Out of combat balance - skills trained and known

[AbdulAlhazred]

I don't think the two compulsory skills is so important - it seems more an element of flavour and role formation, rather than going to the core "balance" of the system.

But I still think that reducing a rogue's skills makes for a said rogue!

In part I see the rogue, and also the skill training feat, as counterpoints to the oft-made claim that, in building a 4e PC, I can't prioritise non-combat over combat. (The invoker/wizard in my main 4e game has two or even three instances of skill training. And is notably weaker in combat than most of the other PCs, or at least was until he reached 27th level and got 1x/enc AoE domination!)

Eh, I'm not really in a tizzy about the one class having 6 skills, and I see some point to it. I was more against the idea of EVERY character having 6+ skills. Fundamentally the reason for this is that I see skills as more 'knacks' than actual solid "I studied XYZ a whole lot" (though that is always one reasonable potential color for having one). The Athlete uses physical movement and related things to solve his problems. This is his habit and forte. The Intimidator brow beats and threatens people, its his bread and butter. The Historian delves into facts and anecdotes to find solutions to his problems. Now, there's no reason not to imagine a guy who's an Athletic, Intimidating, Historian. That's quite feasible in 4e as it exists now, but it WILL mean he's not ALSO going to be a Perceptive, Insightful, Diplomat. Once you have 7 or 8 skills you are diluting your character.

There are differences in approaches to, and demands from, character building. Some demand systems which present them every possible juxtaposition of options and eschew any limits on what they're able to add onto their character. Others see character building and the sets of resulting attributes as more of a way of defining what, distinctly, makes each character special and look to a character building system to pick out the particular and provide strong contrasts.

I don't like ABIs, characters being able to have every skill in the book, lots of 'tax' mandatory choices, nor ways to combine or acquire vast swaths of the book. I like systems that say definitely "yup, this guy is a dwarf veteran axe man who has a skillset acquired in the orc wars, and a set of propensities to go with it." Its fine if he also has a strange fascination with elvish lute music and he's actually a very sensitive and insightful guy underneath the gruff exterior. Its just not OK if that's all not mechanically supported because he's got half the skill list and had to take 5 thematically inappropriate feats in order to have an acceptable DPR.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

In olden times you might have a Wright (Shipwright, Woodwright, Seigewright)
While it generally means maker or builder it could be seen as the middle English
version of the word Engineer.

Abdul is looking at having Engineer and Leader as skills in his 4e descendent, HoML.

Right, because I see those as "problem solving approaches" (IE 'let me build a solution to that...' and 'let me find 12 guys whom I can turn into a team to fix that...'). Anyway, I got rid of Dungeoneering (its not BAD but it is hard to see it as a 'knack'). I changed 'Endurance' to 'Survival' (IE you're good at surviving bad stuff, you survive as a problem solving approach). Otherwise I kept the 4e list.

I don't want a longer list [MENTION=72450]HUMAN[/MENTION] Target. I want a SHORT list because of my view of skills as 'knacks'. I mean, you can probably make some arguments for more of these, but its a slippery slope and you eventually get down into the weeds where its hard to decide which one really makes narrative sense in a given situation. If I were to go on a spree of overhauling the list, I'd actually cut it back to something like the approaches that are used in Fate Accelerated. So maybe 6, and let each PC have ONE, or possible 2 if they really want.

 

[The Human Target]

The problem I tended to see in my games that made me make a change was the old "I'm not trained in that skill, so I shouldn't even try it" issue.

So more diluted skills really helped.

Even if the fighter has no charisma bonus, if he takes Diplomacy he's still going to feel pretty confident to use it with that nice +5. Sure it's not as good as the bards +9, but it's still good.

That's one of my big problems with how skill work in 5e, the proficiency bonus feels so tiny if you don't have expertise.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Arguably many Legendary and Mythic heros were very very versatile, rather than specialists.

Also agree here, but most PCs are actually pretty good at probably half the skill list. I mean, with a standard array and 2 race bonuses you are likely to have 3 attributes with +2 or higher bonuses. Many characters have a skill bonus in one or two things, and a goodly number have a whole bonus trained skill. Heck, you can have JoT for the cost of one feat slot, not a horrible price. Even a level 1 PC can be a pretty decent 'McGyvver' type (actually it gets harder at high levels unless you start really investing).

What is hard in any D&D is having all uniformly high stats and the ability to just do almost anything really well. Probably the closest thing would probably be a B/X Elf if you really rolled well.

 

[pemerton]

The problem I tended to see in my games that made me make a change was the old "I'm not trained in that skill, so I shouldn't even try it" issue.

Thankfully I tend to find that's not an issue in my group. That's not to say that players don't look for approaches that can draw support from their bigger numbers, but if they really want a certain outcome, and the only way to get that is to do a thing their PC is not too good at, then they will have their PC try that thing. (This comes up most often in relation to the low-CHA fighter with no trained social skills trying to persuade people. But occasionally it is the low-STR melee-weak invoker/wizard trying to take an opportunity attack or even a regular melee attack against someone/thing he really doesn't like.)

What I find helps with this (which I'm not meaning to imply you haven't tried at your table - I'm just setting out my own approach) is a "fail forward" style resolution of the Burning Wheel or DitV sort: if the check fails, then the PC (and player) don't get what they wanted, but I narrate an outcome in which stuff keeps happening (ie it's not just "Sorry, didn't work). So the anti-social fighter trying and failing to persuade a NPC (ie player fails a low-bonus Diplomacy check) might lead thinks down a less happy path for the party, but it doesn't stall the action at the table.

I don't like ABIs, characters being able to have every skill in the book, lots of 'tax' mandatory choices, nor ways to combine or acquire vast swaths of the book. I like systems that say definitely "yup, this guy is a dwarf veteran axe man who has a skillset acquired in the orc wars, and a set of propensities to go with it." Its fine if he also has a strange fascination with elvish lute music and he's actually a very sensitive and insightful guy underneath the gruff exterior. Its just not OK if that's all not mechanically supported because he's got half the skill list and had to take 5 thematically inappropriate feats in order to have an acceptable DPR.

I don't want a longer list [MENTION=72450]HUMAN[/MENTION] Target. I want a SHORT list because of my view of skills as 'knacks'. I mean, you can probably make some arguments for more of these, but its a slippery slope and you eventually get down into the weeds where its hard to decide which one really makes narrative sense in a given situation. If I were to go on a spree of overhauling the list, I'd actually cut it back to something like the approaches that are used in Fate Accelerated. So maybe 6, and let each PC have ONE, or possible 2 if they really want.

I've got no problem with that. In the 4e context, I'd be pretty happy if Athletics and Acrobatics were folded together, with an option to test on STR or DEX depending on the logic of the fictional situation.

My point about thieves/rogues wanting six skills was more framed in the context of the game as it is currently presented.

most PCs are actually pretty good at probably half the skill list. I mean, with a standard array and 2 race bonuses you are likely to have 3 attributes with +2 or higher bonuses. Many characters have a skill bonus in one or two things, and a goodly number have a whole bonus trained skill. Heck, you can have JoT for the cost of one feat slot, not a horrible price. Even a level 1 PC can be a pretty decent 'McGyvver' type (actually it gets harder at high levels unless you start really investing).

I was going to make the point about higher levels and then saw that you already made it.

Here's the PC summary chart from my 30th level 4e game:

[sblock]

	Derrik	Jett	Malstaph	Ravian	Tillen
AC	45	46	43	47	47
Fort	41	42	33	39	42
Ref	39	43	39	45	36
Will	40	48	45	44	45
hp	224	171	139	173	222
Initiative	+21	+28	+21	+24	+19
Passive Insight	29	27 (29)	44	33	37
Passive Perception	29 (32)	27	39	42	30
STR	26 (+23)	10 (+15)	12 (+16)	12 (+16)	14 (+17)
CON	20 (+20)	14 (+17)	13 (+16)	16 (+18)	18 (+19)
DEX	18 (+19)	26 (+23)	10 (+15)	28 (+24)	14 (+17)
INT	10 (+15)	12 (+16)	24 (+22)	10 (+15)	12 (+16)
WIS	19 (+19)	14 (+17)	28 (+24)	26 (+23)	20 (+20)
CHA	12 (+16)	28 (+24)	12 (+16)	15 (+17)	28 (+24)
Athletics	+28	+15	+15	+20	+18
Endurance	+35	+17	+15	+19	+17
Acrobatics	+19	+28	+14	+33	+13
Stealth	+19	+30	+14	+23	+15
Thievery	+19	+23	+14	+23	+13
Arcana	+15	+21	+43 (45)	+15	+16
History	+15	+16	+43	+15	+16
Religion	+20	+16	+41 (43)	+20	+21
Dungeoneering	+21	+17	+35	+23	+20
Heal	+24	+17	+24 (26)	+23	+20
Insight	+19	+17 (19)	+34	+23	+27
Nature	+19	+17	+35 (37)	+30	+20
Perception	+19 (22)	+17	+29	+32	+20
Bluff	+16	+29 (33)	+18	+17	+26
Diplomacy	+16	+35 (37)	+29 (33)	+22	+35
Intimidate	+16	+37 (41)	+20	+17	+37
Streetwise	+16	+24 (26)	+16	+17	+24

]

[/sblock]

The AC gap is 4. The NAD gaps are 8 or 9. The skill gaps go into the 20s and even 30 for Arcana.

I know your system eliminates ability score increases, which is some of that gap. But it also results from the fact that (in core 4e, at least) item or inherent bonuses to AC and other defences are ubiquitous, whereas skill bonuses are much more varied. Feats are similar in this respect.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

The AC gap is 4. The NAD gaps are 8 or 9. The skill gaps go into the 20s and even 30 for Arcana.

I know your system eliminates ability score increases, which is some of that gap. But it also results from the fact that (in core 4e, at least) item or inherent bonuses to AC and other defences are ubiquitous, whereas skill bonuses are much more varied. Feats are similar in this respect.

Yeah, this is a whole other ball of wax where 4e just gets itself tangled up. I just capped the variability by various means. First was the lack of ABIs (actually you can get 2 in 20 levels, but that isn't much compared with 4e). I capped level bonus at +13, but that doesn't drive any of the difference between PCs. I capped enhancement at +3 and it is called "permanent bonus" and applies to ALL other sources of increases, except training, which is the usual +5.

What this means is that the greatest skew you can get is to put two +1 ABIs into your stat, and go from +0 to +3 permanent bonus while the other guy gains nothing except level bonus, which produces a total skew from level 1 to 20 (HoML ends at level 20) of 5 points. Nobody ever 'falls off' the d20 range. You may go from relatively poor at something (one guy has a +1 permanent bonus and a +5 AB, plus training, for an 11 point advantage) vs the other guy, to "I can't do this at all when its a challenge for him" but only for something you utterly neglect and he maxes out on.

Plus there's always practices (which are in HoML ways to substitute a different skill by suggesting an alternate narrative) and Inspiration, which lets you leverage a trait to introduce some narrative element in your favor. Between the two its not likely any given player will be forced to actually eat some crummy check very often. Instead they'll simply be pushed to create some different narrative that works for them. Since practices and Inspiration cost resources, that means you are really just controlling the stakes vs risk using the skill system. Great improvement over 4e's take on it, with really rather modest changes in game design. 4e was 90% baked.

 

[Garthanos]

Also agree here, but most PCs are actually pretty good at probably half the skill list.

I am mostly thinking it is an argument towards erring on the side of enabling more skills and perhaps enabling broader attribute advancement

I think when looking at how versatile 4e heroes are looking at what NPCs have in that realm is the trick OR maybe look at participation in Skill Challenges

But when looking at balance I think that classes having more skills trained might just be serving tradition at the expense of balance.

I mean, with a standard array and 2 race bonuses you are likely to have 3 attributes with +2 or higher bonuses. Many characters have a skill bonus in one or two things, and a goodly number have a whole bonus trained skill. Heck, you can have JoT for the cost of one feat slot, not a horrible price. Even a level 1 PC can be a pretty decent 'McGyvver' type (actually it gets harder at high levels unless you start really investing).

What is hard in any D&D is having all uniformly high stats and the ability to just do almost anything really well. Probably the closest thing would probably be a B/X Elf if you really rolled well.

Yes the difficulty at higher levels was the reason I found i had to build Lugh Lamfada as a Bard..when he felt like he faught as a Warlord and Barb.

 

[Garthanos]

The AC gap is 4. The NAD gaps are 8 or 9. The skill gaps go into the 20s and even 30 for Arcana.

Yup
With the main attribute focus of classes and similar even being trained in a skill doesnt any where near catch you up in a lot of things it just narrows the gap giving my fighter training in diplomacy to represent him being of noble background wont outstrip the bard and it wont outstrip the Mage when I give him history for the Heraldry and history of war he learned either. It just narrows the gap.

Which I think is why I think for many you will reasonably see what the Human Target mentioned ie an " I might as well not try. " attitude.

I do agree that employing a fall/fail forward attitude to the over all game helps with some of that but I also see it somewhat as a generalized thing we use to keep stories going and not a method for making characters who have been mechanically jipped (Which a 3 skill fighter is) acceptable.

 

[Garthanos]

Yeah, this is a whole other ball of wax where 4e just gets itself tangled up.

I really think its exactly the same Ball of Wax
Since the discussion is about balance between characters. if based on class alone you can be overwhelming better in more things than another and they are pigeon holed into half as many, unless they divert what is really combat resources into non-combat ie spending them feats.

Note access to practices are gatewayed by being trained in skills I do not see them as good of fix for this.

 

[Garthanos]

I've got no problem with that. In the 4e context, I'd be pretty happy if Athletics and Acrobatics were folded together, with an option to test on STR or DEX depending on the logic of the fictional situation.

Even that right there might make a rogue happier with 5 skills don't you think

My point about thieves/rogues wanting six skills was more framed in the context of the game as it is currently presented.

Once we start divergng too far even my martial practices though mostly normal do limit conversation.
[MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION] Being trained in a skill that isnt one of your primary secondary or even tertiary attributes my fighter who happens to have Diplomacy and History doesnt suddenly become awesome on Int based skills and activities or Charisma based ones in effect he just doesnt suck in comparison ie in class balance compared to the Bard or Wizard who might be also trained.