D&D 5E How many is too many? [Skills n' stuff]

[steeldragons]

Splintering off from the "Should Fighters/Barbarians get bonus skills" thread/poll/discussion...

Let's take a [developmmental] step back. Go to square one...

The developers seem to be on this kick where, in order to respond to comments and feedback they just "give the classes MORE stuff to make 'em happy!" There's this "if a little is good, more must be better" pattern happening...at least as far as I see.

Combat Expertise dice for Fighters! "WOOHOO!" say most. Well then, Expertise Dice for EV'RAYBODY! That'd be great right? Right??

Bonus skills for Rogues! "WOOHOO!", say most. Well then, bonus skills for EV'RAYBODY! There. That's bettuh.

Backgrounds are good? More backgrounds...More options...MORE MORE MORE!!! No imagination necessary, we're givin' it ALL to ya!

So, I'm kinda wondering...where's the line to be drawn...or where's a dotted "suggested guideline" line be drawn?

For a the Basic, Standard and Advanced, as the terms currently exist, style games in 5e, what [if any] skills should a class receive?

It's kinda a loaded question as certain classes simply NEED skills in order to justify their existence. The Rogue, obviously, immediately comes to mind. But what's a Ranger if they don't have "tracking" built in? Does a Mage need "Arcane Lore" for the class archetype to exist? No. It doesn't. But it does make sense and, imo, add flavor. So, even for the "simpler" styles of game, I see a need for "skills" [which are differentiated as "Class Features"] to be built in.

Where's the line?

As many have said, there would be "No skills" used in a "Basic" game. That's fine and I can get behind that. I'm a sucker for a simple pick-up game. But does that mean there is no Basic Ranger? or Bard? or Monk? Developing...no, "developing" is even too vaunted/complicated a word for what it would be...how 'bout, "presenting" a "Fighter class" that you give/bake in "Tracking" and, perhaps, "Survival" is too difficult for a "Basic" game?

There doesn't have to be a skill list or player options. But some skill (no more than 2, I would say) are baked into the class description as features.

AND, if 1 class in a Basic style game gets them, does that mean every class needs them? I don't think so, but then people start whi- er...complai- nooo..."getting concerrrrrned" about class "balance."

How do you even have a traditional "D&D Rogue/Thief" class without using skills?

For a "Standard" game...say, you get your 1 or 2 as the basic game and then 4 more? Either built in or selected by the player, I mean. Or 2 more built in and 2 more selected? The option for "X" number of skills for your PC. Is 4 enough? Too many? 5? Different numbers dependent on class? Should they get more as they increase level or is that too "Advanced"? A maximum to shoot for? I say make it a fixed number for the standard game.

For an "Advanced" game, I would say you get a full suite of "class features", however many that is depends on class, and then a set number that is dependent on your class and increases with level: maybe Clerics get 2 every X levels, but Rogues get 4 every Y.

One need never look at a skill list in a Basic game, though a DM could easily just take the "Advanced game skill advancement" and apply it to their Basic game if desired...or tell their players in a Basic game, after perusing the Standard system, pick 2 more skills at 5th level. One could play an advanced game without the skill system, just use the assigned the class skills. etc...

As with all of these design preference things, there is no "right" answer, of course...but curious to see what people think/prefer?

I dunno...I've had a bit of coffee so far and am kinda rambling, but I hope the thread question is clear...

What/How many skills do you think each class should receive/be permitted or, flat out "I personally prefer/would like to see..." for "Basic/Standard/Advanced" game play?

 

[I'm A Banana]

How do you even have a traditional "D&D Rogue/Thief" class without using skills?

Your post is interesting, but I wanted to tease this element out.

Skills, so far in D&D Next, are nothing more than bonuses to ability score checks. Everyone has a "Stealth" skill, it's called "Make a Dexterity check." A Thief (or whatever) might have a +3 bonus to checks made to hide in shadows. Herpaderp, you have a skill.

So how do you make a Thief without skills? Look at the D&D Next rogue. Now take out all the skills (from everybody). That's still a Thief. It's still, by virtue of rewarding a good Dex score, probably better at hiding than anyone else in the party.

Skills aren't required for thiefy abilities. Hide In Shadows can be a skill, but it could also be a feat, or a proficiency, or a power, or a ritual. Or whatever.

And that brings me to the overall point, here. If "skills" in Next are just measures of what a character is kind of talented at, there's no real reason to bake them into a class. If you want your rogue to hide in shadows, don't make it a skill -- make it a trick, make it a maneuver. If it's part of a class's identity, it shouldn't be a skill.

Then no one "needs" skills, but a game could adopt them so that characters can receive some extra granularity on what they're particularly good at.

 

[delericho]

I think that's actually coming at the problem from the wrong direction, especially if the goal is for basic characters to co-exist alongside advanced ones at the same table.

As far as I can see, the way to do it is to build the most advanced version first - divide up the powers, skills, whatever into their atomic form, and then allow players to construct their character by selecting from these elements. (Whether such a construct even requires classes is debatable.)

Having done that, it becomes relatively straightforward to construct the 'standard' version of the classes, races, backgrounds, etc - each of these is just a package of pre-bought powers, skills, feats, etc. All they need to decide is how much should be fixed, and how much should remain flexible. (It's also probably a good idea if the packages also give a slight 'price-break', to reflect the fact that they're non-optimised packages. Otherwise, the optimisers will inevitably go for 'advanced' characters, and leave their 'standard' compatriots behind.)

And then, finally, you build the 'basic' versions in the same way, but moreso - basically, you roll everything into a handful of large packages. (So that a 'basic' character may just be three choices, race/class/background, or could even just be one.)

That being the case, I would argue that the 'advanced' characters should get no bonus skills (for example). The 'standard' characters should only receive bonus skills if there are skills that are essential to their makeup. And the 'basic' characters should get bonus skills as such - rather, they should just get a fix set of 'skills' rolled right into their class/race/background.

 

[Falling Icicle]

Where's the line?

Wherever the line is, I don't think giving characters an extra skill or two crosses it, or even comes close. But I've always thought that 4 skills was just not enough.

 

[Falling Icicle]

The developers seem to be on this kick where, in order to respond to comments and feedback they just "give the classes MORE stuff to make 'em happy!" There's this "if a little is good, more must be better" pattern happening...at least as far as I see.

I don't think that's at all fair to the developers. You make it sound like they're just casually throwing toys to appease the masses. I don't see it. People were complaining, loud and clear, that the early fighter was boring and shallow. So they gave it MDD. People then, rightly (IMO), complained about how bad the rogue was, so they gave them skill tricks. That's what a playtest is for, to get feedback and make changes accordingly!

There could well be a point at which the classes have too much stuff, but I don't think we've crossed that line yet. I still think fighters and barbarians need out-of-combat stuff, because IMO no class should be all about just one pillar of play (combat). Giving them an extra skill or two would help alot in that regard without adding much complexity. It sounds to me like you prefer more basic classes, and that's fine. Hopefully the modular nature of the game will satisfy both of us.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

Reiterating what I said on the other thread..

Ability modifiers do act as a proxy for skills, and so fighters are inherently strong and inherently better at strength-related skills. Wizards are trained in obscure lore because they have a higher intelligence score. The idea behind backgrounds is to give you better odds of succeeding at things you're not already naturally good at (with the side-effect of also making you better at things you're good at). They are supposed to represent the many years you spend doing.. something.. before you became an adventurer. Classes are also supposed to represent years of training, especially because 1st level is 'significant' - picking up a level in a 2nd class later in your career apparently won't give the same benefits as if you had started in that class to begin with. Thus, there is a tendency to think that if you study magic for years, you pick up some specialist knowledge relating to magic, hence give the Wizard a skill.

They don't have a coherent vision for how they would like checks, other than those in combat to see whether you hit or miss, to work. Thus, it's unclear what a skill really represents. It's also unclear what an ability really represents - were you intelligent, so you became a wizard, or did you become intelligent because you trained as a wizard? If the former, then presumably you are better at all Int-based knowledge skills because you absorb information easily. If the latter, then presumably your training as a Wizard included learning different knowledge skills, hence your intelligence is higher and you are better at them.

Personally, my coherent vision would be as follows:
- Your ability scores are not inherent, though your potential to achieve them may have been. You are strong because you did strength-related things, you are intelligent because you did intelligence-related things. These things include your background and your training in your class.
- As such, I see skills as a way to train yourself in what is really a tiny subset of all the strength- or intelligence-related things you could do, such that you perform beyond what your ability modifier would otherwise suggest. I don't believe they should be as overwhelming as they are right now, +3 each, but instead be more granular. A return to skill points in a sense, where you get +1 for each point you invest.
- We limit mortal abilities to 20, which means you can never get more than +5 to all strength-related things. However, just as a weaker mortal could specialise in Climbing, say, to achieve the equivalent of your Strength, so can you specialise in Climbing to achieve the equivalent of a giant's Strength. Hence, you add ability modifiers to skills, but can never specialise beyond a certain point. A handy limit is +5 again.
- A background tells you which skills you can add +1 to - there should be a few of these, more than four. Your class does not do this - your class trains you broadly in things already represented by your abilities (Rogue excepted).
- As you increase in level, you can specialise further or gain new skills. Keeping it very simple, you gain +1 every level. To prevent over specialisation, your highest skill can only be 1 higher than your next highest, and so on, pyramid style. Rogues get double.
- In the advanced version, your background would tell you which skills you get, but not +1 to each, instead you invest as you choose, bearing in mind the pyramid rule. Here is where a class could offer you additional skill choices.
- In the basic version, you don't get +1 every level, but every, say, 5 levels you get +1 to your existing skills. Something simple like that.

 

[Kobold Stew]

I think that's actually coming at the problem from the wrong direction, ...

(It's also probably a good idea if the packages also give a slight 'price-break', to reflect the fact that they're non-optimised packages. Otherwise, the optimisers will inevitably go for 'advanced' characters, and leave their 'standard' compatriots behind.) ...

There's a lot of wisdom in this post, I feel, but nowhere more than in the notion of a "price-break" at the less advanced options.

At a minimum, as soon as you customize, you lose the background Trait. Whichever level you play (B/S/A) there's a perk for taking a pre-selected package.

(or just have a flat number of skills, and allow a free choice for all players (B/S/A) -- no packages and no bonus skills for classes, unless you are a Rogue)

 

[steeldragons]

I think that's actually coming at the problem from the wrong direction, especially if the goal is for basic characters to co-exist alongside advanced ones at the same table.

Is that still a goal though? I thought we were shifting toward: You can have a Basic table or a Standard table or an Advanced table. Not at a single table: Joe (the experienced co-DM) and Tom (the never played before newbie) go for Basic PCs, Tim and Julie create "Standards" (how awful would it be if we started referring to PC's as such? Blech.) and Barbara (of course it's Barb. You know she's always gotta be soooo different goes for Advanced so she can build her pseudo-dragon alienist-sage shadow-warlock/barbarian.

I really don't see the later happening.

As far as I can see, the way to do it is to build the most advanced version first - divide up the powers, skills, whatever into their atomic form, and then allow players to construct their character by selecting from these elements. (Whether such a construct even requires classes is debatable.)

Having done that, it becomes relatively straightforward to construct the 'standard' version of the classes, races, backgrounds, etc - each of these is just a package of pre-bought powers, skills, feats, etc. All they need to decide is how much should be fixed, and how much should remain flexible. (It's also probably a good idea if the packages also give a slight 'price-break', to reflect the fact that they're non-optimised packages. Otherwise, the optimisers will inevitably go for 'advanced' characters, and leave their 'standard' compatriots behind.)

And then, finally, you build the 'basic' versions in the same way, but moreso - basically, you roll everything into a handful of large packages. (So that a 'basic' character may just be three choices, race/class/background, or could even just be one.)

That being the case, I would argue that the 'advanced' characters should get no bonus skills (for example). The 'standard' characters should only receive bonus skills if there are skills that are essential to their makeup. And the 'basic' characters should get bonus skills as such - rather, they should just get a fix set of 'skills' rolled right into their class/race/background.

Works for me. And you may be right, I'm approaching it from the wrong side. Your suggestions make sense.

I don't think that's at all fair to the developers. You make it sound like they're just casually throwing toys to appease the masses. I don't see it.

It may be...or it may be fair/exactly what's happening.

People were complaining, loud and clear, that the early fighter was boring and shallow. So they gave it MDD. People then, rightly (IMO), complained about how bad the rogue was, so they gave them skill tricks. That's what a playtest is for, to get feedback and make changes accordingly!

Fair enough. You want to see the glass half-full and benefit of the doubt...I can accept that. I simply am a glass-half-empty cynic and think it's just as likely that they're "throwing toys to appease the masses" [and very possibly, including themselves in those masses].

There could well be a point at which the classes have too much stuff, but I don't think we've crossed that line yet.

Again, fair enough. and exactly what I made this thread for...so where is that line? What would be "too much stuff" for you...or is there even such a thing as "too much"?

I still think fighters and barbarians need out-of-combat stuff, because IMO no class should be all about just one pillar of play (combat).

No. I agree with you there. But for Basic characters, it appears that non-combat stuff is pretty much going to be all about the RP. Standard will likely have non-combat skills to choose...though I'd expect, at least, Bards to have some interactive stuff built in.

Giving them an extra skill or two would help alot in that regard without adding much complexity.

AH! "Not much", no...but it is complexity. If one or two is ok, then why not 3 or 4? Does it actually get complex if you have 5 skills listed on your character sheet? 8...12? 1 per level? Again, where is the line?

To whit:
Basic Fighter: You get these Extra Damage Dice (static).
...or is a "Basic Fighter": You get these Extra Damage Dice(static...or that increase?). Plus, you can choose a Background from the following list...that give you 2 "skills" and a feat/maneuver/whatever it's called.
...OR is a "Basic Fighter": You get these EDD (are they static or increase?). Background w/4 skills and selectable maneuvers AND choose 1 thing from this list of 30 you also know. You're only choosing 2 things...BG and an extra skill. Is that complex?

Standard Fighter: You get EDD that increase every X levels. You also [automatically have] have X (assumed to be Strength bonus) to Athletics, Intimidate checks and 1 maneuver from this list of ???. Then, choose a Background that gives you these other 2 skills and these other feats/maneuvers/whatever it would be called that increase with level.

Or is that simply not enough "options" for one's conception of Standard play?

Advanced Fighter: You get EDD that increase every level. You also choose from these 30 (if it stays 30) skills. AND Select 2 per level from: Individual maneuver 1, Individual maneuver 2, etc...etc...

Or is what I'm writing as an "advanced" what, to you, looks like a "Basic"?

"Not too much complexity" is a subjective call...as, obviously, all of this stuff is. So I'm looking for what do you think would be acceptable, if not perfect, to your tastes. More than 4 is not really an answer. Is "an extra skill or two" acceptable for a Basic class or a Standard?

It sounds to me like you prefer more basic classes, and that's fine. Hopefully the modular nature of the game will satisfy both of us.

I agree and hope for the same (though, see above, I think it is more "my table can be X" and "your table can by Y" as opposed to "X and Y in the same game"). And while I do enjoy a simpler game sometimes, my perspective is really more thinking in the vein of "introducing new players to the game" which, I think, is getting lost among the designers as they focus on "what do we need to add to get those lapsed players back and/or keep the post-2000 edition folks interested/happy."

What IS a Basic number of skills? What is a Standard amount of skills? Is Standard supposed to simulate 3.x as I've seen stated somewhere around here? Or is that Advanced? And if that's advanced, then what's 4e style play? Is a 1e style game supposed to be Basic+? Advanced-lite?

And, then, to take the topic a step further, what is a skill? Is a skill simply something that's "non-combat"? Or should there be skills that are usable in combat? Does that somehow "take away from" or "make sub-optimal" non-combat skills? Why? What's a feat...vs. a maneuver...vs. a trick...vs....?

 

[steeldragons]

Your post is interesting, but I wanted to tease this element out.

Skills, so far in D&D Next, are nothing more than bonuses to ability score checks. Everyone has a "Stealth" skill, it's called "Make a Dexterity check." A Thief (or whatever) might have a +3 bonus to checks made to hide in shadows. Herpaderp, you have a skill.

So how do you make a Thief without skills? Look at the D&D Next rogue. Now take out all the skills (from everybody). That's still a Thief. It's still, by virtue of rewarding a good Dex score, probably better at hiding than anyone else in the party.

Skills aren't required for thiefy abilities. Hide In Shadows can be a skill, but it could also be a feat, or a proficiency, or a power, or a ritual. Or whatever.

And that brings me to the overall point, here. If "skills" in Next are just measures of what a character is kind of talented at, there's no real reason to bake them into a class. If you want your rogue to hide in shadows, don't make it a skill -- make it a trick, make it a maneuver. If it's part of a class's identity, it shouldn't be a skill.

Then no one "needs" skills, but a game could adopt them so that characters can receive some extra granularity on what they're particularly good at.

I do rather like this. Though, as I said (though I can understand that it might not have been clear) the baked in "skills" would really just be "Class features" (or tricks or whatever they wanted to call them) without being, properly "skills."

But, to generate yet another branch from this thicket of ideas in my head...

How much of this is/are we bogging down our perceptions of the game and its development with semantics?

If they don't have these skills that allow this, this and this then they're doing it wrong? If they don't include this, this and this as feats instead of skills, I'm not havin' it! Those should be in Backgrounds but these need to be Specialties. But NOT maneuvers! Only Fighters can have maneuvers. Gods help you if they're skills instead of maneuvers!

I don't know...sometimes I think it just doesn't really need to be as intricate (or "granular") as we all seem to talk about. I kinda think we're our own worst critics, as it were, sometimes.

 

[delericho]

...stuff...

I don't have anything much to say here, but please note that many of your quotes are mis-attributed to me.