Has the skill list gone in the wrong direction?

[ferratus]

I've used an expanded secondary skills list in my BASIC and 2e games, and I've never really had a problem with people overreaching with skills. So what if a bounty hunter wants to say he is good at picking locks and finding traps as a bounty hunter? Unless there is another party member named Zook Gnomeboots Troubleshooter and Trapmaster of the Locksmith's guild (and the bounty hunter is trying to steal his thunder) then why can't he try to pick the occassional lock?

D&D needs every incentive it can get to encourage players to engage with their campaign world and seek solutions over obstacles besides bashing it down or killing it. In my basic game we are playing in the wilderness. I have a party of three, a mage, a dwarf, and a thief. The dwarf is an old soldier who learned how to track in the underdark using his infravision, so he shields his eyes and does the party's tracking. The mage is a sage so he covers the knowledge skills including herb-lore, and the thief uses his natural stealth to do the scouting and hunting. Between the three of them, they have the skills needed to get along in the wild, even though they don't have a druid or ranger.

According to this thread I'm letting the PC's get away with too much. But you know what? It's fine. It works. It keeps the plot moving. The explanations are plausible enough for vermisilitude, and the game balance is perfectly intact.

 

[EvilDwarf]

Really glad Defcon raised this issue and described it as done in the OP.

I was very sad to see a skills list in the new material. I was soooo jazzed about some lite, well-oiled rules that you could layer options onto. I certainly hope the move in the new materials is just some playtest, um, test.

I want to see a base game in which skill checks are ability checks.

If we keep going in the direction the materials seem to be, we're now in the position of having to keep building in fiddly litte sub-systems, like +3 if trained, skill mastery so the rogue is always better at rogue-X skill, then we had to have, at least +3 if the attribute mod is lower, etc. We keep heading the wrong way.

DM working with player to determine skilled/unskilled seems to me a part of the game, the interaction between DM and Player that is, well, a basic and essential part of the game. That relationship does not need to be and should not be ruled away.

So, skill check = ability check. And we have the very basic, some very core (right now) systems in place without all the fiddly ad hoc fixes.

Want your skill check to increase? It's called, increasing ability scores every so many levels. Want to be skilled at X? It's called, DM grants advantage to the check when your Background/Race makes sense. Done.

 

[BobTheNob]

I am firmly in the use backgrounds approach. Without wadeing into the debate here (as it has already been discussed over and over on there very forums and Im worn out for contributing), could I put forward another perspective.

If our designers take care not to wire skills into too many facets of the game (e.g. Not making skill into pre-requisites) doesnt this becomes entirely optional? Module material.

So, when designing a background you
a) Give it REAL solid fluff dictating what the background can do and when
b) Give it a list of skills

THEN state the two methods of how to use backgrounds and let the DM decide which is appropriate for the type of game he wants to run.

 

[pemerton]

And this is when your DM steps in and says no.

<snip>

The DM is THE primary benefit of pen and paper games....so a modern system needs to do what it can to leverage that critical component.

I think a system of benefits and complications can help with the leveraging of the GM, to reduce any tendency towards adversarialism and "mother may I?".

So what if a bounty hunter wants to say he is good at picking locks and finding traps as a bounty hunter? Unless there is another party member named Zook Gnomeboots Troubleshooter and Trapmaster of the Locksmith's guild (and the bounty hunter is trying to steal his thunder) then why can't he try to pick the occassional lock?

I think this is a good point. At least as important as any "absolute" sense of scope and limits is establishing boundaries and roles among the PCs.

 

[Connorsrpg]

I was in favour of skills moving away from a specific ability score. In our playtest I even liked the open-ended skills of the first playtest, but I was the DM. Some players did find it difficult to know when to apply the bonus.

Being aware of the dangers of a totally open system too (Artisan vs Bounty Hunter), I was thinking of a 'somewhere in between option' that also offers choice.

What about if each Background allowed you to choose 3 options from a list? These options could be difined skills or 'circumstances'. "You get a +3 to rolls when negotiating".

This too would need some refinement, but I am in favour of all four (Race, Class, BG & Specialties) offering one major choice as you enter them.

I understand BG & Specialties are done for speed/ease, but a short list of options couldn't be too bad could it.

I think Specialties would benefit a lot from this, so feats could be taken in different orders. Take Dual-Wielder for eg. Why not just list the feats appropriate for this, rather than just one. Why can't a dual-wielder be more defensive from the start?

1 main choice in each area.

 

[Stormonu]

I'd like to see background split into two pieces:

1st, a set of fixed skills - two, perhaps three skills. These are "trained" skills and you get a fixed bonus for this (right now, I guess this would be +3).

2nd, a professional bonus die. Perhaps, at level 1 it starts at d6. The first time you use it, you get to roll that die and add it to your skill check. Each additional time in a day, you drop the die size down one. You get one last check where it's a +1, then you're done for the day; from there on out you have to rest to recover your professional die.

So, the first time you use a "profession-related skill" in a day - in which you have to give at least a brief explanation of how your profession will help in this check, it gives a decent boost. The more you rely on your profession, the more exhausting it becomes until you finally tire out and have to rest before your repertoire of knowledge can come in handy again.

1d12 --> 1d10 --> 1d8 --> 1d6 --> 1d4 --> +1 --> out.

To me, the fun would be that while you could rely on being trained to always give you a fixed bonus, you never quite know how helpful your professional experience may be to the task at hand; sometimes all that rigging the pirate's climbed will help him get up that rock wall quickly while another time climbing that damnable tree flusters him as he keeps reaching out for rigging that isn't there. And so on.

Perhaps it could even multiple smaller dice, somewhat like fighter's CS, but for skills, with degrading use drop the degrading use and give X professional die bonuses per day.

 

[DEFCON 1]

The real issue we're facing right now is that we're still stuck in what I think is the wrong mindset... that of still seeing "skills" or where we get a +3 as the primary motivator of the system. Which I don't think is how it's supposed to be. It's supposed to be your ABILITY SCORES which are important. For everything.

Ferratus asked a few posts ago why the Bounty Hunter couldn't pick locks, and he felt like he might have been being a bit too generous by allowing it. But the thing is... OF COURSE the Bounty Hunter can pick locks! So can the Noble. So can the Priest. So can the Sage. Why? Because they're only making DEX checks! That's it! If you can make a DEX check... you can pick locks! (And we'll put aside for the moment you technically are required to also own a set of Lock Picks, but since anyone can buy them it's not an issue.)

We're still stuck with this idea that the Rogue-Thief is the only lockpicker we have... when truth be told, yes, he gets a +3 BONUS when doing it... but ANYONE with a substantial DEX modifier is going to be pretty darn good at it TOO. And for this whole "ability modifier" system to work... we need to stop thinking of who has which +3 bonuses as being the only ones who can do these skills, and more that if you have a strong ability score YOU CAN DO IT AS WELL.

So I'd LOVE to see a playtest where there are NO "skills" listed under each Background. Rather, each Background in its descriptive paragraph just goes into a bit more detail about what it is you do... and then the rules instruct the DM that any time a player makes an ability check to do something and either he or you think that he's had prior experience in doing it because of his Background... he gets a +3 bonus. And thus we put the onus back onto the ability scores to describe our characters and off of the standard "list of 17 things all characters can possibly do".

And if... IF... we really need something more than this to help distinguish our characters... then maybe allow each player to select something UBER-SPECIFIC that the character might have a "Master's Degree" in (for lack of a better term.) So none of this generic "Athletics" or "Religious Lore" or "Streetwise" crud. Instead... each player CREATES something cool his PC has extensive knowledge in. Like your Priest chooses a special knowledge in "The Summer Court", or the Soldier chooses "The History of Myth Drannor" or your Thug selects "Sewers and Aqueducts", or your Knight takes "Sleeping In Armor", or your Artisan recognizes "Heraldry of the Goblin Clans". And if THAT every comes up... then your PC gets a really nice bonus for it (like perhaps he rolls the ability check with Advantage.)

At least this way though, the thing the PC's really good at is tied DIRECTLY to his Background, and is so specific that the player doesn't need to waste time checking his sheet seeing if "he has anything that might apply" to his check. He will just KNOW it.

 

[SkidAce]

Sorry, but that's just a recipe for player vs. DM conflict. I think that during my spying background I was awesome at lying to people, whoever they were, so I should get +3 whenever I lie to someone now. I think that I also travelled a lot, so I know geography. Oh and I spied on several different countries, so I know lots about their customs, and I'm streetwise in their cities but also hung out with their nobles.

There seriously has to be some guidance, some suggested list of things you can do. It doesn't have to be as coarse as they have at current, but you need to say somewhere under Bounty Hunter that you're good at spotting ambushes, not traps, because in my head, Bounty Hunters would also be able to find traps.

I see the potential for issues....but not the guarantee.

If you suggested those things to me at the beginning of the game, we would roll with it.

If you kept trying to add to it...maybe.

If you were trying to cheat and twist everything to your advantage, i.e. you need a +2 on baking because you spied on a cook, then I know your abusing the system and you know it your abusing the system, instead of developing your character.

I know I know, there would be more gray areas where I think you are cheating and you think you are reasonable, but .....

That can happen in any part of the game, dice rolling, oh look what I found written on my sheet, etc.

So its a social thingy. And "IMHO", I feel the creativity and involvement in the character's backstory would be enough of a plus to outweigh any "disasters" it might generate, that we would have encountered elsewhere anyway.


That's my story and I'm sticking with it....

 

[Crazy Jerome]

@DEFCON 1 , the objection to that, I think, is going to basically be, "we don't want a game where everyone can pick locks." The objections will be very weak to very strong, depending on the group, and the scope will vary, but it will be there.

So perhaps an alternative to the current setup that might work is something like this: Everything is done on ability checks. Everyone can do all skills, using that ability check. The exception is anything called out as requiring specific skill. Then the background "skills" instead of providing a bonus*, allow you to use your normal ability check on that otherwise excluded activity.

* This has some niche problems with people having a bad roll on a trained skill. I'm not sure what it means for a clumsy person to be trained in lockpicking, for example.

So now the list of skills becomes a default for the game as to what requires skill training and what can be done by anyone. Your background gives you three things that require training. However, there should also be a section on changing this list by campaign.

Now, the only thing I can see that this leaves out is this concept of the character that is stupendeous at some particular activity, such as Mr. Ultra Sneaky Guy, beyond what ability scores can provide (assuming a campaign where everyone can "sneak"). That's where I see what you had in that last post coming back to help more broadly, as Mr. Ultra Sneaky Guy probably has a particular context for his sneakiness that doesn't apply to every last stealth check, but does apply to a few things outside of it.

Edit: It also occurs to me that here is a good place to reintroduce that concept from the earlier L&L articles, with different mastery levels of skill. That is, if "lockpicking" is something done only trained, your background starts with "apprentice lockpicker (+0)"--which can then be improved to get those bonuses. Hmm. That's a way for backgrounds to grow over time, too.

Also, if the bonuses are taking out of the starting skills in favor of unlocking "required training"--then we are back to allowing the background itself to allow a bonus where applicable, as discussed in the OP.

 

[DEFCON 1]

@DEFCON 1 , the objection to that, I think, is going to basically be, "we don't want a game where everyone can pick locks." The objections will be very weak to very strong, depending on the group, and the scope will vary, but it will be there.

I can certainly see where you're coming from... but how many of those types of "skills" are there, really? Everyone can try to stealth, everyone can have knowledge about anything, everyone can try to jump, everyone has basic concepts of what happens down in a dungeon. Which ones are "special" that only certain people/classes that have "training" in them can do them? Picking locks? Removing traps? Slow falling / breaking your fall? Seems to me the only skills that people would have issue with are the traditional "thief skills" because of the belief that that's the whole basis of the class... doing those esoteric tasks that no one else can do.

But didn't we move away from that idea in the last two editions with the whole concept of adding all these "thief skills" to the generic skill list? And even giving classes beyond the rogue the opportunity to be Trained in "Thievery" (like the Warlock was in 4E)? For my money... there's no reason why someone who owns a set of lock picks can't try and pick a lock. After all... for most characters, you just won't be GOOD at it, because your DEX mod will be low. Those with a higher DEX will be better at it... and those who have the Background in Thief (and thus the additional +3) would be really good at it.

Truth be told... I personally would prefer a much more open ability check / Background system and a rule that says a DM can say a specific task is unable to be tried without a Background he feels appropriate for it... than to just create another list of 15 "things" that all PCs can be "trained" in, and thus only those who are trained can attempt the exceedingly small list of "trained-only" tasks the game has. I'm voting for DM agency to make rulings, rather than needing the game to make every ruling in every obscure situation.