Increasing Out-Of-Combat Effectiveness For All Classes

[Minigiant]

One of the previewed suggested versions of Backgrounds by Rob make my optimistic. And by the examples "Thief+Pick Pockets, Stealth, Streetwise. Soldier= Endurance, Intimidate, Survival", it looks like the skills are split up evenly between the backrounds.

Personally, I'd make make 2/3 of the background to have parity.

1 Knowledge Skill (Arcana, Dungeoneering, History, Nature, Religion, Planeslore*, Streetwise)

1 Exploration Skill (Acrobatics, Athletics, Concentration, Endurance, Heal, Perception, Streetwise, Pick Pockets/Thievery)

1 Social Skill (Appraise, Bluff, Browbeat**, Diplomacy, Insight, Intimidate, Logic***)

*Knowledge (The planes) renamed
**Browbeat is Cha based intimadation. Intimidate is Str based intimidation
***Logic is Int based social defense

 

[satori01]

At the very least they should throw in ideas like "Your fighter can use Athletics to flex and give the bard a +2 bonus to intimidate or diplomacy, depending on the audience."

Nix to this because it still assumes "skills" as the interface with the world, which bogs people down into thinking about how to fit square pegs into round holes instead of just doing things. Back when dinosaurs ruled the Earth, and there were no Non Weapon Profs or skills, a Fighter that wanted to intimidate someone just did it.

No complicated rules, no " my jump check is 20, can my 720 skateboard trick give a +2 circumstance bonuses" stuff that makes some regret playing a low skilled class.

Want to be a persuasive Fighter...have a high Charisma, and choose a complimentary Background.

Want to scare a halfling merchant into giving you the treasure map, well the ugly Half-Orc Barbarian with 19 Str just has to ask nicely.

 

[MacMathan]

Nix to this because it still assumes "skills" as the interface with the world, which bogs people down into thinking about how to fit square pegs into round holes instead of just doing things. Back when dinosaurs ruled the Earth, and there were no Non Weapon Profs or skills, a Fighter that wanted to intimidate someone just did it.

No complicated rules, no " my jump check is 20, can my 720 skateboard trick give a +2 circumstance bonuses" stuff that makes some regret playing a low skilled class.

Want to be a persuasive Fighter...have a high Charisma, and choose a complimentary Background.

Want to scare a halfling merchant into giving you the treasure map, well the ugly Half-Orc Barbarian with 19 Str just has to ask nicely.

How would you determine success in these situations?

 

[trancejeremy]

I think the skill system really should be de-coupled from class. Which is basically how pre-3e games did it.

Thieves/Rogues should be able to do all sorts of thiefy/roguish stuff, but on top of that should also have some general skill ability, just like every other character. Characters should be more than just a class.

If the fighter can do things outside combat then it's not D&D!!!

Erm, AD&D had both the Secondary Skill system and then later Non Weapon Proficiencies...

And BECMI had a completely class agnostic skill system.

The hapless fighter was new to 3e...

 

[Frostmarrow]

I think i's safe to assume that all skills that could be used untrained are now an ability check. Skills that are labeled as "trained only" is now a feat that allows you to make an ability check.

So if jumping is based on strength a jump check is a simple strength check. If swim is based on strength you must first have the feat Swim to be able to use your strength for swimming.

So while Open Locks is based on Dexterity you can't actually open any locks without a feat...ure that comes with the burglar background.

 

[satori01]

How would you determine success in these situations?

Start with static DC for easy, moderate, hard tasks with modifiers for circumstance and feel and player input.


Trust and general consistency are all that are needed to adjudicate things on the fly or in rules light games, (see Gygax 's Col Pladoh posts for ample evidence of this. Gary by all acount was excellent at on the fly creations).


I've always felt if people do not trust the GM to make on the fly rulings, the group should not be playing together .


3e jump rules always personified rules getting in the way of excitement. A rooftop chase of a villain in Waterdeep should not turn into everyone turning to pg 28 of the PHB to read the jump rules and start calculating their various jump values...blah!

 

[Mostlyjoe]

A serious consideration needs to be taken on spells like Knock when they can be applied to say a wand.

Any spell or effect that replaces the need for a skill check might need to be nerfed. Perhaps Knock is just a +10 bonus to the next attempot to unlock the door? Etc?

The reason being it prevents the MacGuyver Wizard/Clerics from making the non casters redudant. It's all fine in good when spells are limited resources, but itemization in 2E and 3E turned a lot of game puzzles and challenges into trival matters.

 

[Kraydak]

One of the interesting bits of DnD history is that in the first iteration of out-of-combat skills (a.k.a Non-Weapon Proficiencies), Fighters actually did pretty well. They got a decent number, and a good selection to choose from.

I never understood 3e's absolute gimping of Fighter skill points/class skills. Here is an edition that tried to give every class something to do in combat... and then failed utterly to even attempt to do so out of combat. From a class balance POV, Fighters should probably have gotten 6 points/level, with a mid-range class skill list.

 

[Tony Vargas]

But what about the Fighter?

That does seem to be a recurring question with 5e. We've heard they're having trouble getting a handle on the classic Fighting Man. On the one hand, there are those who want to play fighters with options and abilities on par with other classes, OTOH, there are those who balk at giving fighter dailies, encounters, second wind, or anything else beyond: insert Sword A into monster B, repeat as necessary. Both sides are adamant, and while some might relent and allow that both a complex and simple fighter would be nice, others demand that only their vision is acceptable, any other 'breaking verisimilitude' or 'ruining class balance.'

Maybe Mearls & Cook should try something more achievable, like whirled peas.

I'm anxious to see what they'll do to make Fighters effective in social and other non-combat situations. Hopefully this will mean the end of the stupid, skill-less fighter once and for all.

I'm anxious about it, too.

 

[billd91]

On the one hand, there are those who want to play fighters with options and abilities on par with other classes, OTOH, there are those who balk at giving fighter dailies, encounters, second wind, or anything else beyond: insert Sword A into monster B, repeat as necessary.

[sarcasm]Yeah, no hyperbolic spin on that comparison.[/sarcasm]