Has the skill list gone in the wrong direction?

[DEFCON 1]

At the beginning of the D&DN designs... one thing was brought up in regards to checks that I thought was going to be the central part of the whole system... that DMs were going to ask for Ability checks rather than Skill checks. So if a player wanted to do something like find some mushrooms to eat... the DM would just ask for a Wisdom check (for example, although an INT check might've also made sense if the DM went that way.) So players would have more agency to do whatever they wanted on the spur of the moment, than rather immediately drop their eyes to their character sheet looking for skills they were "trained" in.

It was on top of this ability check system that it seemed like Backgrounds were meant to fall. By having a Background, it implied a whole host of things you probably were good at. It didn't need to be specific, because the DM could just say "You trained as a Priest... you therefore know the proper way to address a Cardinal-- +3 to your CHA check." The system would thus allow for ALL SIX ability scores to be modified by the Background, depending on what the PC wanted to do. There was no longer a need for specific "skills" a la 3E or 4E... because they were just implied by the Background.

What seemed to happen though was that when the designers began adding example "+3s" for things you were trained in by having a Background... they started falling back on the old skills (and thus, the old specific ability scores these skills were always tied to). And the "skills" have once again gotten quite narrow, while at the same time wide open that they no longer really represent the Background they supposedly are there to support.

For example... an Artisan gets "Diplomacy" and a +3. Universally. Doesn't matter who the Artisan is talking to... he gets a +3 regardless. Why is that? Why does being an Artisan (Brewer) mean you get to have a +3 to try and convince a King or negotiate with the dryad in the woods? Does that really make sense? And by the same token... the Bounty Hunter has NO skill at negotiating with potential employers, because his one pseudo-social skill is "Streetwise". Bounty Hunters, Soldiers, and Spies all get to "Spot" things... and thus are more trained to know where to find a secret door within a castle, but the Noble and the Knight (the two backgrounds that have spent the most time within castles) do not?

It kind of ruins the fun idea of having multiple applications to multiple skills based upon what your background was growing up-- and the multiple ability scores they could be applied to.

Doesn't being a "Merchant" say all we need about what you are trained in, skill-wise? You probably have spent your years moving boxes and crates onto and off of wagons, so a +3 to STR checks when it involved lifting things-- especially things that are fragile and you don't want to drop. In 3/4E you'd need to have "Athletics" for that... but that implies you can also climb, swim, and jump too... which doesn't make sense at all. A Merchant would get a +3 to CHA checks when it came to negotiations with other people-- but NOT a +3 to sweet talk someone. And yet "Diplomacy" covers both of those things. A Merchant should potentially get a +3 to INT checks for geographical information based upon knowing trade routes... and yet Geographical Lore applies to knowing your way around ALL above-ground areas-- including mountainous regions the merchant has never traveled.

It's for this reason that I really hope the Backgrounds and skills get another once-over... because right now they are devolving their system right back to how things were in 3/4E. Where you have your list of three (or six) "things" you can do... each of them tied directly to a single ability score. And other than the fluff description of the Background there is no real difference between them.

A Knight and a Noble both are Diplomatic, and they both have a knowledge of Heraldry (however often that'll ever come up). So as far as the skills are concerned... they are practically the same Background. Despite the fact that a Knight's diplomacy should really be geared towards underlings, fighting men, and the commoners they come in contact with (as well as a healthy dose of Intimidation against the same while he's at it), and the Noble's diplomacy would be geared towards other lords & ladies, high-ranking officials, judges, kings and the like... both in obsequieous sweet-talking, as well as conning/bluffing them in courtly intrigue (alongside the ability to probably browbeat servants and the serfs who directly serve the nobleman.) And what does the Heraldic Lore give them? A knowledge of recognizing banners and the line of succession? Great. And apparently that's IT... because there's already also a Societal Lore skill (which I'm guessing covers knowing the proper fork to use, which is why the Noble gets it and the knight doesn't), and there's a Geographical Lore skill to cover the actually knowledge of the lands, and a Historical Lore skill to cover the knowledge of the entire history of the area. And yet the Knight doesn't get a bonus any of those seemingly useful skills, ones that he probably would have actually had experience in growing up as a Knight, because they aren't on his list. Instead... the Knight gets Animal Handling, which applies not only to training and riding his horse... but also to calming down the wild grizzly bear that is charging him in the forest because we all know how often knights were required to do that as part of their job description. These skills a "narrow" in that you have a Heraldic Lore AND Societal Lore AND Magical Lore AND Planar Lore AND Forbidden Lore AND Religious Lore AND Undead Lore etc. etc... but are also wide open in that it applies to EVERYONE and EVERYTHING, despite a particular Backgrounds specific focus in ONE AREA of it. The Knight might have Historical Lore... but it's only in regards to the history of the knights and perhaps the line of succession over the years, but knows nothing about who the biggest names in magic were centuries ago.

Look... I understand why they feel like they need to have a "set" skill list. It's to make things easier for new players and DMs to recognize when a potential +3 should apply to a check. But truth be told... I think it is just as easy for people to understand a more universal system of ability checks based upon logical application of a character's Background, as it is giving PCs a tight list of three "things" they are good at. So if a PC selected a Background of "Pirate"... you don't need to give it an Acrobatics skill to tell you you're good at balancing on choppy surfaces, or an Athletics skill to tell you you're good at climbing rigging or swimming in the sea, or an Intimidate or a Bluff to tell you you can browbeat the bartender for free drinks or con the tavern wench into your bed, or a Geographical Lore skill to know where the islands are out to sea, or a Survival skill to tell you what you'd need to survive if you were abandoned on an island somewhere, or a Natural Lore skill to recognize what the incoming cloud patterns means in terms of weather or where to punch that shark should you fall overboard and get attacked.

Being a Pirate teaches you all of these things. And I would hope that in the new edition it goes over how ALL of these skill uses would grant the Pirate a +3... whereas just having Athletics doesn't mean the Pirate automatically gets a bonus to knowing how to rock climb without ropes or lift a stuck portcullis. Because I don't think it should.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

The trouble with leaving the background open ended is that, for instance, the Artisan doesn't really get very many bonuses at all, compared with, say, the Bounty Hunter. The Artisan can craft things, can perhaps talk nicely to merchants and clients, perhaps if he's a carpenter he has some nature lore. The Bounty Hunter is alert, knows how to spot hidden enemies and traps, he can also track his quarry, he's probably capable of riding, running, jumping, even swimming, plus he can negotiate with his employer, intimidate or bluff contacts, bribe guards, basically just about everything cool you could want as an adventurer.

I think they could become a little more nuanced with their background skill selections. Instead of +3 for training, why not divide +9 amongst skills you are likely to have. If you have many, like the Bounty Hunter, you get a little boost to each one, but if you have few, like the Artisan, you are going to be particularly good at them. Limit the bonus to +3 at most, and overall you'll probably see flatter math thrown into the bargain.

 

[Yora]

The problem with undefined skills is, that you can make up pretty much everything.

Say I have the skill "Bounty Hunter" and I demand from the DM that it provides me with a bonus to stealth, perception, tracking, intimidation, climbing, riding, geographical knowlege, legal knowledge, finding rumors, setting traps, and what else I can think of.
And another player has taken the Skills "baking" and "tracking wild animals".

You need to have a clear list of what skills you can take and what these skills cover.

 

[Black Knight Irios]

I agree with your (DEFCON 1) assessment and the points made by Chris_Nightwing are also reasonable.

Another option w/o too much book keeping would be the implied proficiencies in skills or parts of a skill are derived from your race, background, specialty and class.
The Artisan seems a poor choice compared to the bounty hunter but as soon as you have an artisan ranger you are fine skillwise, the bounty hunter ranger would probably gain less skillwise but would be ready to do his job as well.
The big downsides are 1) for new players that is definitely not the way to go. They are better served with have 5 trained skills and have fun. 2) Strict DMs might often say no if you want to use a skill with the +3 bonus and finaly 3) players that always argue that x or y should be known by their chars given the choice of race+background+...

 

[DEFCON 1]

The trouble with leaving the background open ended is that, for instance, the Artisan doesn't really get very many bonuses at all, compared with, say, the Bounty Hunter. The Artisan can craft things, can perhaps talk nicely to merchants and clients, perhaps if he's a carpenter he has some nature lore. The Bounty Hunter is alert, knows how to spot hidden enemies and traps, he can also track his quarry, he's probably capable of riding, running, jumping, even swimming, plus he can negotiate with his employer, intimidate or bluff contacts, bribe guards, basically just about everything cool you could want as an adventurer.

And yet I wouldn't give the Bounty Hunter that wide of a scope. Could he notice perhaps a deadfall that a roving band of elves set up in the woods? Perhaps. But would a Bounty Hunter know about finding a spear trap in dungeon? Nope. And yet having "Spot" means he gets to do both... IN ADDITION to finding secret doors, and that false bottom in the chest, etc. etc. Whereas the Artisan (depending on what type of art he took) could get a lot more at first blush. The Cartographer would have a really good knowledge of geography, and spotting odd earth formations. The Brewer would know about all kinds of things that grow and are/are not safe, giving him conceivable bonuses to "survival" (despite the Survival skill never appearing on the Artisan's list in a thousand years). The Blacksmith could have Animal Handling when it comes to horses (shoeing them and the like).

But the most important thing about using the Background is that it asks the player to think about HIS CHARACTER and the situation at hand... and whether what he was in the past might help him in the present. If he was a Spy... how could that be applied to what he's doing now? If it was for a government he is currently dealing with... perhaps he gets that +3 for CHA checks. But if it was for another government than the one he is currently in... that +3 doesn't get to apply. Which makes more sense than just having a universal ability to "Bluff" anyone and everyone.

 

[Transformer]

Surprisingly, I'm actually with you here. If Wizards is going to do the "ability checks are what the game is built on them, but you occasionally get a +3 bonus to them due to your character's backround," I'd rather they did it all the way. As the playtest packet stands now, they're 90% of the way back to 3rd edition's skill system. I read a playtest report in which the GM was terribly confused about how the skill system worked, and didn't understand what modifier a person who was not trained in a skill should get when asked for a skill check. The presence of the "skill system" was so strong in the playtest packed that the GM didn't get that there really isn't supposed to be a skill check system anymore; you don't ask for a skill check, you ask for an ability check.

Now, I know there are gonna be all kinds of problems with your way of doing things, especially problems related to (a) putting too much weight on the DM's shoulders and (b) the DM vs. player empowerment debate. I'll speak to each one in turn.

(a) We're basically talking about giving backgrounds granular, inconsistent skills rather than standardized, unified, generic skills. That puts more weight on the DM to make calls and set DCs. If there's a diplomacy skill, there will be a table somewhere saying what the DCs are for various tasks. If there's ten different diplomacy "skills" matching ten distinct backgrounds, then the DM has to come up with the DC himself, just based on generic advice about what DC a "hard" task is and what DC a "very hard" task is.

I think the solution to this problem is just to provide as much guidance as possible, but make sure you don't suggest a unified "skill system." So have a section somewhere with suggested climb DCs, suggested social interaction/persuasion DCs, suggested spot DCs, but don't suggest that Spot is a Skill.

Likewise, if they go this route, then the backrounds themselves need to have some pretty clear and specific guidelines to help players and DMs decide what does and does not get the bonus. Concise, specific descriptions are helpful: "pirate gets a +3 bonus on ability checks involving knowledge of coastline and island geography and culture, balancing on moving surfaces, climbing involving ropes, any kind of negotiation with piratey-types, and all manner of sailory tasks. Such specificity would also be necessary to solve the balance issue: spell out what the brewer and the bounty hunter are good for, and they won't be quite so lopsided.

(b) The player vs. DM empowerment issue is a thorny one. I know the player empowerment advocates will not like a "skill system" which places so much emphasis on DM judgment calls. You know what you can do or attempt in a unified skill system. But in an ad hoc "skill system," what if, despite a well-written rulebook telling you what each background is good for, you and the DM aren't on the same page on what a pirate is good at? What if he gives more bonuses to the person with "soldier" or "sage" in his background than the person with "brewer" as his background, just because he thinks that's how it would go?

Anyway, I don't have a solution to this issue, so eh.


Also, I like the Traits they have now. Those should stay.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Surprisingly, I'm actually with you here. If Wizards is going to do the "ability checks are what the game is built on them, but you occasionally get a +3 bonus to them due to your character's backround," I'd rather they did it all the way.

Precisely.

A Soldier gets a bonus to "spot" things. All things. A Thief knows where the best places to hide are in order to use Stealth... and yet it's the Soldier who somehow finds those hidden people easier. Does that make sense? The Soldier also somehow knows the logical place where a castle might have a secret door build in (despite possibly having never set foot within a castle)... but the Nobleman does not (despite having possibly having spent his entire life within one.) The Soldier up in the crow's next can spot land ho... and yet (I would imagine once the background gets introduced) the Pirate wouldn't be able to (since they'd probably get something like Acrobatics, Athletics and Bluff as their 3 "skills" instead).

And by the same token... the Soldier doesn't get to make the rousing speech to his men as they are about to rush the battlefield with nearly the same aplomb as the visiting local Priest does... because one has Diplomacy and the other does not.

Yes... having a list of "skills" for players to reference to in general so they might know what their character could be capable of, makes all the sense in the world. But demarcating only THREE of them to each Background and having those three work UNIVERSALLY across all areas, situations and persons of the game reduces the impact of using ability scores altogether, and oftentimes makes no sense.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

But the most important thing about using the Background is that it asks the player to think about HIS CHARACTER and the situation at hand... and whether what he was in the past might help him in the present. If he was a Spy... how could that be applied to what he's doing now? If it was for a government he is currently dealing with... perhaps he gets that +3 for CHA checks. But if it was for another government than the one he is currently in... that +3 doesn't get to apply. Which makes more sense than just having a universal ability to "Bluff" anyone and everyone.

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.

 

[KidSnide]

I agree in the general dissatisfaction with the skill list. I wouldn't go as far as essentially replacing skills with general background abilities, but I think each background should provide a bonus when ability checks are used in the right social context. For all the reasons suggested in the OP, the knight should get a bonus to using diplomacy in the military context, while the noble should get a similar bonus in court.

I am also disappointed in the move from "skills give a bonus to whichever ability is appropriate to this check" to "skills are tied to a specific ability." I always liked the idea that the correct Lore could provide a bonus to Int for research, a bonus to Wis for spotting things in that context or a bonus to Cha for saying the right thing to the right person.

Separately, the designers really need to do something about the many overlapping Lore skills. Heraldric Lore is something of a joke. I'm sure there are some campaigns out there where this is a useful skill (beyond it's role as a weaker version of Societal Lore), but I'm not familiar with any.

But more generally, many of the Lore skills overlap quite a bit. Personally, I would expect Forbidden Lore and Planar Lore to cover most of the same material, just as I would expect most of Undead Lore to be covered by Religious Lore. I think it's perfectly acceptable to have different flavors of Lore, but there needs to be a little guidance about how to handle this. (For example, the priest and the undead hunter could both know a lot about the undead, but come at it from different angles.) I am particularly worried about how players of Sage characters handle this. Taking several closely related lores would seem to significantly reduce the effectiveness of a character's skills if they mostly overlap.

-KS

 

[Mengu]

One of few things I liked about the initial playtest was the use of ability checks instead of skill checks. It made much more sense to me, to apply conceptual bonuses to a task at hand, rather than having a separate skill for everything.

For instance, Professional Lore should be something every character can do. I'd be perfectly happy allowing a noble to make an intelligence check and add his diplomacy, to see if he recognizes the house mark of another lord. A wizard might use history for the same information, a rogue might use streetwise, but ultimately, they are all making an intelligence check. This approach makes it so that whatever knowledge skills make sense for your background, you have them.

What's more, it granulates each skill's use cases, and makes stats more relevant to the use case. For instance in 4e, if you asked for a thievery check to see what the rogue knew about the operation of a trap, he would use dexterity for that knowledge check. It's easy enough to suspend our disbelief, but making an intelligence check, and adding thievery bonus simply makes for a better mechanical representation of what is happening in the game world.

I think they went the wrong direction with this, separating and listing skills the way they have.