Skills... WoTC Blog Post

[billd91]

I like the idea of ability scores covering basically everything a PC can do. It's solid.

I don't know that it's solid in the sense that it's really good. It is simple, though. And that's not necessarily a bad thing.

I'm still wondering about the check mechanic, though. What made using primarily a stat easy in 2e's non-weapon proficiencies was the ease of making a check - roll under the stat (adjusted by a minor modifier). It was also easy to gauge approximate chances of success. But it was also highly dependent on the ability score, making it very much a talent-heavy game. There was a lot of difference between tumblers who had a Dex of 18 and an 11. 3e's system reduced that and I wouldn't want to give that up.

I'm also not that fond of one investment unit in a skill netting a +2 on it and subsequent ones netting just +1. I understand they may want to incorporate diminishing returns, but I've never particularly liked that method of doing so. Still, I guess that's better than the +5 trained/+0 untrained of either SWSE or 4e.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Though it strikes me that skills and perks in this model become potentially wildly different in their power rating. A skill that adds a +2 bonus to basically any interaction check and a skill that adds a +2 bonus to sailing a ship or something are going to be very different in terms of breadth of application, which can lead to the "I have this +2 bonus to all of my die rolls, thus making me more powerful, because I chose the correct broad background" phenomenon.

Totally possible to design around that, with some rigid ideas in place about the scope of a skill or perk, but it's the risk I think you face when making something that open-ended: sooner or later, the "best" rise to the top, and the rest get dropped (see: 3e and 4e feats).

Won't that always be true though, in any skill system? It's not like Spot, Use Magic Device, and Tumble were ever balanced with Decipher Script, Use Rope, and Knowledge (Local).

I think the issue is best handled by having some very broadly defined areas where you can get the initial bonuses (say the first +2 or +5) and then requiring clear specializations for future bonuses.

Love the two trait examples, Language and Workshop. They aren't the same power level, they aren't really even quite the same category of trait.

Who cares? Both allow a player to create the desired PC. I also love the idea that some things have to be worked out on a case-by-case basis. Rules aren't going to cover everything, so it's better to admit that in the design explicitly.

I like it - having freedom to describe a skill bonus however the designer feels is appropriate for the flavor of the situation is a huge plus. with pre-defined lists in the past, it never made sense to me that if you were an expertly trained climber (i.e. high Athletics) you were automatically an awesome swimmer as well... or if you were super-knowledgeable about YOUR religion (i.e. high Knowledge-Religion) you were automatically knowledgeable about all religions and the nature of undead, demons, and devils

Totally agreed on both.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Maybe I'm reading more into it than is there, and looking at where I think they are going instead of where they are at, but it seems to me that it breaks down roughly like this, conceptually:

• Ability scores are natural talent and broad skill that pertain to what you could reasonably do giving your class, background, theme, etc. If you are a sailor and have developed your Str and/or Dex to some extent, you can probably climb and swim fairly well. You can't really develop a broad talent for hitting things with axes without also developing some ability for hitting things with swords or spears.
• Skills are specialized, and are all training. These let you heighten that natural talent and broad skill for particular purposes. They also let you do things that you might not otherwise have a shot at. A wizard from the land-locked plains with his 8 Str can barely climb and might not swim at all. Add a skill for swimming, and he can do it, not well but better than other people with his background. If he really wants to swim well, he'll bump that Str a little and/or add other skills that can stack?
• Traits don't boost the numbers any, but they can change what your naturally ability can cover. Maybe that wizard never gets stronger or develops definite skill in swimming, but if he picks up some relevant trait after several adventures in and around water, he can start making his modest checks with the ability he has.

There are some pitfalls in all of that, but the flatter math will help immensely to navigate most of them. Getting additional themes at later levels will also help.

 

[Rhenny]

I like what I've read so far.

First, I think the skill system described will liberate players to play more creatively and interestingly, not bound as much by specific skill checks.

Secondly, I think the proposal will make it easier for the DM and player to improvise and resolve actions more quickly and fluidly. It kind of reminds me of the West End Games Star Wars D6. If you've ever played that (or watched a game session), actions are resolved quickly without breaking narrative mostly because the actions are based on attributes (with skills and specializations nested under the attributes). Using a d20 instead of d6 will make it even faster since calculations will be easier.

Also, I think that background, theme, and trait packages will go a long way to customizing PCs so that each PC will have the fully defined persona that the player wants to play.

 

[KidSnide]

I like a lot of these ideas, but my fear in this is that the skill bonuses are all going to be too low. On a d20, you're going to see one of the several +0 to +1 characters (10-13 stat, no training) beat the +6 character (18 stat, +2 skill) quite often.

Skill can also be a key area for niche protection. The Cha 18 bard may be the best face character, but it's really useful for players to be able to build Cha 12 characters who are equally good in the narrow social area they concentrated in. Likewise, if a skill bonus is only +2, your dwarf fighter will never know as much about dwarven history as the genius wizard who never met a dwarf.

There are lots of good reasons to have a flexible skill list, but I worry that too much is loaded on ability scores. If ability scores are key to both task resolution and combat effectiveness it is difficult to build an effective character with a skill specialty that doesn't match the key ability scores for that character's class abilities.

-KS

 

[I'm A Banana]

I don't know that it's solid in the sense that it's really good. It is simple, though. And that's not necessarily a bad thing.

I don't see how it's especially bad. You loose a bit of customization here, but you gain it right back with backgrounds, themes, and the like.

Won't that always be true though, in any skill system? It's not like Spot, Use Magic Device, and Tumble were ever balanced with Decipher Script, Use Rope, and Knowledge (Local).

I think the issue is best handled by having some very broadly defined areas where you can get the initial bonuses (say the first +2 or +5) and then requiring clear specializations for future bonuses.

Well, it was a problem in 3e (and to a lesser degree in 4e). They were choice-traps. Use Rope was never as effective as Spot. Perception is always better than History.

5e's skill system as proposed doesn't fix this yet. It also runs the potential risk of tethering a skill to a background, so someone who is a Sailor is always going to be less efficient than someone who is, say, an Acrobat. The skill defines you. If that definition is overly narrow or overly broad, you're basically saying, "If you pick Sailor, you suck."

 

[Incenjucar]

"Trap traits" are a thing already. Yeesh.

 

[Ahnehnois]

\Well, it was a problem in 3e (and to a lesser degree in 4e). They were choice-traps. Use Rope was never as effective as Spot. Perception is always better than History.

5e's skill system as proposed doesn't fix this yet. It also runs the potential risk of tethering a skill to a background, so someone who is a Sailor is always going to be less efficient than someone who is, say, an Acrobat. The skill defines you. If that definition is overly narrow or overly broad, you're basically saying, "If you pick Sailor, you suck."

Tethering choice to background is indeed a crippling problem (like the 2e days before modern multiclassing). It is important that choices the player makes during play can affect the character's development. However, it's hard to imagine the perfect world. What if the game became "No matter what you pick, you don't suck". That would be worse.

 

[Someone]

So skills (along with traits) become now background details with relatively minor mechanical influence? I'm approaching it as neutrally as I can, am eaguer to try it and kind of like that in this system Knowledge (mating ritual of Xendrik primates) can coexist with Knowledge (Biology) and you can take it without gimping your character. However, even when rolling your ability score feels retro, is a new mechanic unlike any other edition's and I'm surprised they want to include it, seeing how they want back the old feelings.

 

[Minigiant]

Well Rob did say a background is 4 parts. Perhaps it could be

1 Exploration Skill
1 Social Interaction Skill
1 "Trap"/Flavor Skill
1 Trait