My group and I don't want a "Sub-System" for dealing with out of combat scenarios.

[pemerton]

I was not 4E

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you were.

What I was trying to do was to bring out the underlying issue, which (in my view) isn't so much the number of skills the fighter gets. (I find in my own 4e game that Athletics comes up more frequently than Acrobatics, and so the fighter's -1 skill slot is somewhat compensated for by Athletics training with a STR primary stat.)

I think the real issue is - whether fighters get 1 or 10 skills - finding a mechanical way that makes them able to participate meaningfully in non-physical situations.

I hope 5E does allow someone to be a good fighter and a good negotiator if thats what they want to play. It should be possible and shouldn't cost you any of your fighting ability to do so.

Yes. So, in the absence of CHA-based fighting styles (an aspect of 4e that I expect Next will drop), I think they need to look at ways of making low-to-moderate CHA social characters viable.

 

[pemerton]

As it stands now, you can be a fighter and take the negotiator background to be a good negotiator. The background you pick is independent of your class

How will the negotiator background help if I have an 8 CHA? Won't the high-CHA PC still be as good if not better than me, even if s/he took a non-social background?

I mean, in 4e a fighter could take a negotiator background too (find a background to swap-in Diplomacy, or take a Warlord multi-class feat), but I don't think that deals with the underlying issue that [MENTION=44243]Shadeydm[/MENTION] is raising.

 

[Shadeydm]

I think the real issue is - whether fighters get 1 or 10 skills - finding a mechanical way that makes them able to participate meaningfully in non-physical situations.

Yes. So, in the absence of CHA-based fighting styles (an aspect of 4e that I expect Next will drop), I think they need to look at ways of making low-to-moderate CHA social characters viable.

I agree. I hope it can be done.

 

[nomotog]

How will the negotiator background help if I have an 8 CHA? Won't the high-CHA PC still be as good if not better than me, even if s/he took a non-social background?

I mean, in 4e a fighter could take a negotiator background too (find a background to swap-in Diplomacy, or take a Warlord multi-class feat), but I don't think that deals with the underlying issue that @Shadeydm is raising.

That brings up the rouge cleric problem. I believe they had a fix where your skill bonus would replace your ability bonus. They are still monkeying with things though.

 

[pemerton]

That brings up the rouge cleric problem. I believe they had a fix where your skill bonus would replace your ability bonus.

I think that that is one way to go, although it sits oddly with an edition which is meant to be about making ability scores matter more.

 

[nomotog]

I think that that is one way to go, although it sits oddly with an edition which is meant to be about making ability scores matter more.

It's all still early. We don't know how things will land. If things do end up that way, you will have a system where the fighter is able to be a good negotiator without having to give up any of his fighting power. I don't know if I would totally like that though.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I think that that is one way to go, although it sits oddly with an edition which is meant to be about making ability scores matter more.

This is indeed a problem, tugging the game into two directions.

I seem to remember that one of the early thoughts about the new skill system was not that you would simply get a bonus to a roll, but having a skill gave you new options others did not.

If you would go this route, and skills like Diplomacy or Intimidate gave you "tricks" that others simply can't use regardless of how big your Diplomacy is, then the mechancis would basically do what you do in skill challenges - give a reason for the low-modifier individual to do his things.

Say, regular rules for charisma and social interaction:

• Charisma: You can use Charisma to convince people to see things your way. This requires opposed Charisma Checks. The other side gains a +5 bonus if it is outright hostile to you, and +5 if what you are asking is very risky. If you fail the check by 10 or more, the target refuses further discussions on the topic and it's attitude worsens, potentially ending in violence (if appropriate to the situation.)
• Diplomacy: Your eloquence improves other individual's attitude towards you. This generally requires a successful Charisma Check DC 10
• Bluff: Your ability to bend the truth and read your target's wishes can allow you to reduce the perceived risks or cost of an action. This generally requires a succesful Charisma Check DC 10.

So sure, the Rogue with Charisma 19 has a +4 bonus, but if he tries to convince a Goblin Guard that he should help him would have to roll vs +10+ the Goblin's bonus. The Fighter with Charisma 8 and a -1 modifier but with Bluff and Diplomacy gets two easier rolls to improve the attitude and perception of risk.

I am not saying the above rules are good - especially since they still focus mostly on reducing difficulty class.

Something else could be:
Diplomacy:

• Even when you fail a Charisma Check in a social situation, you never worsen the situation and may continue trying to convince the target - but you may need new arguments or make new offers to convince the target.
• In combat you can take an action to make an opposed Charisma Check against a target to cause doubts or hesitations. The target will not make attacks until you or one of your allies makes an attack against it or one of its allies. You can use this ability only once per target.

Bluff:

• If you fail at a Charisma in a social situation, you can still convince the opponent of one falsehood or misdirection that may help you in further dealings with him.
• In combat you can take an action to make an opposed Charisma Check against a target to mislead it. You can direct the next attack it makes against another target within range of its attack and adjacent to you. You can use this ability only once per target.

 

[pemerton]

I seem to remember that one of the early thoughts about the new skill system was not that you would simply get a bonus to a roll, but having a skill gave you new options others did not.

If you would go this route, and skills like Diplomacy or Intimidate gave you "tricks" that others simply can't use regardless of how big your Diplomacy is, then the mechancis would basically do what you do in skill challenges - give a reason for the low-modifier individual to do his things.

<snip>

I am not saying the above rules are good - especially since they still focus mostly on reducing difficulty class.

Something else could be

<snip further examples>

I think this is an interesting way of going. I think I like the second approach better, which focuses on something other than toying with the numbers.

In another thread on skills (I can't remember which one now) I made the comment that Backgrounds seem a bit underdeveloped at present. In particular, nothing seems to have been done to incorporate those features like "Knight's Station", "Researcher", etc into the action resolution system.

One idea I came up with was that these features could be used by the player to establish certain things as already given in play, which other player's have to expend resources and go through actual play to achieve. For example, in play some question comes up - "Do we know the answer to this ancient riddle?" A player whose PC is a Researcher can make a check, because his/her background already establishes that s/he hung out in libraries in the past; whereas other PCs can't make a check until they actually find a library and start reading.

You'd have to think about how to extend this to other features. Maybe a Knight already knows some nobles and squires, whereas other PCs have to actually meet and befriend them in play.

Anyway, I think your second approach is another way of doing this - of using these non-numerical aspects of backgrounds to unlock options - without having to make the skills themselves carry too much mechanical weight. And it can help make a background more than just a skill parcel.

So your first Diplomacy suggestion, for example, we instead grant to a Knight who is dealing with other knights and nobles. While your second Diplomacy example might be available to someone with the Soldier background (admittedly it doesn't hang directly of Endurance, but something can be tweaked to make this fit). A Researcher would have a guaranteed minimum floor on certain knowledge checks. Etc.

You might need to put some sort of resource mechanic into play to regulate abuse (no more than once per session would be the default, maybe).

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

I like skill challenges, and have used variants of them since 2e. For 4e, I prefer the Obsideon rules by [MENTION=5889]Stalker0[/MENTION] that flatten the math and make it so the fighter can contibute. The main problem with core 4e rules is that failed checks are a severe penalty, leading players to spam their highest skill and force it into the scene.

For Next, I think the backgrounds should provide an advantage on the skill check when appropriate. Avoid math bonuses and the Dc scale doesn't have to become broad as it is in 3e.

There definately has to be a resolution system for non combat, whether that be skill challenges or the introduction of hit point and damage system for social encounter and exploration encounters.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

I was thinking about this while doing dishes tonight, and I think Next has the potential to make skill challenges much more of a group thing.

For instance, assuming that the the rules are that skill checks are either:

2 Dice, count only the best when you have more advantages than disadvantages
1 Dice when you have the same amount of advantages and disadvantages
2 Dice, count the worst, when you have more disadvantages than advantages

Now, lets look at a very difficult door.. it has a puzzle lock that requires keys to be triggered in a specific order based on an ancient religion, has a lingering arcane trap, and part of the puzzle on the left has jammed and requires some muscle to get it to move into place.

With a group approach, the Cleric can counter the disadvantage of not knowing the right order, the Mage can counter the lingering trap, the Fighter can counter the muscle requirement. If the Thief has a bennie for lockpicking, then he can end up with more advantages and have an easier time by passing the lock. Groups can either have the players roll for these supporting skills or just declare their awesomeness.

I think I wrote that down the way I thought it!