D&D 5E Skills in 5e

[Li Shenron]

But why go gonzo on combat and gritty on non-combat? I just don't get it.

You have to keep in mind a few things to get my point:

- never I said that non-combat tasks should be gritty for everyone, only that I like them to remain gritty for those PCs which never bother to invest in them, and that clearly only applies to some task; therefore I am not talking about a game where every non-combat skill is gritty for everyone, but rather I am talking about a game where no one is gonzo at every non-combat skill.

- A combat system where all PCs get roughly equally better by level at fighting, is probably the easiest way to ensure that everyone has something to do in combat. I would not mind a game where a PC who doesn't bother getting better at fighting, ends up lagging behind to the point of not being able to fight, but I would hardly expect another person at the same table to share the feeling. That's because in general when there's a fight, everybody fights, at least in the broad sense (i.e. "healing others" and "controlling the battlefield" qualify as "fighting" for me).

OTOH non-combat skills are most of the time (not always, but most) individual efforts. Of course there are notable exceptions such as group sneak/stealth efforts, but many many non-combat challenges are assigned to individual PCs to solve. The lockpicking case is one example: it is normally up to one PC to pick the lock, the dedicated lockpicker of the group. You can complicate this, especially in case of failure, by letting the others try too, but then we would get into an impossible discussion. My point is simply that I like a game where, when the primary lockpicker fails, the others aren't just rolling their own lockpicking checks but rather the group as a whole has to think about something different. For me to get that out of the game, a gritty setup for skills (once again, "gritty" only in the sensefor those who didn't bother investing in lockpicking) works much better than a gonzo skill systems where everybody else in the party just have a -5 on the roll in the worst case.

Probably I'm not fully getting what you mean with "gonzo" and "gritty", so let me clarify again what I have in mind...

I think there are 2 different but very interconnected issues here, which can be addressed to skills or to combat effectiveness, and maybe something else (e.g. healing, knowledge etc).

Issue (a) is whether the game allows characters of the same level with a large spread of their effectiveness at something. For example, the dedicated lockpicker VS another PC to have either a small difference in bonus (e.g. 5 on a d20 roll) resulting in both being at least able to pick almost always the same locks, or a large one (e.g. 20 on a d20 roll) which results in some things which are possible for the first remain impossible for the second, or possible for the second but trivial for the first. Call it the "horizontal spread"

Issue (b) is how fast in terms of levels the game should increase the PCs abilities compared to the challenges, e.g. how many levels before a lv1 challenge (monster, trap, lock, whatever) becomes irrelevant. Call it the "vertical spread"

The two are interconnected at least in the sense that if you have a small horizontal spread, then then vertical spread affects all PCs rather equally.

Also, because of what I said about combat vs non-combat, this doesn't necessarily have to work in the same way for all possible character abilities in the game. We have all heard about the concept of bounded accuracy that is supposed to decrease the vertical spread of combat, but non-combat challenges might have a different spread compared to combat.

So... it's my preference, but probably I like a large horizontal spread and a vertical spread that is small for the worst at something, but since I like a large horizontal spread, then the vertical spread for the best at something actually becomes large.

For instance, I don't like the image of getting at a locked door without a Rogue in the party, and the players think "who cares, the cloistered/bookworm Cleric healer can do it anyway". I like to get there and think "damn we should have had a lockpicker here, what do we no now?". And I think I understand that for some gaming group the "what do we do now?" feeling can be a huge disappointment, but for me it's excitement.

BTW also a note on the idea of interpreting the cloistered Wizard's high skill with locks (even tho she never picked one) as representing her other ways of dealing with the problem, e.g. through non-spell magic. It's a very smart way of handling the problem IMO, but once again it raises a gamestyle question, not dissimilar to that of abstracting hit points into "luck, and more", and that question is how much you like your game to explicitly connect mechanics with narrative vs how much abstraction you can take.

 

[GMMichael]

What I don't get in relation to 2nd ed AD&D (with its NWP) and 3E (with its skills) is why killing ordinary people with swords becomes trivial for every high level PC (even the ones with low STR and DEX and who aren't proficient in swords), but climbing cliffs and opening locks remains hugely challenging for everyone but the rogue (and, in 3E, perhaps the fighter as far as climbing is concerned).

This, to me, is fairly obvious. Attacking is a skill. Dodging a dragon's fiery breath takes skill. But in many D&D systems, these aren't treated as skills - they're treated as a THAC0, or attack bonus, or saving throw, or reflex defense.

Make them skills. Solve the problem.

 

[Bedrockgames]

This, to me, is fairly obvious. Attacking is a skill. Dodging a dragon's fiery breath takes skill. But in many D&D systems, these aren't treated as skills - they're treated as a THAC0, or attack bonus, or saving throw, or reflex defense.

Make them skills. Solve the problem.

I dont know. D&D was never really a skill based game. I think pulling it fully into skills like that would be a substantial change to the core system. There arenplenty pf great skill based games out there, i just dont see why D&D needs to become one.

 

[Bluenose]

This, to me, is fairly obvious. Attacking is a skill. Dodging a dragon's fiery breath takes skill. But in many D&D systems, these aren't treated as skills - they're treated as a THAC0, or attack bonus, or saving throw, or reflex defense.

Make them skills. Solve the problem.

And while we're at it, treat magic the same way, a skill like any other.

Yes, it won't happen, but I can wish.

 

[Bedrockgames]

At least for my part, I'm not saying that gonzo spells & combat combined with gritty skills must be a problem. But I agree with sheadunne that it means that skills will tend to get crowded out or overshadowed over time. Whether or not that's a problem is a matter of taste, but as I've said I don't personally understand the aesthetic of gonzo combat and spells + gritty skills. I don't see what it adds in terms of verisimilitude, fantasy tropes, ease of play, immersion, or any of the other standard aesthetic criteria for fantasy RPG.

i dont know that combat is all all that gonzo. Spells are certainly gonzo, but is a wizard slashing with a knife really that gonzo? Combat is highly abstracted, arguably not highly realistic, but i make a 2E fighter with specialization and weapon proficiencies, to me that is not super gonzo. The only thing that really takes it a bit into gonzo territory is HP, but as you often argue, that is not pure physical damage. I would agree D&D combat isnt neccessarily gritty though.

for me the reason to ground skills in something grittier is because they are pretty mundane things: climbing walls, crafting goods, recalling historical information, etc. for me, this helps ground things in a believable setting. I guess i just find it important for certain parts of the game to feel like they are touching something real.

 

[Bedrockgames]

... Whether or not that's a problem is a matter of taste, but as I've said I don't personally understand the aesthetic of ...

This is just one of those things then. I mean i dont understand a lot of aesthetics I see people promoting (including narrative aethetics) but I don't need to personally understand them to get they are important to some players. If you don't get, then you don't get it.

 

[Sadrik]

But why go gonzo on combat and gritty on non-combat? I just don't get it.

My first point is that 5e should handle both playstyles, period. It is not a question of one or the other or they pick one for us and then we are stuck accepting or not accepting it. Both play styles need to be accepted and both need to be supported. With such an easy fix it really seems like a non-issue. Simply add +1/2 level to DCs and add +1/2 level to ability checks.

The notion that you espouse in your post, is why have a gritty skill system and super-heroic combat. This is how D&D is mixed, this is the natural state of D&D from the beginning. Commoners and merchants and the game world are not super-heroic, they have skills, many are quite good at them. They are effectively penalized by virtue of not being 20th level characters in their skill use?

Last point, I am in no way saying that skills cannot have super-heroic qualities, to get those super-heroic qualities though, I think you should take a feat or have a class feature. The baseline of the skill system should be mundane though. Spruce the tree up with add-ons. Don't make it level based, add on the option to add +1/2 level for those who want it, tack on feats and features that allow you to use skills in new and interesting ways. High level ones could be quite powerful and even border on magical, diplomacy might give the effects of charm person, sneak might give the effects of invisibility. There is a lot of latitude there, I personally do not want to see the game assume more than mundane skill use at the basic level.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

The points are necessary, I'm afraid. -And they are quite useful. You see you can roll towards a low number and create a succeed/fail situation, you can pick a moderately high number and get a thrilling situation, you can pick a higher number that several characters must work together to achieve, you can compare the results of two characters (or more!) competeing. This is where skills should be.

Imagine my character having Climb 1d6. If the DM sets the DC at 2 I will probably succeed in one go. If the DC is 6 I might make it in one turn (and get away from the orc) or require two turns and get whacked in the process. Mount Doom might require 1000 success points.
When the entire party rolls for perception the highest scorer spots the enemy first.

I fail to see how this does anything that can't be done now in 4e (or etc) or how it does it better. I can require any number of checks in 4e, allow a hard DC to succeed and a medium one to 'partly succeed', etc. This is what skill challenges are FOR, though you don't always need to go that far.

It's not more complicated. It's exactly as complicated as the 3Ed system but it produces comparable results that can be accumulated. Counting successes 4Ed-style was a complete dead end*.

It isn't more complicated in a VERY narrow sense of complicated. It DOES make the whole GAME more complicated because we now have to deal with a whole OTHER type of bonus system, one that operates on totally different principles from the normal system of bonuses to a d20. What happens if an item needs to add a bonus to say attacks and to skill checks, you need separate rules now. Ability scores have to have different bonus structures for each, etc. Trust me, it just complicates things. That's OK if there's some real gain to be had, but I don't see it.

As for the "4Ed-style was a complete dead end". Yes, I get it you have a hate on for Skill Challenges. Get over it, they work. They kick ass. They can do exactly what you're asking for and much more. SCs COULD work more like you suggest, with some sort of 'hit points' needed to achieve a goal and 'damage rolls' added on, but again IMHO at least, very little is gained over the simple tally system they use now, and again complexity is increased.

It also solves the old "can I try again?" question without add-on rules. The answer is "of course you can, but there will be a penalty".

I entirely fail to see how this works, but feel free to explain.

It also answers the question "when do I roll a skill check?" question. The answer is "whenever there is an obvious penalty". If there is no penalty then you don't need to roll.

Again, maybe I'm unclear on something. When do you roll a skill check is easy, when the DM says to roll a skill check. The player describes what his PC is doing and whenever the DM decides a skill check is warranted he asks for one. I am not sure what you mean by "whenever there is an obvious penalty".

It's also intuitively compatible with special items, circumstances, and even combat. A cloak of elvenkind adds to your stealth roll, darkness halves your die rolls, and if you have 20 climb points you can autocrit the colossus.

Yes, but as I said above it isn't compatible with all the other resolution mechanics. So if I have say 4e style items the cloak is +2 but +2 to NADs is a lot different than +2 skill bonus in your system. In standard 4e it is very much the same thing and we see items all the time that say things like "add enhancement bonus to Stealth checks" and such. Circumstantial modifiers and things like Advantage/Disadvantage also clearly are issues. I can as well allow the thief to climb the Collosus and get a crit by passing an appropriate DC Acrobatics check in 4e. I just don't see the advantage.

Lastly, any DM will quickly learn how to appreciate any challenge in terms of difficulty. In the same way we know 3hp is a kobold and 24 hp is an ogre.

I am perfectly well tuned in on difficulty as it is. DCs are a very clear and simple difficulty rating. I know exactly how hard a DC20 is for a given character to pass. Given that stacking of dice creates bell curves and number/size of dice make a big difference, as do static bonuses, it isn't at all clear that your system is as instantly easy to gauge as the d20 system in use now.

I don't think it is a BAD idea, but in essence you're really looking for a dice pool type of system. There are some very good ones out there but they are mechanically quite different from D&D in most ways.

 

[sheadunne]

This, to me, is fairly obvious. Attacking is a skill. Dodging a dragon's fiery breath takes skill. But in many D&D systems, these aren't treated as skills - they're treated as a THAC0, or attack bonus, or saving throw, or reflex defense.

Make them skills. Solve the problem.

For other systems this might work, but D&D has a long history of not doing that. It takes certain "skills" and makes them micro-systems (combat, spells, etc). It would be more fitting with previous D&D editions to break out skills into its own micro-system. But then the issue becomes is it just too fiddly and is it really necessary? I don't know. But I'd love to find out.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

For other systems this might work, but D&D has a long history of not doing that. It takes certain "skills" and makes them micro-systems (combat, spells, etc). It would be more fitting with previous D&D editions to break out skills into its own micro-system. But then the issue becomes is it just too fiddly and is it really necessary? I don't know. But I'd love to find out.

The reason so many other systems include attacks in their skill system is because it makes sense. Once you have a unified resolution mechanic, such as d20 + modifiers, not having a unified representation of skill is absurd. Having attacks be a separate mechanic only serves to add unnecessary complexity.

It's not the end of the world, of course, but it still annoys me.