Is a storm coming RE: skills and feats?

[Crazy Jerome]

They could also decide that when you drop background and/or specialties, you are going for that "old school" feel where things are supposed to be harder for the character, forcing you to operate at the player level to compensate.

What's the use of an option that doesn't change anything? Sometimes, difficulty can change. It's not as if there should be huge call at the same table for an "old school" character to mix with the background and specialty enabled ones.

 

[Advilaar]

I do not know about you guys, but I prefer the specialty/background system as is.

One of my main complaints with feats in 3e and 4e was it was a lot of +1 to this +2 to that minor accounting with a few things that were godly additional abilities.

Plus, a long list of feats to an outside observer means nothing to one not familiar with 15 books of jargon. But, the word "blacksmith" with everything a blacksmith could probably do does mean something.

Think scale, too. 1st - 5th a list of feats is not that bad. 10-15, pushing it. Further... why bother with 50 items all making minor adjustments. Accounting sucks.

 

[BobTheNob]

I like specialties and backgrounds. Maybe not the ones they presented, but the principle is appealing. Quickly generated characters that are varied and distinct without situations where one players intimate knowledge of rules and mechanical synergies marginalizes other characters (or, at least, not as extreme). To me it sort of walks that line between customization and expectation nicely.

For my part, backgrounds and synergies will be the go.

That is not to say however that the list of backgrounds and specialties is locked to what will be in the books. I would be perfectly willing to work with players for new ones if the ones presented do not accurately represent what they want their characters to be. As long as they can define a distinct enough theme for there character, I would be willing to add new backgrounds and specialties to suite (and no...they wouldnt be players "suggesting" the skill and feats they want )

 

[Greg K]

There are definitely too many Lore skills in the current play test version. It looks like some of them could easily be combined to make the coverage more reasonable, in which case you wind up with a list about the size of the 3e/PF list. I actually kind of prefer the 4e style where if you know 'Nature' or 'Dungeoneering' or whatever, you also know the associated Lore skill, just as an Int check rather than the relevant attribute.

I hope that any consolidation is a module. I like the Lore skills as they are although I want to add Dragon Lore and Fey Lore to the list and break down Planar lore into Demon/Devil Lore and Spirit Lore.

Beyond that I want to see Acrobatics, Athletics, and a few other skills added and some skills renamed. I also want to see characters getting more starting skills. The amount of starting skills are pathetic in my opinion.

 

[ComradeGnull]

I hope that any consolidation is a module. I like the Lore skills as they are although I want to add Dragon Lore and Fey Lore to the list and break down Planar lore into Demon/Devil Lore and Spirit Lore.

Beyond that I want to see Acrobatics, Athletics, and a few other skills added and some skills renamed. I also want to see characters getting more starting skills. The amount of starting skills are pathetic in my opinion.

It seems like that level of detail doesn't make a lot of sense when paired with the small number of skills that most characters are getting. Typically, skill designs are either 'few, but broad' or 'numerous, but specific'. If characters have 'few, but very specific' skills it seems like you end up with characters with really limited competencies. I wouldn't mind super specific Lore skills if academic classes like Wizards and Clerics got several lores as a class bonus, but in most cases anyone without the Sage background is going to know a lot about one super specific thing (Fairies or Dragons, to use your example), but is unlikely to know much beyond that. It seems reasonable that a Wizard might know at least 2-3 things as part of their training (Magic, the Planes).

A lot does depend on whether or not skills overlap- if I play a Cleric of Mr. Pointy, God of Undead Slaying, does my Religious Lore cover the Undead, or do I need Undead Lore for that?

 

[tlantl]

I hope that any consolidation is a module. I like the Lore skills as they are although I want to add Dragon Lore and Fey Lore to the list and break down Planar lore into Demon/Devil Lore and Spirit Lore.

Beyond that I want to see Acrobatics, Athletics, and a few other skills added and some skills renamed. I also want to see characters getting more starting skills. The amount of starting skills are pathetic in my opinion.

Everyone starts the game with all of the skills. Skills found in backgrounds are those associated with the background that you have specific training in. D&D N doesn't have a comprehensive skills list like other games and isn't going to from what the devs are talking about.

If you want more trained skills play a rogue or take the jack of all trades specialty that's what they are for.

You want acrobatics use a dexterity check, if you want athletics use a constitution, or strength, or dexterity check; those are the new skills. If you want to train in those skills specifically come up with a background where those skills exist and give yourself a +3 bonus to the appropriate ability check.

That's how skills in Next work.

 

[triqui]

They can go and make a la carte having less feats/powers.

For example, if you go a la carte, you get 1 feat every 4 levels. OR you might take a background, which gives you 1 feat every 3 levels, but they are set on stone.

 

[Greg K]

Everyone starts the game with all of the skills. Skills found in backgrounds are those associated with the background that you have specific training in. D&D N doesn't have a comprehensive skills list like other games and isn't going to from what the devs are talking about.

There is already an Undead Lore separate from Religion. If in my campaign, there is not a lot of lore on Dragons or Fey in a campaign, I can always set the check difficulty higher based upon how rare the information is. Plus, the game allows for improvement or acquisition of a new skill at odd levels.

If you want more trained skills play a rogue or take the jack of all trades specialty that's what they are for.

Which is a poor way to handle it.

You want acrobatics use a dexterity check, if you want athletics use a constitution, or strength, or dexterity check; those are the new skills. If you want to train in those skills specifically come up with a background where those skills exist and give yourself a +3 bonus to the appropriate ability check.
That's how skills in Next work.

That is how they work...at the moment. We still have two years of playtesting so things can change. A lot of people are complaining that physical skills are getting shafted with skills like Athletics and Acrobatics missing. It is very possible that the designers add them to the list the next go around.
Or as you write, I coud a create a background and add the skill myself (which is the current plan) since training and technique do play a role.

 

[Falling Icicle]

The problem is this: if WotC explicitly gives us the option to pick skills and feats a la carte, then immediately picking them a la carte becomes the norm. Any player with even a passing interest in character optimization will always hand-pick his skills and feats. Want to make a character who used to be a blacksmith? Well, pick the interesting and potentially useful Item Crafting Trait, but drop the crappy Local Lore and Professional Lore for something better. You're just as legit a blacksmith, but your skills are way better.

The problem here is not the a la carte option. The problem is that some skills are just plain better than others. That is what needs to be fixed.

 

[Greg K]

It seems like that level of detail doesn't make a lot of sense when paired with the small number of skills that most characters are getting.

I agree with you that number of skills are small. This is a complaint form several people on some of the message boards including WOTC's own have at them moment.

Typically, skill designs are either 'few, but broad' or 'numerous, but specific'. If characters have 'few, but very specific' skills it seems like you end up with characters with really limited competencies. I wouldn't mind super specific Lore skills if academic classes like Wizards and Clerics got several lores as a class bonus, but in most cases anyone without the Sage background is going to know a lot about one super specific thing (Fairies or Dragons, to use your example), but is unlikely to know much beyond that.

Whether wizards or clerics have several Lore skills as a class bonus is a campaign issue. The only thing the Wizard is, probably, guaranteed to know is Magic and, for Clerics, Religion. Everything is background.
And, while I think characters start with too few skills, characters can gain new skills. Plus, characters can pick up new skills on their adventures (by taking a new skill rather than increasing another skill). Plus as noted by the post following yours, Skills are, simply, represent areas of expertise.and the ability score pretty much represents

It seems reasonable that a Wizard might know at least 2-3 things as part of their training (Magic, the Planes).
The character might would know more. Skills are areas of expertise. However, what areas of expertise would be included in the training depends upon the campaign setting. In my campaign, there is no direct correlation between Wizard training and expertise in the Planes. Nor is there a correlation in expertise to Dragons, Fey, Demons, Devils or spirits for them or for Clerics. . While not true of your experience or many others, it is true of every gaming group with which I have played and talked to which is why we broke monster knowledge for those creatures out of other skills (Planes being the exception where some Dms, who left it to cover Demons,Devils, Elementals, and certain spirits).

A lot does depend on whether or not skills overlap- if I play a Cleric of Mr. Pointy, God of Undead Slaying, does my Religious Lore cover the Undead, or do I need Undead Lore for that?

I would say Undead Lore, but that would come with the background training of being a Cleric of Mr. Point, God of Undead Slaying.