D&D 5E Skills Should Be Core

[Iosue]

I guess that was a failure of communication on my part.

From the very first packet, we've been told that skills were optional, but were going to be included in the core rules. Lately, they've backtracked on that, and have made it sound like they won't be. That is why I am concerned.

[Edit] Here is the article I'm talking about http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20130422

Since he expounded on the Basic, Standard, Advanced categories, Mearls has always used "core" to refer to the Basic game. The Basic game will be made up of systems used by all tables, though the form of those systems may differ from table to table. E.g., non-magical healing will be in all games, be that the low-recharge rate of the Basic game or a higher recharge rates or Hit Dice for tables that want that. Skills (and Backgrounds) were initially optional, but were made non-optional in the Jan. 2013 packet with the expansion of the skill die to the Basic game. The idea being that even if specific skills were not used, players of the basic game could use the skill die on ability checks at DM's discretion.

The new direction Mearls outlines in the above article is to again remove skills from core (Basic rules) in favor of an optional model (Standard rules) that uses improving static bonuses.

 

[Ti-bob]

I don't want skill system in the core/basic rules.
But I want a resolution system directly compatible with the standard optionnal skill system.

 

[GX.Sigma]

A skills system is a subsystem that sits on top of the kernel rules, adding complexity and supporting a certain style of play. To me, that's the definition of something that should be optional and not core.

Of course, when I say "optional," I mean it should be in the PHB-like product in a chapter that starts with "at the DM's option..." (or make it a player opt-in somehow)

And when I say "not core," I mean it shouldn't be in the B/X-like product that is the only part of the rules that every player is assumed to have.

And when I say "the only part of the rules that every player is assumed to have," I don't mean that the more advanced rules can't be mentioned in supplements. It's hard to do Greyhawk, for example, without Paladins, Rangers, and Druids.

 

[Derren]

Most modern rpgs are skill-based or point-based rather than class/level, so that's maybe not a good metric.

Now is D&D offering an alternative to this or clinging to an outdated philosophy of "only combat matters"?
I really wonder if all the people who seem to think task resolution outside of combat is not so important as there should be a good core mechanic for it would be ok with combat being optional, too.

Ability to attack, damage is class based (ranged deal less damage) and that was it. No powers, no spells, no equipment. Of course all monsters and adventures would be statted using this method of combat. And don't worry, it will be very easy to integrate the optional combat module in future published products. Really, no work at all.

 

[Obryn]

Now is D&D offering an alternative to this or clinging to an outdated philosophy of "only combat matters"?
I really wonder if all the people who seem to think task resolution outside of combat is not so important as there should be a good core mechanic for it would be ok with combat being optional, too.

Ability to attack, damage is class based (ranged deal less damage) and that was it. No powers, no spells, no equipment. Of course all monsters and adventures would be statted using this method of combat. And don't worry, it will be very easy to integrate the optional combat module in future published products. Really, no work at all.

You are out there, man.

You'd think that there's never been awesome, playable flavors of D&D without a largely class-independent skill system.

But, no, I am uninterested in a Dungeons and Dragons game in which you didn't enter dangerous Dungeons and fight deadly Dragons. I see that as kind of a basic layer. "Core" one might say.

-O

 

[Ahnehnois]

But, no, I am uninterested in a Dungeons and Dragons game in which you didn't enter dangerous Dungeons and fight deadly Dragons. I see that as kind of a basic layer. "Core" one might say.

That seems very anachronistic to me. I see the term "Dungeons and Dragons" as a nod to heritage, not a mission statement. Certainly, I don't use dungeons, and I would be pretty insulted if I showed up to a game and they started me on an old-school dungeon crawl.

 

[Hussar]

Most modern rpgs are skill-based or point-based rather than class/level, so that's maybe not a good metric.

I like one or the other, myself. Not both. I don't think class/level games need a particularly robust skill system.

-O

Which, I believe was proving my point. Icicle commented that players expect a skill system from games. JRRNeiklot questioned this, and I think that the fact that most RPG's in the past twenty years are skill or point based pretty much shows that most players expect some sort of skill system.

It's hardly a recent phenomenon. I'd go so far as to suggest that skill/point buy systems outnumber class based ones considerably.

 

[Stormonu]

Personally, I wish D&D would dump the level-based advancement system and go to a pure skill-based system (with "Attack Bonus", "Defense" and Saves becoming skills). However, I know it will never happen - levels are just too core to D&Ds identity.

 

[Hussar]

That seems very anachronistic to me. I see the term "Dungeons and Dragons" as a nod to heritage, not a mission statement. Certainly, I don't use dungeons, and I would be pretty insulted if I showed up to a game and they started me on an old-school dungeon crawl.

Really?

You'd be insulted if someone ran an old-school dungeon crawl for you using Dungeons and Dragons?

Don't you think that's a bit out of touch with what D&D is? I mean, every edition includes very lengthy sections in the DMG on how to run a dungeon crawl. Don't you think that the dungeon is a pretty integral element of D&D?

 

[Ahnehnois]

Really?

You'd be insulted if someone ran an old-school dungeon crawl for you using Dungeons and Dragons?

Don't you think that's a bit out of touch with what D&D is? I mean, every edition includes very lengthy sections in the DMG on how to run a dungeon crawl. Don't you think that the dungeon is a pretty integral element of D&D?

No. I think it's an element that was popular in the '70's and '80's and is best left there.

And yes, I meant insulted. I have a job and numerous other obligations and demands on my time. If I'm going to sit down for four hours to play a roleplaying game, I expect more character development than "I found a trap", more interesting challenges than "four orcs in a 10 by 10 room", and a more dynamic story than "right or left". I expect in-depth mechanical elements, meaningful creative output, and overall a lot more than that. A dungeon can perhaps be used creatively as part of a good D&D game, but I certainly would not call it integral. Playing in them was briefly okay for me as a beginner but quickly became unfulfilling. I'm rather embarrassed that I ever DMed a true dungeon.

Personally, I wish D&D would dump the level-based advancement system and go to a pure skill-based system (with "Attack Bonus", "Defense" and Saves becoming skills). However, I know it will never happen - levels are just too core to D&Ds identity.

+1 on that.