D&D 5E Skills Should Be Core

Derren

Hero
Why can't optional modules be referenced in future products?

It'd be super easy to have the "core" book be a Rules Cyclopedia with all the rules for how to play, four classes & races, DM rules, and even some monsters. Then you could then have a PHB & DMG that omit the basic rules but uses that space to cram in extra modules and options.

It'd be simple to have a slightly different trade dress on the PHB and DMG signifying they're "Standard", such as a coloured band at the bottom, and have future accessories do the same. And then they could release a third line that has the "Advanced" options a little while after that build and expand on the Standard game.
Basic accessories would be compatible with all versions of the game and wouldn't use any rules modules. This would include the Monster Manual and *most* adventures. Meanwhile, other accessories would be Standard or Advanced and list the rules modules they use on the back along with source. Standard adventures and accessories would assume a skill system (but not necessarily which skill system) and other assumptions. Advanced adventures might vary dramatically based on the modules used.

Because then a good portion of later releases will contain rules which are only used by part of the playerbase, the one who use optional rule X or Y, and the value all other players get from a book goes down. Also, having to account for every optional module and combination gets very complicated fast and takes up space. Just imagine a adventure where a challenge has to list several sets of rules just to account for different optional modules (Check to open the door basic, skills, skill point system, etc...). And just think of NPC

Having a basic and advanced set of rules would split the playerbase and increase cost for WotC without much gain.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Because then a good portion of later releases will contain rules which are only used by part of the playerbase
And how is that any different than, say, Arcane Power containing options for a class not featured in the PHB?
This is the entire intent of the edition. To release content not everyone will use, but hopefully to have some content in every book someone will want. So DMs can say "I'm not allowing druids in my game because they don't fit the world, but I'll use this other option in the book."

the one who use optional rule X or Y, and the value all other players get from a book goes down.
This is going to happen regardless. That's the Con of releasing a modular game: much of the content and options will not be used. No one will use everything. But hopefully everyone will use something.

Also, having to account for every optional module and combination gets very complicated fast and takes up space. Just imagine a adventure where a challenge has to list several sets of rules just to account for different optional modules (Check to open the door basic, skills, skill point system, etc...).
Adventures and the like can default to Basic and then DMs just know to substitute advanced rules. The exception would be when the adventure is built around a particular rules module, and then this can be identified on the product. Such as a big tactical adventure emphasising it uses the "tactical rules module".

This is no different than PCs having class features that aren't accounted for in adventures because the option was released after the adventure. There's always (ALWAYS) going to be some DM adjudication required.

Having a basic and advanced set of rules would split the playerbase and increase cost for WotC without much gain.
If Basic is always compatible and the majority of releases are Basic friendly then it's not a problem. Which is the benefit of having a very simple Core.
If the Core is the "Standard" version of the game then you have to release a separate incompatible streamlined version of the game; you're basically ghettoizing the Basic players by limiting the products they can use and only releasing incompatible products. They're stuck with a narrow subset of the game and you have to release products incompatible with the rest of the game to support them. It makes the problem worse. This makes "Basic" into a limited run product line that's released and then ends, so the players who enjoy that stop spending money.

Major releases can (and should) always build upon the Basic core. So someone can buy a later accessory and add it to their Basic game, or Standard game, or Advanced game. Smaller niche products (adventures, softcover releases) can focus on one of the three levels of gameplay because they're designed to sell fewer copies anyway.
 

LostSoul

Adventurer
Wrong. The core release will set the tone for the entire edition as all following releases have to assume that only the core rules are used. Optional modules can not be referenced in further products very well.
So by releasing a simple version for beginners as core, the entire edition will be necessity be written mainly for beginners, leaving the game itself lacking for those who have played for years.

I don't think people who play Swords & Wizardry find it lacking.
 

GX.Sigma

Adventurer
Wrong. The core release will set the tone for the entire edition as all following releases have to assume that only the core rules are used. Optional modules can not be referenced in further products very well.
So by releasing a simple version for beginners as core, the entire edition will be necessity be written mainly for beginners, leaving the game itself lacking for those who have played for years.
Describe a situation where a further product would suffer from not being able to reference a non-core rule.
 

Obryn

Hero
Reading about the 13A skill rules up above is funny, because I back-of-the-enveloped something similar while brainstorming on another site. But here's where I'm coming from...

I don't like skills in D&D. D&D's strength is as a class/level system, and skills (and feats, for that matter) dilute this core. Adding skills to a class-based game is, to me, ignoring the class/level system's strengths. I am ... okay ... with a really simple trained/untrained dichotomy. I really like AD&D-style Secondary Skills. I really, really dislike skill micromanagement like in 3.x.

Now, with that said, I'm coming to recognize them as a necessary evil because I know it can be helpful to have an actual out-of-combat resolution system as opposed to simple DM fiat or "uhh, roll 5-6 on a d6 and it works." I just want it to be as simple as possible. So my proposal is to take two factors...

(1) Class, or even better, something like "class focus." So, for example, you break Fighters down into Knights, Tribal Warriors, Swashbucklers, etc. Break Wizards down into "independent scholar," "pact-binder," "apprentice," etc.
(2) Background, which is class-agnostic. Blacksmith, city watch, herbalist, etc.

When you're rolling something non-combat that is relevant to either factor, you get a bonus to the roll. Say, you get an applicable stat bonus, a level-based bonus so you actually improve, and Advantage if you're "trained." DCs need not be very high; 5/10/15 for most tasks should be adequate. And boom! A working non-combat resolution system.

-O
 


Lackhand

First Post
I kind of wonder why we always say "a skill system" as though there were only one possible implementation.

I reject that. Feats are a skill system. Attribute checks are a skill system. Racial and Class features are a class system. So are 2nd Edition's WP and NWP (even if I'm not a fan of their implementations!).

In my opinion, the last time we heard about skills in Legends and Lore, it sounded kind of proficiency-y. That's about as precise as I care to get.
 

Derren

Hero
Describe a situation where a further product would suffer from not being able to reference a non-core rule.

1. A big part of the players like optional module X
2. As X is not core, it is never referenced in any published adventures or other products.
3. People do not buy those products because its too much work to figure X into it and rather design their adventures themselves or get 3rd party books

Alternatively:
2a. Recognizing the popularity of X, future books all have variants for their rules with and without X, decreasing the value one gets with the book as information is printed twice
 


Obryn

Hero
1. A big part of the players like optional module X
2. As X is not core, it is never referenced in any published adventures or other products.
3. People do not buy those products because its too much work to figure X into it and rather design their adventures themselves or get 3rd party books

Alternatively:
2a. Recognizing the popularity of X, future books all have variants for their rules with and without X, decreasing the value one gets with the book as information is printed twice
Nonsense. The subsystems just need to be as isolated as they are in AD&D, which is pretty much mandatory for a truly modular system.

-O
 

Remove ads

Top