D&D 5E Great news on Skills

[DEFCON 1]

Another problem with this idea is that it makes the higher DCs nigh impossible to achieve for most characters. Advantage makes you more likely to succeed at lower DC tasks, but doesn't enable you to succeed at very high DC tasks since it doesn't increase your maximum potential result.

But the thing is... the point of Bounded Accuracy is that you don't need to have "higher DCs". And the point of Advantage is granting a character a virtual +4 bonus to his roll without increasing the highest number possible that character can reach.

The wider apart the Haves and Have-nots are in their check modifiers... the more difficult it is for the DM to create DCs that are possible to be hit by the Have-nots... while still remaining a challenge for the Haves. The DM is worried about setting DCs party-wide. Now sure... some players LOVE the idea that they can build a PC with a +20 in Perception (while everyone else is down around +5)... but how do you think that makes the DM feel? Any normal DC he throws out there so that the party as a whole has a chance to spot something is rendered completely meaningless by the Super Perceptor. And if the DM sets up challenging opportunities for Super Perceptor to feel like he actually *is* Super Perceptor... those DCs are so inflated that it's virtually impossible for the rest of the party to succeed on them (if by some chance Super Perceptor isn't in the game that night or the character has just gone elsewhere at the time.)

In BOTH systems... the 3E/4E style of really high mods, and the BA system... there are still DCs the DM can assign that are impossible for the lower mod PCs to hit and which give the trained person the slightest chance to succeed (so that there's always that "miraculous" roll possibility for highest drama). But what BA gives you is that you won't have the loss of drama all other times... which is what happens in 3E/4E when one PCs mod is so much higher than everyone else's, that any reasonable DC the DM puts out there is virtually an automatic success.

 

[GreyICE]

I think the biggest variable is skill advancement as you level. Currently it is +1 to one skill each even level, capped at +7 training. I think maybe it should be +1 to two skills. But anyway, +7 is a pretty respectable bonus.

Mmmm. I like the slower than 1/2 level advancement, 1-7 over the course of the game, that works.

The reason I like this is simple. Back in 3E, take a level 20 fighter. He's been to the elemental plane of fire. He's traveled to Sigil. He's fought dragons, and demons, and godlings. He's seen every sort of creature imaginable.

"Hey Joe the Fighter, what sort of creature is this?"
*checks knowledge Arcana... yeah*
"Uh, no idea. Never seen something like it before, even though we've fought thousands of things like it."

At least advancement with level feels like you're gradually improving. A level 20 Wizard probably knows SOMETHING about wilderness survival even if he didn't study it in school. A level 20 fighter can probably ID a fire elemental even if he didn't read a book with a drawing of one - he's seen enough.

But I'd still rather see some way to show gradual advancement and different skill levels (even if its as simple as beginner/master). Something to show that you can get different levels of training. Also some way to just make skill rolls more interesting.

I'd love to see some sort of utility powers open up based on skill training. That would be EXCELLENT. Something that mimics Fate's Stunt System might also be very good.

 

[DEFCON 1]

The reason I like this is simple. Back in 3E, take a level 20 fighter. He's been to the elemental plane of fire. He's traveled to Sigil. He's fought dragons, and demons, and godlings. He's seen every sort of creature imaginable.

"Hey Joe the Fighter, what sort of creature is this?"
*checks knowledge Arcana... yeah*
"Uh, no idea. Never seen something like it before, even though we've fought thousands of things like it."

At least advancement with level feels like you're gradually improving. A level 20 Wizard probably knows SOMETHING about wilderness survival even if he didn't study it in school. A level 20 fighter can probably ID a fire elemental even if he didn't read a book with a drawing of one - he's seen enough.

Which would be fine and make sense if those PCs were by themselves. Then sure... raising their skill levels to represent them "getting better" at the skills they are trained in (and thus able to surpass the DCs that come along) would be fine. But the problem is... probably 75% of the time (if not more) they won't be alone. They'll be with the party. And thus, it doesn't matter how high the Fighter's Arcana is to identify the monster, because he'll still be standing right next to his Wizard friend who has a skill level high enough to give him a 100% chance of knowing the answer. So what good did the Fighter's higher skill numbers give him? He's still just as bad and as useless to the situation as compared to the rest of his group.

But what raising these numbers does is increase the risk of widening the gap between those who are great at a skill and those who stink within the party. And thus makes it harder for the DMs to set DCs. Hard challenges for the lower end are auto-success or cake for the higher end. And medium challenges for the high end are impossible to hit for the low end. And thus at the end of the day, what's the point of even including them in the adventure? If the Ranger is going to auto-succeed in any Tracking checks up through god-like tracking numbers... then why would the DM ever bother in even thinking about tracks? I know I wouldn't. There'd be no point and a waste of time. Which makes things even worse... because that player who built his character that way because he wanted to be challenged by and overcome really difficult tracking situations... ends up never being challenged because he auto-succeeds on them all. And thus he has to wait until the DM can create some bizarre inane situation where there are like fifteen additional modifiers thrown into the mix to bump the DC up high enough where it *is* a challenge for that Ranger.

But you can only do that so many times before it gets really lame.

 

[GreyICE]

Well if there's anything resembling a Skill Challenge framework (and there should be, only the improved DMG2+4 years experience version, not the DMG1 version) you'd be shocked how often people end up rolling their "subpar" skills. A good challenge (AKA one time based with multiple party rolls, not direct failure based) often drags other members in organically - and while they can focus on doing what they're good at, usually at least one player ends up doing something they're just not too good at. It's part of what makes them interesting.

A level 1 ranger might have a challenge to track down a party of crafty kobolds. A level 20 ranger should probably not give a damn about tracking down a party of kobolds, he's busy tracking down a group of werewolves who bonded with demons from the abyss to gain immortality and are centuries old. This works, 100%.

You shouldn't scale like 3E, no. That was ridiculous.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

But the problem is... probably 75% of the time (if not more) they won't be alone. They'll be with the party. And thus, it doesn't matter how high the Fighter's Arcana is to identify the monster, because he'll still be standing right next to his Wizard friend who has a skill level high enough to give him a 100% chance of knowing the answer. So what good did the Fighter's higher skill numbers give him? He's still just as bad and as useless to the situation as compared to the rest of his group.

But what raising these numbers does is increase the risk of widening the gap between those who are great at a skill and those who stink within the party. And thus makes it harder for the DMs to set DCs.

Which is why 3e's skill system was a pain - when a level 10 rogue gets +20 to diplomacy checks (with synergies, etc), the level 10 fighter with +0 is not in the same ballpark. But a +7 difference between untrained and maximally specialized isn't crazy. When the trained character has an 85% chance of success, the untrained character has a 50% chance of success.

 

[Blackbrrd]

Which is why 3e's skill system was a pain - when a level 10 rogue gets +20 to diplomacy checks (with synergies, etc), the level 10 fighter with +0 is not in the same ballpark. But a +7 difference between untrained and maximally specialized isn't crazy. When the trained character has an 85% chance of success, the untrained character has a 50% chance of success.

Hmm... Aren't stats involved as well? 18 vs 10 in the stat in question adds another +4, so you end up with 30% vs 85% chance. The "worst" case scenario you end up with 60% vs 5% chance (if 20 always succeds). It still sounds reasonable though.

Maybe starting out with +2 at level one and ending at +5 at max would be better? Let's say the skilled character has a 70% chance, then the character without the skill and a 10 instead of an 18 gets a 25% chance.

Hmm... Might have jumped to conclusions here if you were thinking of +7 as (+3 skill +4stat), not just a trained bonus that increased as they leveled up, something I think should be done to a moderate degree. For instance +2 at level 1, +3 at level 6, +4 at level 12, +5 at level 18.

 

[Mirtek]

Now the next step is to get them to assist with their own desire for "bounded accuracy" by making them realize that their skill system would be better served by not having "trained skills" grant a +3 to the roll... but rather grant Advantage. That way, you aren't having the bonuses get too large

Isn't advantage essentially just +4.5 to your roll? So it would be even more powerful than just +3 to the roll

 

[Falling Icicle]

But the thing is... the point of Bounded Accuracy is that you don't need to have "higher DCs". And the point of Advantage is granting a character a virtual +4 bonus to his roll without increasing the highest number possible that character can reach.

DCs may not go into the 30s or 40s anymore, but there are still DCs in the mid-20s. The playtest packet has 25 as the highest DC, so a character must have at least a +5 bonus to even have a chance to succeed on such an action. Advantage doesn't help the player that has a +3 or +4 ability bonus in that instance. He still automatically fails, no matter what he rolls. A +3 skill bonus, on the other hand, makes such actions possible for that character.

The wider apart the Haves and Have-nots are in their check modifiers... the more difficult it is for the DM to create DCs that are possible to be hit by the Have-nots... while still remaining a challenge for the Haves. The DM is worried about setting DCs party-wide. Now sure... some players LOVE the idea that they can build a PC with a +20 in Perception (while everyone else is down around +5)... but how do you think that makes the DM feel? Any normal DC he throws out there so that the party as a whole has a chance to spot something is rendered completely meaningless by the Super Perceptor. And if the DM sets up challenging opportunities for Super Perceptor to feel like he actually *is* Super Perceptor... those DCs are so inflated that it's virtually impossible for the rest of the party to succeed on them (if by some chance Super Perceptor isn't in the game that night or the character has just gone elsewhere at the time.)

In BOTH systems... the 3E/4E style of really high mods, and the BA system... there are still DCs the DM can assign that are impossible for the lower mod PCs to hit and which give the trained person the slightest chance to succeed (so that there's always that "miraculous" roll possibility for highest drama). But what BA gives you is that you won't have the loss of drama all other times... which is what happens in 3E/4E when one PCs mod is so much higher than everyone else's, that any reasonable DC the DM puts out there is virtually an automatic success.

You seem to think that I'm arguing against bounded accuracy. I'm not. I am actually a big fan of bounded accuracy. I am only saying that having skill training grant advantage instead of a +bonus is, IMO, a mistake.

I'm pretty happy with the way things are in the playtest packet, at least as far as bonuses and DCs are concerned. An average person (ability score 10) can potentially succeed on any action that isn't "formidable" or "nearly impossible" without training. That's fine with me. It's nowhere even close to the kind of gap in PC competence that was possible in 3e/4e.

 

[DEFCON 1]

DCs may not go into the 30s or 40s anymore, but there are still DCs in the mid-20s. The playtest packet has 25 as the highest DC, so a character must have at least a +5 bonus to even have a chance to succeed on such an action. Advantage doesn't help the player that has a +3 or +4 ability bonus in that instance. He still automatically fails, no matter what he rolls. A +3 skill bonus, on the other hand, makes such actions possible for that character.

But the only reason they have DC 25s on the chart is because characters can reach it. If the numbers were bounded such that no character could ever reach a certain DC... then you don't need to have that DC on the chart. Pretty self-explanatory. Make the chart only as big as you need it to be.

You seem to think that I'm arguing against bounded accuracy. I'm not. I am actually a big fan of bounded accuracy. I am only saying that having skill training grant advantage instead of a +bonus is, IMO, a mistake.

Which is cool. You don't have to like the idea. But I'm just suggesting that what you are looking for, I believe, goes further away from the ideals of bounded accuracy. Because as I said above... the further apart any two characters are in their modifiers... the larger a DC chart you have to have and the less likely a DM is going to be able to create DCs that remain possible for the low end to succeed at while not completely trivializing the high end. Which is what bounded accuracy is meant to fix.

 

[Plaguescarred]

I was very happy to see Skills being once again dissociated from ability scores as i recommanded in each Playtest feedbacks since it shifted to being associated and i hope it remain for good as it gives more freedom in their usage.

Also glad to see Skill Training going up to 4, especially if the number of Skills expand.