D&D 5E Skills in 5e

[Li Shenron]

IMHO you're using the skill system to accomplish the wrong thing. You want PCs to work in terms of a PC concept. "This guy is strong and athletic, he can leap things, climb, wrestle, etc effectively". You don't need to exclude all the other PCs from a chance to attempt these things.

Yes I do... sometimes, as I mentioned in my previous comment on "group skills".

I need to exclude all the other PCs when I don't want the check to effectively become too easy: e.g. if every PC is allowed to roll every Knowledge check, instead I want it allowed only to the trained guys (in 3ed there was at least a limitation that untrained PCs could only know common knowledge).

As I said, it's somehow related to the multiple attempts problem i.e. too many dice rolls until someone succeeds.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Yes I do... sometimes, as I mentioned in my previous comment on "group skills".

I need to exclude all the other PCs when I don't want the check to effectively become too easy: e.g. if every PC is allowed to roll every Knowledge check, instead I want it allowed only to the trained guys (in 3ed there was at least a limitation that untrained PCs could only know common knowledge).

As I said, it's somehow related to the multiple attempts problem i.e. too many dice rolls until someone succeeds.

Sure, so again as I stated 2 pages ago, you could use the AA rules in 4e to deal with that. Just say "OK, Joh, Largo, and Murgas are all listening, Joh, you have the highest Perception, you other 2 roll a DC15 Aid check. OK, Joh succeeded, Murgas, make your Perception check at +2." You could of course also make it a small complexity one SC, in which case the less capable PCs actually reduce the chance of success, unless they come with some other skill that they can logically use to help things along. In any case it isn't an issue with any one specific skill system. ANY system that relies on a simple check mechanic of some sort will have the same issue potentially. IMHO making most checks effectively 'trained only' is sort of a 'blow off left foot to cure hangnail' type of solution.

 

[Li Shenron]

ANY system that relies on a simple check mechanic of some sort will have the same issue potentially. IMHO making most checks effectively 'trained only' is sort of a 'blow off left foot to cure hangnail' type of solution.

I think however that a system where only trained PCs can make checks works very well for a Basic game.

In a Basic game, things need to be simple. If everybody is allowed to roll 20 skills, that's not very simple. Sooner or later you're going to have situations where players think they were entitled to roll something but they forgot, or "let's all try to listen to the door to increase our chances".

I would prefer, in a Basic game, that if you have one "dedicated Listener", only he gets to make one check, and one check only.

This is very simplified, so I definitely don't expect people who want a Standard game to accept this simplification, but in a Basic game I think it would be quite good. Once again, the only exception I would do is probably reactive Listen & Spot checks.

With such a system, a player has his list of 2-4 skills to keep in mind and that's it.

I'm not saying this would work in 5e, in fact it wouldn't because we already know that they are currently NOT having skills at all in Basic, but only ability checks AND that in general they expect the DM to call for checks instead of the players to ask to use specific skills.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

I also dislike the making of multiple skill checks when the whole group feel they each have a chance of success - with Knowledge and Perception type checks being good examples. I always turn to whoever has the highest total modifier, and then give out a +1 bonus for each other character that has at least a 15 in the relevant ability or is trained in the skill (you could give +2 for both too). This works great for knowledge checks, whilst I am disinclined to allow any bonuses for perception checks - having that many people around is a distraction in itself.

Edit: In fact, in the basic game, I think it would be a good reward for having a 15 in an ability (since there will be no prerequisites for anything) - you get to contribute +1 to group checks, which are defined as skill checks in which every member of the party can (in theory) contribute.

 

[Sadrik]

I think however that a system where only trained PCs can make checks works very well for a Basic game.

With such a system, a player has his list of 2-4 skills to keep in mind and that's it.

I am inclined to agree with Abdulalhazrad on this one. I think the basic game should not limit players and the skills they want to use. Instead it should allow more free-form play, meaning they have all skills. Then the DM can decide if something is within the scope of the character's knowledge. Answers like the following seem to be within the scope of play in the basic game. Oh of course, you are a wizard you can attempt to discern the properties of the wand, please make an INT check. Or... Of course, you are dwarf you can determine the rock formations. Rogue, traps etc. I suppose guidelines could be encapsulated for a DM not using the skill system. Ultimately though I think many people who do enjoy a basic game enjoy a free-form use of skills. If you are tying everything back to the 6 abilities and not limiting through the skill system. It would be a bother to include skill limiters for these types of players. Because remember the two minds on this are those that want their character modeled through the skill system, and others who want to just explore and are not hampered by that complication. And for a DM to call for an INT check to know some tidbit and for the players to roll, and be done. Not for players to look at their character sheet and say oh you called for tidbit X and I only have tidbit Y knowledge... So I guess I cannot roll.

In a standard level of game, I think modeling the characters more around the concept of what does this character know how to do? Characters under this assumption would be more like the characters of 3e/4e where they can only do certain things. Or roll untrained really crappy but still have a shot at it.

 

[Sadrik]

Joh, you have the highest Perception, you other 2 roll a DC15 Aid check. OK, Joh succeeded, Murgas, make your Perception check at +2."

This is also the 3e method of aiding others, although it is DC 10 in 3e. This was never a satisfactory, group roll mechanic for me. I guess the reason why is it is an action and not a concept. So for instance, many of the group rolls do not take an action to do they are in effect free actions, notice something, know something etc. You do not take an action to know something. Something better and up front that is simple and intuitive. 2 of more characters try to do something, what do you do?

+1 per character helping seems doable, up to a maximum. The maximum could simply be more than X people cannot get in there to do, or whatever limiter based on the situation.

 

[Blackwarder]

I think that the problem with group checks is that they are too prevailing in the game, Personaly I think that instead of saying to the entire group make a perception check the group should have designated lookout/lookouts and they should do it, same goes for a lot of things.

Warder

 

[Lanefan]

First thing: no re-tries on anything where the parameters don't change. Ever. The one roll you make represents the best you'll ever do and assumes you've tried enough times to realize you ain't gonna do better. Fail your roll to open the lock? You're not going to open it that way, period; and it's time to go the boots-and-axes route.

Where things do change - the example of the sneaky hobbit and the orcs is a good one - then re-tries are allowed only after the situation has changed. The orcs fail to notice the hobbit entering their tent; they get another chance to notice him when he leaves.

Oh, and no take-10 and-or take-20 equivalents. Horrible awful mechanics.

Lanefan

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

This is also the 3e method of aiding others, although it is DC 10 in 3e. This was never a satisfactory, group roll mechanic for me. I guess the reason why is it is an action and not a concept. So for instance, many of the group rolls do not take an action to do they are in effect free actions, notice something, know something etc. You do not take an action to know something. Something better and up front that is simple and intuitive. 2 of more characters try to do something, what do you do?

+1 per character helping seems doable, up to a maximum. The maximum could simply be more than X people cannot get in there to do, or whatever limiter based on the situation.

+1 per helper seems fine to me, its simpler and doesn't really have any issues. I think the DC method was meant to give higher skill bonuses an edge even when they're used to AA. In post-RC 4e the AA check is now a bit higher DC IIRC, and for some uses like adding to an ally's defense it is a check against the opponent. Some AA uses can also cause penalties if they fail. Still, I agree, for a quick basic resolution +1/helper seems good. The DM can always allow some other resolution in a specific situation where that seems unfair somehow.

 

[sr123]

In my perfect version of D&D++, there would be more combat-determining skills.

As a fencer, I am offended that anyone limber can pick up a rapier and fight with equal proficiency. It takes about a decade of training to fight at your peak in any combat sport.

Of course, this would be part of my fighters-get-not-enough-love-at-high-level rant in general, so... yeah.