The paradigm of skill checks as presented in the playtest rules is 'test this ability because it specifically is relevant', so skills should add to relevant ability modifiers, rather than the other way round. A caveat though: it requires a bit more careful definition of abilities, or a description of which abilities a skill works with (charisma never helps climb, for instance).
Why can't CHA help climb? Can't a fey-touched sorcerer or warlock - or, perhaps, a shaman - persuade the spirits and faeries of the cliff face to help him/her with the ascent?
I definitely prefer adjudication:
- Player describes attempted action in character
- DM decides mechanic to use
to the "skill button push" approach I get in 4E from some players. "I use my History skill to determine the best course of action."
However, you will still get creative attempts to use the best bonus available.
My own view is that the solution to this lies with trade offs. Make the player describe what it is in his/her PC's background, or in the situation, that permits the attempt to be made. Which then gives the GM material out of which to build further challenges and complications. Ie "Yes, but . . . " adjudication.
I think between class, specialization, and background, that's enough character variation right there that Next doesn't need a skill system.
Back to classic D&D? Sounds sensible to me, provided the rulebooks give the GM sensible advice on adjudication techniques.
That was definitely one of the things about Playtest 1 that I agreed with. A player doesn't say "I'm going to make an X check" (and by extension usually choosing a check they are really good at)... but instead says "I'm doing X" and then the DM selecting which ability score applies.
THAT'S the way I think it should be. Because it opens up the game more.
<snip>
In my opinion... any skills you get from a Background should be narrow enough that getting to use it is a special case and a special bonus, and that +3 (which is HUGE!!!) is a time for celebration.
I like the idea of backgrounds being important to skill checks. I think that, for the reasons slobo777 gave, it is going to be hard to keep background bonuses to special cases, however: good players will naturally try to steer the game in a direction in which their backgrounds come into play. And that's what we want, isn't it? Creative players who use their PC builds to bring vibrancy, direction and motivation to the ingame situation?
Hence my view that "balance", to the extent that it matters here, is to be achieved via the GM using the right approach in adjudication.
That's it. Open ended, because there's not a finite list of skills. You have the background, that means you get a bonus to any rolls relating to it.
A system like this, however, requires some good judgment from both player and DM so it doesn't become an argument whether something applies every time a check comes up.
Good judgement, supplemented by adequate advice on adjudication to make such a system work. It's not as if that sort of open-ended system doesn't already exist in other RPGs, together with the GMing advice to go along with it.
Let's say I'm a fighter who's been working as a mercenary for the local baron for a decade. I take the "Soldier" background because that's an obvious fit. Now, I'm not trained in Local Lore or Heraldic Lore, but if I'm rolling to see if I know a sleazy pub in the town I've lived in for a decade, or what the banner of a neighboring barony is, I'd expect the DM to give me advantage on those Int rolls.
What's the point of having skill rules if the GM has to ad lib in this fashion? If having a Soldier background should help the fighter PC recognise heraldry despite having poor INT and no Heraldic Lore training, then
change the rules to make it so.
Or conversely, if having the ability to recognise those things is just what having those skills means, then do what Rolemaster (for example) tends to do, and give the fighter training in those skills.
I think you've got some good points about background, but where does that leave us for advancement and development?
I'm guessing they'll take a page from paragon paths and introduce some mid-level character development.
Something like that would be the obvious way to go: PCs can add to or expand their "backgrounds" as they level up.