D&D 5E 2/11/13 L&L: This week in D&D

[Ratskinner]

But he did say "stuff like movement combat and casting spells" (my emphasis), and he also talked about the GM making "lots of calls and judgments". Given that the ability check as a basic tool for GM calls and judgements goes back at least to B/X, it would be pretty odd not to see it mentioned.

hmmm...It could be that the game will move away from such things being character-centered, and make them adventure-centered. I seem to recall plenty of olden-days adventures (and even monsters) would have a rule written in their description like "Two characters with a combined Strength of 25 or more can push the stone." I seem to recall a designer talking about moving away from strictly codified skill difficulties, and this would be a step in that direction.

 

[Bluenose]

hmmm...It could be that the game will move away from such things being character-centered, and make them adventure-centered. I seem to recall plenty of olden-days adventures (and even monsters) would have a rule written in their description like "Two characters with a combined Strength of 25 or more can push the stone." I seem to recall a designer talking about moving away from strictly codified skill difficulties, and this would be a step in that direction.

That could work. It would seem to imply that adventures would be written with three different sets of stats to cover the basic/standard/advanced rules modules - assuming that there was some difference between all of those. That would seem to involve rather a lot of space, especially if they have to do the same for the encounters.

I suppose the answer would be to have the creatures and tasks in the MM/DMG. A hard door would be 'combined strength 25'/'DC18'/'linear equation of Strength modifier and athletics skill ^ 2 vs resistance 12 + sqrt(lvl)'. The Monster Manual would have stats for the basic and standard versions of the monster, and a listing of various optional advanced modules.

Or they could leave everything to the GM, which doesn't seem like a good way to sell adventures to people who want them to save time.

 

[Ratskinner]

That could work. It would seem to imply that adventures would be written with three different sets of stats to cover the basic/standard/advanced rules modules - assuming that there was some difference between all of those. That would seem to involve rather a lot of space, especially if they have to do the same for the encounters.

I suppose the answer would be to have the creatures and tasks in the MM/DMG. A hard door would be 'combined strength 25'/'DC18'/'linear equation of Strength modifier and athletics skill ^ 2 vs resistance 12 + sqrt(lvl)'. The Monster Manual would have stats for the basic and standard versions of the monster, and a listing of various optional advanced modules.

Or they could leave everything to the GM, which doesn't seem like a good way to sell adventures to people who want them to save time.

I don't see why all that would be necessary. Since they are trying to keep the Basic and Standard characters at parity, I would think you could use the same DCs/whatever for both of them. Standard characters might get a +N bonus for having skill X, while Basic characters get it simply for having justification in the GM's eyes. If the GM is breaking out the Advanced stuff, that's his own lookout, IMO.

 

[gyor]

My guess for the races is Dragonborn, Shardminds, and Wilden, and for classes Runepriest, Bladesinger, and Warlord.

Hahaha, but Warlord and Dragonborn are possiblities, they were in the 4e phb1.

 

[gyor]

Just to be clear, last we heard the Basic game was going to let each class have "training" in all checks with one ability - eg fighters add their skill die to all str checks. So the skill system is sort of there in skeletal form - certainly enough for a stripped-down game like Basic (which, remember, has only four classes and very limited character options on top of simplified rules). Also, In the latest podcast they said the classes they're thinking of releasing soon are the ranger, paladin and Druid, I believe. They mentioned the races too but I forget - half orcs and half elves I think?

Cool. Think I missed that podcast.

 

[Li Shenron]

One thing I wonder...

being able to add skill die to all checks with ONE ability makes the game definitely simpler than having to pick 4 different skills and add the race/class bonus skills. This element of simplicity seems appropriate for "Basic".

But why not letting the player decide WHICH ability score? This way you can still have most Fighters Str-based, but some can be Dex-based or even Cha-based. Here the complexity increment is really minimal, it's just ONE choice, and obviously you can still suggest Str to Fighters and so on.

Also, the Rogue really needs TWO abilities, Dex and Int if they are fixed, one is not enough.

 

[Iosue]

Also, the Rogue really needs TWO abilities, Dex and Int if they are fixed, one is not enough.

I suspect that 5e skills will make an appearance in the Basic game as a Rogue class feature, much like in early D&D. That'll make it even easier to transition to the Standard game if desired, while still keeping the Basic game buy-in low and easy.

 

[DEFCON 1]

But why not letting the player decide WHICH ability score? This way you can still have most Fighters Str-based, but some can be Dex-based or even Cha-based. Here the complexity increment is really minimal, it's just ONE choice, and obviously you can still suggest Str to Fighters and so on.

Because that goes against the way a spectrum is set up.

"Basic game" starts far left. "Advanced game" starts far right. Then you have the spectrum of changes with everything in between.

So the default Basic doesn't give options (or very little, like weapon or spell choice). Everything is set. That's why it's Basic. Then... you tell people you can start finagling the rules one by one to suit your needs-- and we begin to move into Standard territory. And letting players choose which ability score gets the "skill bonus" is one of those things.

You can't have a spectrum of options until you know where the two extreme ends are set.

 

[Ratskinner]

One thing I wonder...

being able to add skill die to all checks with ONE ability makes the game definitely simpler than having to pick 4 different skills and add the race/class bonus skills. This element of simplicity seems appropriate for "Basic".

But why not letting the player decide WHICH ability score? This way you can still have most Fighters Str-based, but some can be Dex-based or even Cha-based. Here the complexity increment is really minimal, it's just ONE choice, and obviously you can still suggest Str to Fighters and so on.

Also, the Rogue really needs TWO abilities, Dex and Int if they are fixed, one is not enough.

I think this is is why I'd prefer to drop skills and let the "Background" trait do most of the lifting. I'd eschew the whole 1:1 class:ability-score link. So you'd still have most players making (ostensibly, Basic may make them for you ::shrug:: ) four choices: Race-Class-Background-Theme. Let each one indicate what attribute rolls get a bonus die. Give the Background more weight by letting it cover more ground. Rogues or Thieves still have an additional scheme stuff, that gives them extra skillsy stuff. I'd even include DM advice about letting Clerics' Deities or any other classes' specialties affect attribute rolls similarly (although without the skill tricks Rogues have available.)

 

[Li Shenron]

Because that goes against the way a spectrum is set up.

"Basic game" starts far left. "Advanced game" starts far right. Then you have the spectrum of changes with everything in between.

So the default Basic doesn't give options (or very little, like weapon or spell choice). Everything is set. That's why it's Basic. Then... you tell people you can start finagling the rules one by one to suit your needs-- and we begin to move into Standard territory. And letting players choose which ability score gets the "skill bonus" is one of those things.

You can't have a spectrum of options until you know where the two extreme ends are set.

Basic would be even more "left" if the whole ability score array is fixed for your class.

It takes a beginner more effort to think how to distribute 6 different scores (rolled or not) than to pick one as their primary for skill checks.