D&D 5E Great news on Skills

[Jeff Carlsen]

I'll recount a suggestion I had in another thread, which is that training should act a bit like Rogue Skill Mastery. For each level of skill training (apprentice, journeyman, etc) you are entitled to a minimum dice roll, so that certain tasks are always achievable for you - training gives you the ability to 'take 10', or higher as you get better, even though it might not allow you to achieve anything greater than your ability. I like a +1 bonus to the skill per training level and a minimum dice roll, so you get better *and* more reliable.

I'm quoting this to draw attention to it. I agreed with it before, and I still agree with it today. This is absolutely the best idea I've seen for representing skill training in an ability based system.

 

[Mattachine]

I think this is a great move. The area I am happiest with is that a particular skill might cover tasks associated with different stats in different situations.

Find traps might cover Dex- as often as Int-based tasks.
Skills related to a profession might have a range of uses.
An athletic task might be tied to Dex or Str, depending on the character.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I?would love to see skills scale far less. I would then make advatage the equivalant of skill focus.

My idea: training in a skill gives you +2 (+3 @ 5th, +4 @ 10th, +5 @ 15th and + 6 @ 20th) you start with 4 trained skills (1 from class 3 from background) (Rogues would get 6 from 2 backgrounds) everyone gets 1 extra skill training every 4 levels ( 4, 8, 12, 16, 20) with these they can buy more skills, or get better at the ones they have...

Skill focus (2 trainings) you get advantage on all rolls with this skill
Skill mastery (3 trainings) you can count any roll under your threshold as your threshold with that skill, Your threshold is 2+ 1/2 level.

SPECIAL: all rogue skills have mastry without the benfit of focus, so they never need spend more then 2 trainings...



So a 5th level fighter would have 4 skills 1 focus or 5 skills eaither way all at +3, well a 5th level Rogue would have 7 skills or 6 with 1 focus, but would already have the mastry threshold of 5 on all of them.

I would still keep the trait in all backgrounds, meaning rogues get 2 traits.


I imagin a well built Theif would take 2 backgrounds that both gave stealth, end up at 1st level focus in stealth, and at 5th level would eaither focus in traps or pick pocket as needed...

 

[Unwise]

I'm quoting this to draw attention to it. I agreed with it before, and I still agree with it today. This is absolutely the best idea I've seen for representing skill training in an ability based system.

Although this helps to keep the skill rolls within boundries, I don't think that I would feel that my character was really progressing if I never got better at doing things very well. Just becoming more consistent is not really enough. A level 20 magician should be both very consistent and be able to perform tasks of arcana improvisation that were unthinkable to a level 1 character.

It is a fine line to walk really. The need to be coming great at trained tasks eventually vs the need to keep non-trained people in the running.

-----

I really like the game effect of having skills grant advantage or disadvantage. This does wonders for adding constency of competance, while still staying within boundries. It is just that it makes skills so great it is in effect a +5 bonus. Even given that it makes it too good, I am still leaning towards this due to it really keeping everybody in the same ballpark on skill challenges.

----

In Hero System, when you took a skill, you got it at either a base number + your relevant stat (eg 9 base + 5 for int = 14) or you took it at a higher base number like 11. What I really liked about this, was that is meant a dumb ogre could still be OK at hunting, area knowledge and cooking if it spent the effort to get trained in them. The dumb fighter could be a passable combat medic, he would never be great, but if he spent a skill point in it he would not be terrible.

In D&D terms, I would not be against having the option for minimum stat bonuses for skills you are trained in. For instance, the charismatic theif is trained in streetwise, he should be reasonably assured to be OK at it. If he tries to get underworld information the DM says it is a charisma check and he does well. Next he wants to go into gang territory, the DM says it is a wisdom check this time, he has -1 wisdom. I would not be against setting hte minimum value at +1 or +2 for a stat bonus for a trained skill. More predicatability about what you are good at and less stress on the DM when deciding on stats for things. Another example would be a theif disarming a trap, if the DM says it is a puzzle trap so he has to use Int, he is likely at a -5 to the skill check from the typical dex check he was expecting.

 

[Tony Vargas]

FIf I'm reading it correctly, all checks will be an ability check and if you have an applicable skill, you get the added bonus. So the same skill might get applied to using different abilities in different circumstances.

Nod. It's an idea that makes some sense, conceptually. Using Streetwise to assess to value of loot shouldn't be CHA, using Heal to stitch up a wound might be better as DEX than WIS. That kind of thing. Simple in concept, bit of depth & complexity in execution.

The only downside is that you can't pre-figure your skill checks. So, each action, you get an ability and skill from the DM and add them up, maybe with other bonuses you may have from feats or your race or class or circumstances. You'll want to be sure to angle to get your better stats used and your skills applied, of course. It turns each skill resolution into a minor negotiation and bit of bookkeeping.

It's worth it, IMHO, for the flexibility and detail you get, and those who crave 'verisimilitude' should also find it well worthwhile.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

Although this helps to keep the skill rolls within boundries, I don't think that I would feel that my character was really progressing if I never got better at doing things very well. Just becoming more consistent is not really enough.

[...]

I really like the game effect of having skills grant advantage or disadvantage. This does wonders for adding constency of competance, while still staying within boundries.

These two thoughts aren't consistent, though admittedly you said it was a fine line to walk. Advantage does increase the average roll (by a little over 3), but it doesn't increase the high end of what you can accomplish. In addition, it only has one level of training and doesn't allow a trained character to gain advantage in a situation.

The proposal [MENTION=882]Chris_Nightwing[/MENTION] put forward has multiple ranks, providing a bonus range of +1 through +4, so you will consistently hit a higher DC as you like, but you'll also be able to do things that you simply couldn't before, which is something skills should allow.

Adding a minimum die result quickly removes your chance of failure at lower DCs, which also fits with being more skilled. In addition, the ranks have names that give context to skill level. If I know that an NPC is an expert craftsman, then I know his skill is +3.

Lastly, all of this still permits advantage in a situation to have an effect. The lack of this is the biggest downside to using advantage for skill training.

 

[GreyICE]

A flat +3 seems like the wrong thing to do. It means that skills are once again less important than base stats. Although it would let people try things without necessarily failing due to skill system bs.

Honestly, it sounds better than 3E. It even sounds better than 4E. But I'm not sure it sounds GOOD yet.

 

[Falling Icicle]

Now the next step is to get them to assist with their own desire for "bounded accuracy" by making them realize that their skill system would be better served by not having "trained skills" grant a +3 to the roll... but rather grant Advantage.

The problem I have with this idea is that advantage doesn't stack, so a player who is trained in a skill has no incentive to try and gain advantage on his roll through circumstances, good roleplaying, cleverness, etc.

Another problem with this idea is that it makes the higher DCs nigh impossible to achieve for most characters. Advantage makes you more likely to succeed at lower DC tasks, but doesn't enable you to succeed at very high DC tasks since it doesn't increase your maximum potential result. Skill bonuses do, and to me it makes sense that a trained person can not only succeed on tasks easier, but that he can also reasonably accomplish tasks that are beyond an untrained person.

That way, you aren't having the bonuses get too large for those who have a +4 to the ability modifier as well as the +3 for the skill.

I don't think the bonuses are too large at all. If anything, I think they're too small. The meager +1 to +5 you can get from your ability score is too little compared to the impact of the d20 roll, and the game already feels very swingy because of it. What you suggest would only make it even more swingy.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

A flat +3 seems like the wrong thing to do. It means that skills are once again less important than base stats. Although it would let people try things without necessarily failing due to skill system bs.

Honestly, it sounds better than 3E. It even sounds better than 4E. But I'm not sure it sounds GOOD yet.

I think the biggest variable is skill advancement as you level. Currently it is +1 to one skill each even level, capped at +7 training. I think maybe it should be +1 to two skills. But anyway, +7 is a pretty respectable bonus.

 

[Unwise]

These two thoughts aren't consistent, though admittedly you said it was a fine line to walk. Advantage does increase the average roll (by a little over 3), but it doesn't increase the high end of what you can accomplish. In addition, it only has one level of training and doesn't allow a trained character to gain advantage in a situation.

The proposal @Chris_Nightwing put forward has multiple ranks, providing a bonus range of +1 through +4, so you will consistently hit a higher DC as you like, but you'll also be able to do things that you simply couldn't before, which is something skills should allow.

Adding a minimum die result quickly removes your chance of failure at lower DCs, which also fits with being more skilled. In addition, the ranks have names that give context to skill level. If I know that an NPC is an expert craftsman, then I know his skill is +3.

Lastly, all of this still permits advantage in a situation to have an effect. The lack of this is the biggest downside to using advantage for skill training.

The point of my rambling was to do with the balancing act required to keep within the acceptable skill boundries while still feeling like a character is progressing. I was trying to look at it from differing perspectives.

I think in my first reading I had undervalued the associated +1 bonuses in the design you mentioned. As long as consistency is not the sole advantage to improving a skill, I would be OK with a system where it was the second part of the dangling carrot. In a fast enough levelling campaign I think that small bonuses to skills if combined with some consistency could feel rewarding enough.

What I do like about the advantage idea for trained skills is that it in effect manages to provide a +3 or so bonus while not really pushing the DCs of a skill challenge up to compensate. In that regard it feels like a rather elegant tool for fighting DC inflation. (At least until DMs take high rolls for granted) I think that it is useful enough in that regard to be worth the hassle of working out other ways to handle situational advantage.

Maybe getting situational advantage on a skill check where you already have advantage could be handled in a slightly different way. Rolling 3 dice, or getting a plain bonus to the skill check. I like the elegance of the advantage/disadvantage system for minimizing math in combat, however when it comes to skills, I rarely find my game grinding down with math there. I do feel that we need to leave avenues open for rewarding situational advantages, I just think it could be handled in other ways.