D&D 5E L&L: Mike Lays It All Out

[Dausuul]

Ok so a very simple skill system, or VSS:

For any given 'skill' or broad collection of conceptually related tasks you are either non-proficient (novice), proficient (apprentice), expert (adept) or masterful (master).
The DM will ask you to roll an ability check to see if you succeed at a task that is simple, average, difficult or impossible.
If your level of proficiency matches the difficulty of the task, you roll 1d20 and add your ability modifier.
If you are two or more steps below the required proficiency, you cannot attempt such a task.
If you are two or more steps above the required proficiency, you automatically succeed at such a task.
You have advantage, and roll 2d20, keeping the best, if you are one step above the difficulty.
You have disadvantage and roll 2d20, keeping the worst, if you are one step below the difficulty.
The DM never has to pick a DC: this is fixed at, say, 10.

So, an example 'skill' might be blacksmithing. A simple task might be fashioning a nail, an average task repairing a weapon, a difficult task could be fashioning a masterwork weapon, an impossible task would be making dragonscale armour. Novices can make nails and attempt to repair weapons, but they won't be making dragonscale. Your average village blacksmith could only make you fine armour, not dragonscale, and nails are easy. A reknowned blacksmith can attempt that, and can churn out nails by the dozen without breaking a sweat.

Pro: Simple, bounded, customisable and ability-independent
Con: Not sure on the math with different ability modifiers, not sure if auto-success or fail are to everyone's taste

That isn't what I'd consider "simple." It seems like you're creating a very complicated system to avoid ever having to pick a DC. I'd rather have just two categories, one for tasks that can be done untrained (trained people don't have to roll) and one for tasks that require training (untrained people can't even try). Then assign DCs within those categories.

 

[Zaran]

I don't like the idea of a Feat for +1 to a stat. Not only does it take 2 to make a difference, but also pulls out the customization to a character that feats originally provided. And I definitely don't want to roll up a character and hear someone go "Wow you rolled a 17 for your Strength! That means you only need to waste 3 feats to get it up to Max!"

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

That isn't what I'd consider "simple." It seems like you're creating a very complicated system to avoid ever having to pick a DC. I'd rather have just two categories, one for tasks that can be done untrained (trained people don't have to roll) and one for tasks that require training (untrained people can't even try). Then assign DCs within those categories.

That seems like an odd system to me. If there's a task that's DC 15 for untrained people, but trained people don't have to roll.. and another task that's DC 15 for trained people, but untrained people can't do it.. then that's the same as the second task being DC 35, with training giving you a +20 to your check - untrained people can't hit 35, and to trained people it's basically 15.

 

[Dausuul]

That seems like an odd system to me. If there's a task that's DC 15 for untrained people, but trained people don't have to roll.. and another task that's DC 15 for trained people, but untrained people can't do it.. then that's the same as the second task being DC 35, with training giving you a +20 to your check - untrained people can't hit 35, and to trained people it's basically 15.

Fair point. So maybe the solution is to have training simply grant +20 to a skill.

 

[zoroaster100]

I don't like the idea of a Feat for +1 to a stat. Not only does it take 2 to make a difference, but also pulls out the customization to a character that feats originally provided. And I definitely don't want to roll up a character and hear someone go "Wow you rolled a 17 for your Strength! That means you only need to waste 3 feats to get it up to Max!"

Wow, when you put it that way, that makes me really dislike a system that forces a choice between brute effectiveness from high stats and variety and choice with feats. I prefer the system in the current playtest package and in 4e that lets you do both so players feel free to customize their characters with feats without giving up effectiveness.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

Ok so a very simple skill system, or VSS:

For any given 'skill' or broad collection of conceptually related tasks you are either non-proficient (novice), proficient (apprentice), expert (adept) or masterful (master).

[ ... ]

I could certainly support such a system. I like auto success and failure at the extremes. Of course, it doesn't really resemble the d20 system, which is a bit of a problem.

If we want something similar, but more true to the game, perhaps we only need proficiency and expertise. Then:

Not Proficient: disadvantage on check.
Proficient: normal check.
Expert: advantage on check.

Then DCs work as normal.

In the case of lore skills, the difference between a non-proficient character and an expert is about +7, which isn't too far off the +10 that WotC is proposing.

The only problem is a lack of granularity. If you want a system with high granularity, perhaps skills could have the same 1-20 score with a -5 to +5 bonus that ability scores have.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Wow, when you put it that way, that makes me really dislike a system that forces a choice between brute effectiveness from high stats and variety and choice with feats. I prefer the system in the current playtest package and in 4e that lets you do both so players feel free to customize their characters with feats without giving up effectiveness.

Except you're theoretically NOT giving up effectiveness. The plan is that the feat = the ability score bump. So what you're giving up is a flat numerical bonus of +1 every other slot in exchange for more tactical breadth by selecting a feat.

The thing we have to remember is that we aren't giving up feats to gain ability score bonuses... we're giving up ability score bonuses to get feats. The default is the score bump. So as a player, if you don't want a boring flat +1 on checks... you can exchange it for some (hopefully) cool special abilities to use.

 

[keterys]

Supposedly high level feats will be "tremendous" and much cooler than the existing feats. So, they're pretty much going to be more effective than +1 to a stat.

Sure, your first couple +1s are well worth it. Get that Dex up to a 20 (+1 init, AC, attack, damage, saves, checks? Don't mind if I do) and maybe change an odd score or two. Upping evens to the next tier for two feats though? Be hard pressed to make it worth the wait, especially with feats already doing much of those kinds of bonuses. Why increase Con when you can pick up the upgraded version of today's Durable kind of thing, plus another feat.

Anyhow, that's why I'm thinking more and more that +2 to a stat is a better balance point. Even if it's _still_ unbalanced because Dex is better than Cha, by a long shot.

 

[Argyle King]

I'm having a hard time seeing when giving up a +1 for a feat is ever going to be worth it in a game which is so heavily tied to levels and vertical advancement of a character. I suppose if you've already maxed the stat you need for your class you could afford to dump a few without noticing.

What I'm looking at for an example are the expertise feats from 4th Edition. Even if I didn't need the feat (because I was already hitting very easily,) I still chose them anyway because taking them ramped up my effectiveness so much that I couldn't ignore them; if I didn't take them in a party where everyone else did, it was easily noticeable that they were far more effective in their roles than I was.

Also keep in mind that ability scores are (supposedly) more important in the design of Next. Breadth of options is certainly nice; I like to have options. However, I'm having a tough time seeing where in the design of Next (thus far) breadth is being given room to honestly compete with +X bonuses to one of the most important mechanical parts of a character. Admittedly, I'm not a game designer; as such, I openly accept the possibility that I cannot see something which a designer can. That being said; from my simple point of view as a player, I'm struggling to see how the pieces will fit together in a way to make all the options feel like actual options.

Gaining cool special abilities is nice, but they don't amount to much if I hurt my ability to keep pace with the rest of the game by taking them.

 

[DEFCON 1]

So here we have two players who believe the exact opposite-- keterys believes a +1 stat bump to be so weak in comparison that he'd prefer it to be a +2... and Johnny3D3D thinks that the +1 is so good, no one will ever take a feat instead.

That tells us that perhaps what WotC is doing isn't that far off, if two people can look at the same rule and come to two completely opposite conclusions.