot, listen, etc. There was little to no incentive to do any such thing.

4E makes the egregious error of omitting most such skills altogether.

I want to see a 5E that reserves "slots" for optional non-weapon proficiencies. I would like these to not require dice rolls. If I'm a shipwright, I know how to build boats that float, not boats with a 25% chance of sinking.

 

[howandwhy99]

That is an interesting silo effect. I suspect, if we get some modules appearing as optional minigames, there will be some similar character differentiation in them too.

 

[Ahnehnois]

In 3E, you can take non-combat role-play skills, but do so by using skill points you could have placed in spot, listen, etc. There was little to no incentive to do any such thing.

One common house rule (which I use) was "background skills" i.e. extra skill points that can only be spent on a set list of generally non-combat skills. So I do agree that there was sometimes a problem there but a fixable one.

4E makes the egregious error of omitting most such skills altogether.

No kidding.

I want to see a 5E that reserves "slots" for optional non-weapon proficiencies. I would like these to not require dice rolls. If I'm a shipwright, I know how to build boats that float, not boats with a 25% chance of sinking.

Frankly, I think feats could cover that well. I'd like to see a subclass of "professional" feats or somesuch that facilitate noncombat mechanics and NPCs especially. I do agree that the NWPs were good in some ways that have been lost, but I think you can get back to the same place using skills and feats.

 

[Halivar]

One common house rule (which I use) was "background skills" i.e. extra skill points that can only be spent on a set list of generally non-combat skills. So I do agree that there was sometimes a problem there but a fixable one.

I don't like the idea of having to roll on these character skills, though. There was a simplicity in the hand-waviness of NWP's that has been lost in a lot of clutter in 3E, hence its total exclusion in 4E. To me, they represent equal, opposite ends of the spectrum, and I'd like something in the middle. Let me just say my character can do it.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I don't like the idea of having to roll on these character skills, though. There was a simplicity in the hand-waviness of NWP's that has been lost in a lot of clutter in 3E, hence its total exclusion in 4E. To me, they represent equal, opposite ends of the spectrum, and I'd like something in the middle. Let me just say my character can do it.

One of Monte Cook's articles suggested the idea of a skill tier; that a some rank of a skill you were good enough to be considered an "expert", "master" or whatever. Then, you would be treated a bit differently, and some tasks would be assumed for you. I think that can achieve the goal of simplicity in play.

I also advocate managing complexity by having skill trees-very general skills that develop into specialized ones at higher levels.

Again, I agree with your goals (facilitate play without excessive) bookeeping, but I don't think NWPs are needed.

 

[nightwalker450]

I don't like the idea of having to roll on these character skills, though. There was a simplicity in the hand-waviness of NWP's that has been lost in a lot of clutter in 3E, hence its total exclusion in 4E. To me, they represent equal, opposite ends of the spectrum, and I'd like something in the middle. Let me just say my character can do it.

Having to spend character resources on background details seemed very irrelevant. As a DM I don't need the rules to define that orcs make excellent mothers (Profession: House Wife!), and as a player I don't need the rules to define that my gypsy illusionist is a coffee snob (Craft: Barista!). I think these belong in character traits, if there are rules that define how good of coffee I can make, then I'll drink water instead.

Also because these tend to develop as the character is played... It wasn't till I'd played my gypsy for a month that I decided to be particular about his coffee (hadn't had scripted meals during the first part, so his tastes in food/drink weren't developed).

 

[Chris Knapp]

4E makes the egregious error of omitting most such skills altogether.

I want to see a 5E that reserves "slots" for optional non-weapon proficiencies. I would like these to not require dice rolls. If I'm a shipwright, I know how to build boats that float, not boats with a 25% chance of sinking.

The egregious error of eliminating a mechanic that that you wish acted as purely fluff? Sounds like 4E actually accomplished what you wanted, it just didn't force you to write it down on your character sheet.

 

[Deadboy]

I really like this idea. I may even use something like it as a house rule in a 4e campaign I'm about to start to cover areas of expertise not covered by the skill system. Good thing I dug out all my old edition rulebooks recently.

 

[Vascant]

I will never see what I want to see and accept that...

In a perfect world, I would like to see 3e skills with a success/failure chart that resembles something from Rolemaster/Spacemaster.

 

[Halivar]

The egregious error of eliminating a mechanic that that you wish acted as purely fluff? Sounds like 4E actually accomplished what you wanted, it just didn't force you to write it down on your character sheet.

Well, fluff with in-game use. I don't want a Mary Sue, necessarily, who by virtue of an awesome back-story, can tack a sailboat, build a shed, forge a sword, paint masterpieces, and play master chef at the king's royal fête. I'd like a game that gives the character skills outside of combat, with circumscriptions established by the rules.

I can hand-wave it, and have for 3 years. But I don't want to have to remind my players each and every time that they need to think meaningfully about their back-story and what they might have learned. I'd like that to be a regular part of character creation in the RAW, with a spot on their character sheet.