D&D 5E Great news on Skills

[ren1999]

Let's answer some questions.
How much of tracking an animal is pure ability such as Wisdom? Why?
How much of tracking an animal is learning to track from an expert? Why?
Should people who have no tracking skill be allowed to try to track at all by the dungeon master? Why?
Should factors such as snow, mud, dirt, grass or stone be factored in to the difficulty class of tracking the animal? Why?
Should an easy task have a difficulty class of 10. That would mean on a d20, the character would have a 50/50 chance before the ability modifiers and skill modifiers are factored in. I think the chance of success should be less than 50/50 for characters with high wisdom yet no tracking skill.

If we can answer these questions, we can tweak the skill system. I happen to like the latest legends and lore direction of skills. I agree with the person who said that there were too many knowledge skills. Let's look at 4th Edition again for skills. They had a very nice system. But that system will be even better with the latest 5E direction.

General notes: All Athletics and Endurance type skills should be grouped together. Every class should have an opportunity to improve these skills as they adventure automatically as they level-up. This is because everybody climbs, endures, etc.

 

[Salamandyr]

ren1999,

I think you've got some good overall points. I'd add some other areas than just athletics/endurance where the very nature of the job of adventuring is going to improve certain things we now call skills. One big one is perception. Anyone who regularly goes into danger is going to get better and better at spotting danger early. There's a reason our soldiers are trained to "Stay alert! Stay alive!" I'd go so far as to say that perception should be a level based ability rather than a skill like blacksmithing.

Survival skills too. Adventurers who spend a lot of time in inhospitable wilderness are going to pick up some things.

 

[Rhenny]

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. 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. Advantage allows a PC to be better with their skills they are good at, without potentially screwing up the DCs the DM has to create and assign to checks because some character's bonuses are so much greater than others.

WotC already has this set up via the Elf and his Keen Senses (which is basically having Advantage on Perception checks). They should now adapt that to ALL uses of the skill system. The Dwarf's Stonecunning should be that they roll with Advantage on any ability checks having to do with understanding stonework, knowledge of dungeoneering things, and the tracking and location of their path. And Backgrounds grant four "areas of expertise" that allow the PC to roll Advantage on when making an ability check.

The advantage (pun intended) of this system, is that it means all characters who are trained and great at their particular areas of expertise... can still be accomplished at them even when having to do it in disadvantageous situations. Because Advantage and Disadvantage cancel each other out... no character will ever be "stressed" when doing something they are specifically trained to be fantastic at. At worst... they will make their ability check normally. Seeing as how they were always creating feats and abilities in previous editions that would "allow the PC to Take 10 or make a check normally even when stressed or in a time-sensitive situation"... Advantage as a mechanic has that already built in.

So an acrobat trying to Balance on choppy waters (ordinarily a Disadvantage situation) will make their DEX check normal. The thief trying to disarm the trap while suffering the effects of some sort of poison (that might ordinarily grant Disadvantage) can still disarm it normally because he's that good. And any other example you might give.

Let's keep Bounded Accuracy DCs standardized by using the Advantage mechanic to ts fullest advantage.

I like this on many levels as mentioned, but I also like it because it simplifies the Rogue PC so that he doesn't really need Skill Mastery to be a master of skills. If he is trained in 6, 7 or 8 skills from the beginning, he will be much more effective with ability/skill checks than the other PCs. But, if people really like skill mastery, it could still be in there as a safety net, but the min roll should really be 5,6 or 7...not 10.

 

[gyor]

In todays rule of three they mentioned the rogue will be getting even more skills.

So before the Rogue got six skills, 3 from background, three from Scheme, now each will grant him 4 skills, for a total of 8.

They'll be narrower, although I honestly don't see how, they narrow enough. Will religious lore apply to specific deities? Haroldary lore to a spefic noble family?

 

[Derren]

Which is why 3e's skill system was a pain - when a level 10 rogue gets +20 to diplomacy checks (with synergies, etc), the level 10 fighter with +0 is not in the same ballpark. But a +7 difference between untrained and maximally specialized isn't crazy. When the trained character has an 85% chance of success, the untrained character has a 50% chance of success.

This is why imo 3e had the so far best implementation of skills in a D&D game.
For most tasks training should matter more than inborn ability and there should be (a lot of) things someone witout training has no chance of succeeding in.
No matter how charismatic the fighter is, he should not be able to broker a peace treaty between two kingdoms when he has no clue about diplomancy.

 

[Salamandyr]

This is why imo 3e had the so far best implementation of skills in a D&D game.
For most tasks training should matter more than inborn ability and there should be (a lot of) things someone witout training has no chance of succeeding in.
No matter how charismatic the fighter is, he should not be able to broker a peace treaty between two kingdoms when he has no clue about diplomancy.

And this is why I consider 3e to have absolutely the worst implementation of skill use in the entire game. You spend enough time around diplomats, you're going to pick a thing or two up. Just the process of doing the kinds of things that require gaining levels is going to sharpen any number of skills.

So you have the fighter, who not only can't broker a peace treaty between two kingdoms, but can't even reliably pick up a waitress in a tavern, convince a smith to repair his armor, or convince a peasant militia that following his orders will save their lives. Or reliably spot an ambush by a rogue a quarter of his level. Or swim a river, unless the player has decided that "you know, I think a good character hook for this character is that he's a swimmer".

Basically, 3e's design, for various reasons, meant that unless you had decided something was your schtick, you were probably incompetent at it.

 

[Derren]

And this is why I consider 3e to have absolutely the worst implementation of skill use in the entire game. You spend enough time around diplomats, you're going to pick a thing or two up. Just the process of doing the kinds of things that require gaining levels is going to sharpen any number of skills.

So you have the fighter, who not only can't broker a peace treaty between two kingdoms, but can't even reliably pick up a waitress in a tavern, convince a smith to repair his armor, or convince a peasant militia that following his orders will save their lives. Or reliably spot an ambush by a rogue a quarter of his level. Or swim a river, unless the player has decided that "you know, I think a good character hook for this character is that he's a swimmer".

Basically, 3e's design, for various reasons, meant that unless you had decided something was your schtick, you were probably incompetent at it.

When you want the fighter to "pick something up" then spend 3-4 skillpoint on diplomacy.
Thats an advantage of 3e. You actually have to spend some effort to learn something instead of some nonsense "I am an adventurer and know everything because I go on adventures" autoleveling of skills.

If the character, and in extention the player, decides to spend all his free time for mastering a very limited skillset he can't complain that he can't do much besides those things. You decide what and if your character does "pick up" and when you decide that the character doesn't pick up anything then you can't complain about that.

 

[MoonSong]

When you want the fighter to "pick something up" then spend 3-4 skillpoint on diplomacy.
Thats an advantage of 3e. You actually have to spend some effort to learn something instead of some nonsense "I am an adventurer and know everything because I go on adventures" autoleveling of skills.

If the character, and in extention the player, decides to spend all his free time for mastering a very limited skillset he can't complain that he can't do much besides those things. You decide what and if your character does "pick up" and when you decide that the character doesn't pick up anything then you can't complain about that.

I would give you XP if I could and you were acepting it.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

In a sense, 3e system was good, but i think it was a bad decision that the fighter only got 2 skillpoints per level and had so few class skills, so that any investments in skills like diplomacy and perception was too expensive...

(it was usually better for him to spend a skill focus etc. to increase his skills...)

I really liked secon editions skills and powers skill system. In my opinion it was even slightly better than 3e´s
And maybe pathfinder´s skill system is also a bit better, not halving cross class skills...

On the other hand, I do like 5e´s ability checks. It is damn simple, And with a skillpoint every other level you even have the chance to increase your skills to very high levels... so if you decide to be really good at diplomacy, you can be.

 

[B.T.]

3e skill points more accurately model reality (in a very, very loose sort of way) but they were also a bad system that bogged down the game. Class skills, cross-class skills, multiply by four--all a mess.