D&D 5E gaining skills?

[Li Shenron]

They wanted feats to be optional, so they should have thought of another way to get proficiency without feats.

Downtime is a good idea, but why stop at tools and languages (and let's include Wizard's spells too)? Why not also weapons/armors/shields? Why not non-core spells for the other classes (instead of letting Clerics and Druids automatically know all non-core spells like in 3e)?

Maybe skills are more valuable, but they could simply cost twice the time and money.

 

[Umbran]

They wanted feats to be optional, so they should have thought of another way to get proficiency without feats.

Maybe they also think that gaining new skills and weapons and armor proficiencies is also optional. We are talking about *Basic* remember.

 

[TerraDave]

Training for more then just skills is such an obvious house rule...yes, I also would not be surprised to see it in '"5A". If not, thats what we have these boards for.

Along with RE, I also assumed that you could do training in chunks. And I would insist on chunks, at least 30-50 days. Characters tracking dribs and drabs would get annoying.

Finally, I am also hoping to see the rest of the downtime system as promised. Never too soon to start planning that castle.

 

[evilbob]

It's hard to think of weapon and armor proficiencies as being that much different than tool proficiencies, or argue against the ability to train for them during downtime - but boy does an armor proficiency change how the game can be played, since it's the only thing keeping a wizard from wearing armor. Hopefully at least one of the books will have some suggestions on this.

(Sorry: what is "5A?")

 

[Remathilis]

(Sorry: what is "5A?")

5th edition Advanced (which is to say, the PHB/DMG/MM)

Contrast to 5B (5th edition Basic, the PDF/Free version)

 

[Umbran]

It's hard to think of weapon and armor proficiencies as being that much different than tool proficiencies, or argue against the ability to train for them during downtime - but boy does an armor proficiency change how the game can be played, since it's the only thing keeping a wizard from wearing armor. Hopefully at least one of the books will have some suggestions on this.

I think requiring something a little more to gain skills and new weapon and armor proficiencies is okay, given, as you note, how important some of them can be. A Wizard should have to make the choice between a stat bump to Int, or armor.

(Sorry: what is "5A?")

Folks are starting to talk about 5B ("Basic 5e") and 5A ("Advanced 5e" - using the PHB)

Or, an alternative mentioned today is 5B, 5S (for "standard - using the PHB, perhaps with Feats, but not too many optional features"), and 5A - Using the DMG and other optional features plugged in.

 

[Li Shenron]

Maybe they also think that gaining new skills and weapons and armor proficiencies is also optional. We are talking about *Basic* remember.

Yes but I think the problem being talked about is the lack of a way in the PHB, except feats which apparently there's still a number of people who just don't want in their game.

But also for others... for instance, I will very likely use feats in our games, but I still don't like that a character can't get simply one new weapon or armor prof, without having to take a couple of extra abilities from feats because feats are huge. Although in my case, I already have an idea about how to solve that...

 

[Umbran]

Yes but I think the problem being talked about is the lack of a way in the PHB, except feats which apparently there's still a number of people who just don't want in their game.

Well, they'd only have to allow the feats that add skills/proficiencies, not *all* feats.

But also for others... for instance, I will very likely use feats in our games, but I still don't like that a character can't get simply one new weapon or armor prof, without having to take a couple of extra abilities from feats because feats are huge.

Might want to wait and see the final feats in question, before deciding on how big they are.

 

[Kobold Stew]

Allowing characters to train for new skills is potentially game-breaking, and ity undermines the value of the skill-heavy classes (rogue, bard, ranger). Training is a skill is MUCH more useful than a tool, and could quickly unbalance a game.

 

[evilbob]

I think requiring something a little more to gain skills and new weapon and armor proficiencies is okay...

I think so, too - I would hope so, in fact. It's just a little hard to justify, at least without further explanation, I think. But certainly +2 to Int could be worth armor, potentially, to a wizard. (All this makes me wonder even more about multiclassing rules as well - especially whether or not armor profs are automatic.)

Folks are starting to talk about 5B ("Basic 5e") and 5A ("Advanced 5e" - using the PHB)

So now B comes before A? GAH! Kindergarten has led me astray!