D&D 5E Knowledge: Nobility and Local?

[Agamon]

Huh? I'm not trolling, I'm deadly serious.

From what we've seen in the Basic rules, 5E doesn't have a skill system at all. It has a binary proficiency system which heavily relies on ability scores and provides an automatic improvement of all proficient skills as the character levels up.

An ACTUAL skill system would allow for far greater granularity, rely more on actual skills and less on ability scores (the emphasis on ability scores has been a major annoyance of mine in Next/5E ever since the first playtest package came out), and have a greater number of well-defined skills rather than a dozen incredibly broad ones.

It is entirely possible that the DMG will contain such a system. I hope it does.

That's fair. I know some people swear by Hackmaster, and I'd love it too, if it weren't for the freakin' detailed skill list. That drives me batty.

But different strokes and all that.

 

[Kobold Stew]

I think there's too many knowledge skills as it is. I'm very happy nobility and the infinitely-iteratable Local have gone.

What skill will a 5th Edition character use to determine if they know a local custom, the name of the local baron, or the general political climate in a city?

As others have said History covers all of these. In addition, the background gives some learning -- I do't expect a commoner folk-hero to know heraldry, but a noble would. That's part of the virtue of the backgrounds -- they let the player sell why their character knows this. ("I'm a sailor! I've travelled to every port in the land, of course I know a bar in this town.")

What skill will a 5th Edition character use to identify a monstrous slime, ooze, or aberration?

I think if the character hasn't seen it before, a straight unmodified Int roll should do fine.

 

[Sammael]

There is room for middle ground beetween too detailed and too sparse, IMO.

Pre-3E versions of D&D did not have a codified skill system, since new NWPs and the like were published in supplements all the time
3.0 had 42 skills (not counting different Knowlede sub-skills)
3.5 toned this down to 36 (also not counting different Knowlede sub-skills)
Pathfinder has 35, but this includes 10 different Knowledge sub-skills
4.0 had 21 skills, 5 of which are comparable to Knowledge sub-skills
5.0 has 18 skills, 4 of which are comparable to Knowledge sub-skills

In comparison, NWOD has 24 skills. At the other end of the spectrum, WHFRP 2nd edition has 48 skills.

How many is too many? How few are too few? I don't know. But my gut feeling tells me that 18 doesn't cut it, and neither does 21. BTW, my own d20 revision has 28 skills, including 7 different types of knowledge and 3 combat skills (instead of BAB).

 

[jgsugden]

Don't be a slave to the character sheet. If the character has a background where it makes sense for the PC to know something about the topic at hand, tell them to roll an ability check and add their proficiency modifier. Simple. As. That.

Does a PC know a local customer, baron name or political climate? Int check with proficiency if they had some background in the area.

Identify a slime, ooze or aberration? It'd be an intelligence check - likely a nature check, actually. However, I'm not giving out game stats in 5E in response to an int check... just information about the creature roughly.

 

[Wormwood]

I think if the character hasn't seen it before, a straight unmodified Int roll should do fine.

I thought you said "Init" roll . . . then I realized Initiative is probably the best roll to discover what a monster's abilities are.

 

[Sammael]

All the calls for Int rolls and such are harkening back to Old School gaming, which 5E obviously tries very hard to emulate (and it seems to be succeeding). Good for OSR people, horrible for those who prefer a more detailed skilled system. That's why I'm hoping to see a "Skills" module in the DMG.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I thought you said "Init" roll . . . then I realized Initiative is probably the best roll to discover what a monster's abilities are.

Yep. Roll low, then get a faceful of information.

 

[Derren]

It is entirely possible that the DMG will contain such a system. I hope it does.

Unlikely as a skill system was deemed too complicated. Just look at the responses you got to see why.

 

[Sammael]

Responses to this thread are hardly relevant in the grand scale of things. They are as anecdotal as my own experience - players from my groups prefer skill-based systems and wouldn't play 5E if it didn't have an option for a more detailed skill module.

Pathfinder, which is currently the world's best selling RPG system, has a complex skill system. That doesn't stop its large pool of players from enjoying it.

NWOD also has a more complex skill system. So does WHFRP3.

I really don't think the WotC designers would have too much trouble designing a modular skill system for 5E.

 

[doctorhook]

Huh? I'm not trolling, I'm deadly serious.

From what we've seen in the Basic rules, 5E doesn't have a skill system at all. It has a binary proficiency system which heavily relies on ability scores and provides an automatic improvement of all proficient skills as the character levels up.

An ACTUAL skill system would allow for far greater granularity, rely more on actual skills and less on ability scores (the emphasis on ability scores has been a major annoyance of mine in Next/5E ever since the first playtest package came out), and have a greater number of well-defined skills rather than a dozen incredibly broad ones.

It is entirely possible that the DMG will contain such a system. I hope it does.

Well, to be fair your point seems a lot less troll-y when you actually explain it like you're doing here, so props for that.