D&D 3E/3.5 Can someone explain the skill/ability interaction and how it differs from 3e/Pf...

[enrious]

...without violating any NDAs.

Here's the thing, I've read and re-read the "open-form" method of handling skill checks, but I can't seem to get how the interaction between a skill and an ability differs, if it does, from 3e.

In 3e, you had an ability bonus + a relevant skill bonus, that was usually but not always tied in with a specific ability.

I'm thinking of Intimidate being a Charisma-based skill, so it'd be CHR bonus + Intimidate skill to see the final modifer.

However, if you made a demonstration of Strength, then you'd use the STR bonus in lieu of CHR and so on - essentially we tend to allow any half-way coherent argument for using any ability to modify any skill.

Now here's my confusion.

As I understand it, abilities replace skill ranks for most skill checks, apart from instances where skills specifically come into play (and in such a case, they are a bonus to that ability check).

So if I'm right, that means that in theory an intimidate (skill) check could be made against any of the six abilities?

I guess if not, would it be possible for someone to construct some examples of the new way vs. the 3.x way?

 

[Yora]

The difference seems to be about the skill ranks. But we havn't yet been told what that is.

 

[Tony Vargas]

So if I'm right, that means that in theory an intimidate (skill) check could be made against any of the six abilities?

I suppose. An assassin could flourish a dagger menacingly, using DEX to intimidate. A cleric could recite the grim fate awaiting you in the afterlife if you dared to oppose him using WIS, maybe. A wizard could hand you a geometry pop quiz...

I guess if not, would it be possible for someone to construct some examples of the new way vs. the 3.x way?

The 3.x way was complex but mostly codified. You had a /lot/ of skills, most of which did specific things, you also had some skills that were actually /many/ skill waiting to be defined into being by a player taking them. You distributed ranks over those skills. Your ranks determined how good you were. The higher level you got, the more ranks tended to overwhelm the influence of high stats. At low level, you might be passible at many skills, thanks to some innate talent (stats) or spreading some ranks around. At high levels, you were only good at skills you spent max ranks on, you're incompetent (for that level) at everything else. And, you know it. When you go to perform a task, you have a decent idea of the DC (either because it's static, or because there's some formula for what you're trying to do) and whether or not you can succeed, because there are rules for the use of every skill, and they're mostly right there in the PH for you to read.

The 5e way, skills are optional, and you make checks based on stats to succeed when you try to do something. There are no rules for how good, say, a 14 STR makes you at breaking down a door. It's up to the DM. You say "I try to break down the door," he says "roll STR" you roll, the DM decides if you succeed. Or maybe he decides before you roll and just says "the door breaks" or "you hurt your shoulder."

I've actually used this aproach, myself, with other games, when the resolution mechanics are too byzantine or non-functional to bother with. You just run by the seat of your pants, and use dice rolls as the roughest of rough guides as you drag the party along your inteneded story line. So if you want them to get through a door, they get through, if you don't, they don't. The player, the character, and the die roll don't really matter. It's a perfectly valid way to run, so long as you have the chops to make it /fun/ for all (generally by lying through your teeth about it "Ooh, let me check my notes... nope, missed it by that much...too bad, that would have been cool...").

 

[DonAdam]

My reading of what's been released thus far is that the differences are 2:

1) The relative weight of "skill" bonuses vs. ability bonuses has changed. Ability bonuses will constitute more--if not most of--one's bonus. I have no clue what leveling up will look like.

2) I put "skill" in quotes because I get the impression that it might be an anachronism for 5e. I don't think there's a skill list at all, just abilities and feats that say "+2 to Strength checks to climb" or "+2 on any ability checks when socially interacting with fey creatures." That would create an open-ended set of skills.

Edit: see this.

Underwater basket-weaving is back, baby.

 

[Morrus]

My guess, and it's only a guess, is that the set list of skills disappears completely. So there is no intimidate skill. Instead, if you try to intimidate someone, the DM simply asks for a CHA check or a STR check or whatever.

The skills themselves come in as situational bonuses to checks. So you might always get a +2 while climbing, or a +2 to intimdate others (but +3 when intimidating elves), and so on. These bonuses could match up with the 3E or 4E skills in some places; but being an open-ended list, they could be anything.

I'd guess there's a default sample list (akin to a skill list), but that it's not definitive.

All wild guesses, though.