D&D 5E D&D Next Q&A: Fields of Lore, Skills and Average Hit Points

[Li Shenron]

1) I am not a huge fan of the current Lores, because (a) the list is IMHO quite wonky compared to the 3e list, (b) the only way to get more lores after 1st level IIRC is via feats, and (c) I still think they need some explicit rule to prevent/discourage characters who don't have a lore to still roll for it. Otherwise I am fairly ok with having them separate from skills, even tho I liked it in 3e when they were unified.

2) We knew this, overall it's a good idea. I still hope they manage to make skills be optional for each PC like feats, although they have said they are making them a group option i.e. all PCs or none, but I think there can be room for the former.

3) It did strongly feel like removing average HP was simply an overlook.

 

[Sunseeker]

I type for a living, and for gods sake man, what font do they use, 8? Yes I know I can ctrl+mouse wheel to adjust the size but dang folks.

kills are an area we have identified as, like feats, being something that we could potentially make optional.

I like this line of thinking.

Furthermore, knowledge skills have been, over the course of the last two editions, one of the central avenues by which the Dungeon Master communicates adventure and world information to the players, so it seemed like a good idea to keep that channel open.

And I agree with this. Hopefully we can reach some compromise where the number of skills available to you increases with the increase in complexity between versions.

under-the-hood math changes

Ruh-roh. I do not like "secret math". It has long been a stumbling block of multiple editions. The more obvious and clear the math is, without reliance on secret variables, the less the game relies on system mastery.


I'm really still surprised that enough people honestly thought they were removing variant HP-gain options to get it into the Q&A. Really removing this would be like removing longswords. It's not going to happen.

 

[Cyberen]

Removing longswords ?
Who knows ? If kills become optional

 

[Sunseeker]

Removing longswords ?
Who knows ? If kills become optional

One day not killing will actually be a viable gameplay strategy.

 

[Szatany]

1) I am not a huge fan of the current Lores, because (a) the list is IMHO quite wonky compared to the 3e list,

Agreed. I like the approach more and more games seem to take lately where you pick a "background" or "profession" and it doesn't come with a list of skills. Instead, whenever you make a check, you can try to convince the DM that your background makes you better at that check. If you do, you get the bonus. Nice thing is that this is open ended, and allows backgrounds to grant bonuses to minor things (like card games or knitting) without sacrificing important skils like spot or sneak. It also leads to better RP experience I believe.
I wish current backgrounds were like that, at least in relation to fields of knowledge. Instead of having a list of skills, let them have a loose list of topics.

For example, commoner (fisher) background would have
Skills: folklore and geography up to 50 miles of where you live, rivers and lakes (including their inhabitants and monsters), fishing, fish cooking/salting etc., driving carts, swimming, rowing, etc.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Ruh-roh. I do not like "secret math". It has long been a stumbling block of multiple editions. The more obvious and clear the math is, without reliance on secret variables, the less the game relies on system mastery.

It's not secret math. They are referring to the math changes they talked about in an article last week. Basically, they are changing the DCs on all the skills in the book to be more in line with what you can actually roll. They are changing the numbers so you get a bonus to all ability checks that goes up to +6 at 20th level(Though I assume this might vary from class to class). With their optional skill system, the bonus at maximum will go up to +12. Though, they failed to mention if this included a stat modifier.

I think they were basically saying that until this modifier gets put in, then the optional skill system they have planned won't work correctly unless the math is put into all the classes as well as the DCs are changed to make the numbers seem reasonable. Heck, the "new math" MIGHT just also include a changing of stat modifiers as well.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Agreed. I like the approach more and more games seem to take lately where you pick a "background" or "profession" and it doesn't come with a list of skills. Instead, whenever you make a check, you can try to convince the DM that your background makes you better at that check. If you do, you get the bonus.

I really dislike the game of mother-may-I that this results in. It puts the onus on the DM to have to make constant rulings as well:

"But I was a sailor! I needed to be able to spot approaching ships well. I should be good at spot."
"Alright, fine you have that skill."
"Also, I should have the skill to climb ropes, keep my balance, lift heavy things, avoid obstacles, jump from place to place, tie knots, survive in extreme heat or cold, go for days without food and water, know things about wildlife for when we traveled to strange islands, know about magic for the same reason, know about religion so I knew how to properly appease the gods, know about civilization and politics to know which ports to dock in and what the fees and laws would be, navigate, read maps, know a bunch of languages to decipher ancient treasure maps we discovered, negotiiate in order to get the best prices for the things we brought back, diplomacy in order to gain entrance to ports that might be hostile to us, leadership in order to inspire and hire crew members, woodcrafting skills to repair the ship, sewing skills to repair the sails, and likely a bunch more skills I can't think of now but I'm sure I'll be able to justify when they come up."
"So, you're telling me that you basically have every skill in the book and then some because of your background?"
"Yeah...pretty much."
"What about you, player 2?"
"I was a seamstress. My skills consists of sewing and choosing proper fabrics."
"Right, so if I want to make your backgrounds equal in value to the game, I now have to either say no to nearly every skill the sailor claims to have or make leaps of logic to try to justify seamstresses having a bunch of useful adventuring skills. Or more likely a mix of both. Now, how do I make a decision on WHICH skills to say no to. Also, am I going to have to deal with complaining from the sailor as he feels I'm unfairly targeting him to restrict his skills?"

I much prefer a system that says "This background gives you 3 skills...so do all the other ones."

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

whenever you make a check, you can try to convince the DM that your background makes you better at that check. If you do, you get the bonus.

I like this method as well, but I have one (and a half) players that hate this method with a passion. They want to know how things work up front and in detail. Their concepts don't always match other peoples' expectations, even going so far as to being alien to me.

An example from a discussion we had about how MHRP aspects work (paraphrased):

PC: "So I can add my Devoted Mother aspect to the dice pool because the villain is an indian (native american), right?"
Me: "Um, that doesn't sound connected. What's the connection you're seeing?"
PC: "Well indians have a strong tie to nature."
Me: "And?"
PC: "You know, Mother Earth!" (I can tell when this player is yanking my chain, instead he was completely serious.)
Me: "Devoted Mother is in reference to that hero's young child. It could be invoked in situations where she's protecting a child, or as a complication when having to fight a young villain. Mother Earth is a completely different concept. You do have other aspects that could be appropriate in this situation, like..."
PC: "Why wouldn't mine work? You always say no."

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

"Right, so if I want to make your backgrounds equal in value to the game, I now have to either say no to nearly every skill the sailor claims to have or make leaps of logic to try to justify seamstresses having a bunch of useful adventuring skills. Or more likely a mix of both. Now, how do I make a decision on WHICH skills to say no to. Also, am I going to have to deal with complaining from the sailor as he feels I'm unfairly targeting him to restrict his skills?"

You don't have to balnce the two at all, IMO. It's very logical that a seamstress would make a weaker adventurer than a sailor. You can also ask that the player of the sailor detail further what his specific job was to limit what he's capable of. Not every sailor on every ship is going to have every one of those skills, so make him narrow his focus from uber-sailor to something more reasonable.

Or, you could balance in a different way (with proper DM guidance). Someone who claims the long list in your example would receive a bonus to all of those skills, but it would be a very small bonus. OTOH, the seamstress would receive a much larger bonus when her small skill set actually comes into play. It would make sense that someone on board a ship that split his time among too many duties would only be marginally better at each, while someone who focused solely on sewing would be better at her job.

 

[Li Shenron]

Agreed. I like the approach more and more games seem to take lately where you pick a "background" or "profession" and it doesn't come with a list of skills. Instead, whenever you make a check, you can try to convince the DM that your background makes you better at that check. If you do, you get the bonus. Nice thing is that this is open ended, and allows backgrounds to grant bonuses to minor things (like card games or knitting) without sacrificing important skils like spot or sneak. It also leads to better RP experience I believe.
I wish current backgrounds were like that, at least in relation to fields of knowledge. Instead of having a list of skills, let them have a loose list of topics.

For example, commoner (fisher) background would have
Skills: folklore and geography up to 50 miles of where you live, rivers and lakes (including their inhabitants and monsters), fishing, fish cooking/salting etc., driving carts, swimming, rowing, etc.

3ed had the Profession skills, but IMHO they weren't that much open-ended... At least IMXP, I've always seen them played so that the task must have been aimed at professional outcome (I can't find a good word for what I mean...). So if you had "Profession (Fisher)" you would use it for everything directly related to fishing, from preparing a boat and fishing equipment, to knowing which fish is edible/valuable, know where to fish and actually catch some... maybe allowed to roll Profession instead of Spot when spotting fish but not as open-ended as allowing it to replace (or grant bonuses) to spotting anything.