D&D 5E L&L Sept 16th . The Latest on Skills

[Balesir]

What if magical plate gave you DR 10 bypassable only with criticals? It would make sense if you're willing to alter what AC stands for.

I don't think you need to go that radical. Just give every armour an AC 2 lower than it is now and add proficiency as for every other application of it. Magic enhancements are additional, as they always have been in D&D.

The tricky one might be shields. But you could just have shield proficiency give a flat +1 (plus the bonus of the shield itself - 0 for normal and +1 for large shields), and have shields useful for other stuff - they were an offensive tool in historical WMA, after all.

 

[Sage Genesis]

Uh, you're the one bringing up the corner cases, and then giving the preposterous examples, and now claiming a solution for...the stuff you did to begin with.

I notice you only quote the silliest parts of my post and leave out the more serious stuff, like healing kits. It doesn't fill me with confidence about your commitment to an honest debate. And yes, when people claim to have a solution they usually bring up some problems first. That's how argumentation works. Just because some of my examples were on the silly side doesn't mean the overall point is invalid. You're a little too quick with dismissing the notion that proficiencies and skills can overlap to a confusing degree.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

It isn't +11, it will be +16 from the character having a 20 in an ability score which isn't reasonable. You should be better at higher level, but not unstoppable. Unless a character is skilled in Perception and has a 20 Wisdom, the chances for him to detect a level 20 character with Expertise in Stealth is very low.

It is still reasonable... sorry...

if you invest nothing, you get nothing... characters which specialize on a single thing should do that reasonably well. What good would a rogue be, if a level 1 person with l 8 wisdom has a 25% chance to detect him?

 

[Mistwell]

And, in packets they covered it. The last packet had Culture Lore (Dragons), Culture Lore (Gnolls) under the Ranger class. I included Culture Lore (specific) in my previous post as a skill that I wanted so cultures could be campaign specific. I just don't want to see Demon Lore, Devil Lore, Dragon Lore, Fey Lore, Undead Lore, etc thrown in under other skills as was done in 3e and 4e.
As for Seamanship? If it doesn't fit a campaign, ignore it.

hopefully.




Sidebar: Access to Skills (3.0 PHB p.60) "However, the DM is in charge of the campaign world including decision about where one can learn certain skills and where they can't. While living in a desert, for example, the DM can decide the Jozan has no way of learning to be a sailor. Its up to the DM to say whether a character can learn a given skill in a given setting"

In addition the 3.0 DMG has a variant for requiring characters to train in both classes and skills

So, yes, 3e does handle it better, *if* the DM is willing to enforce certain things.


No, I am not asking for a multi-class system just for skills. As for granularity, maybe it was too much for *some* people. Not for myself, some of my friends, and for many others.

Bottom line, overwhelmingly people's responses to the surveys have indicated to WOTC that people want a more streamlined game, a game where there is not a rule for every situation but where the DM has more leeway to adjust things for their particular game.

Your goal of a graduated skill system for new skills, combined with a lot more skills, is in conflict with that goal.

 

[Mistwell]

I notice you only quote the silliest parts of my post and leave out the more serious stuff, like healing kits. It doesn't fill me with confidence about your commitment to an honest debate.

You know it's honest because I made it clear what parts I was responding to. If I didn't quote it, I wasn't responding to it. I was not making some generalized bash on you as a person, I was making a case against the specific arguments I quoted. How is that, in any way, dishonest?

And yes, when people claim to have a solution they usually bring up some problems first. That's how argumentation works. Just because some of my examples were on the silly side doesn't mean the overall point is invalid.

The overall point I was making was that the entire thing gets silly if you take it in that direction. A point you drove home by going in that direction. Because you also had more reasonable ones listed there, that doesn't really make your point. What line do you draw? I drew the line roughly where the game is currently drawing it - between what we all think of as tools vs skills. You seem to want to take tools to mean any physical object, and we both agree that is silly. So what's the point?

You're a little too quick with dismissing the notion that proficiencies and skills can overlap to a confusing degree.

Because they only got actually confusing at the silly end of the spectrum.