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

[Mistwell]

This part puzzles me. So if you have a skill, you get your proficiency bonus to those checks. If you have proficiency in something, like blacksmith tools, you likewise get your proficiency bonus to those checks. So... why have proficiency as something that's different than a skill? What is the functional difference between being trained in blacksmithing as a skill and being proficient with blacksmith tools? In either case, you're getting a +2 to +6 with checks related to that craft. Am I missing something, or is there really no difference? It seems to me like they just don't want certain things to be skills for some reason, like crafting and opening locks. But why?

[Edit: Whoops, ninja'ed by Balesir] Because without the tool (the sword, the thieves tools, the blacksmith tools, etc..) you cannot use the proficiency. But, you can always use the skills as long as you have your body/brain.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

"Gerund, somebody is on the phone for you!"

Snark with a valid point. I approve.

We should favor natural language, and trust that we can understand it if used correctly.

Thus, when I call for a Charisma check to persuade, it means you get the bonus from being proficient in persuasion. Where possible, this is better than writing Charisma(persuasion).

This works well for most skills:

• Wisdom check to handle an animal (Animal Handling)
• Charisma check to deceive (Deception)
• Charisma check to intimidate (Intimidation)
• Wisdom check to perceive (Perception)
• Charisma check to perform (Performance)
• Charisma check to persuade (Persuasion)
• Intelligence check to search (Searching)
• Charisma check to sense motive (Sensing Motive)

But not so well for others:

• Acrobatics
• Athletics
• Sleight of Hand
• Stealth

And with strange results for a couple:

• Intelligence check to medicate (Medicine)
• Wisdom check to survive (Survival)

It's interesting to note that the skills that are problematic are all the consolidated skills. The question then becomes, if I say Strength check to swim, is it obvious that Athletics applies?

 

[Falling Icicle]

[Edit: Whoops, ninja'ed by Balesir] Because without the tool (the sword, the thieves tools, the blacksmith tools, etc..) you cannot use the proficiency. But, you can always use the skills as long as you have your body/brain.

So they're separating skills that use tools from those that don't. Except, they're not. You can use a rope to help your athletics check to climb. You can use a musical instrument with perform. A library (arguably a "tool") can aid in history or other knowledge checks. I can also think of situations when a character might make a blacksmithing check without a tool. Maybe he's appraising someone else's work, for example.

 

[1of3]

I think the distinction is useful, though maybe not necessary. If you have an appropriate tool for a Skill, you get bonus. If a lack the tool of a Tool Proficiency, you get a penalty.

 

[Greg K]

Those are pretty specific, and I think they will be covered by broader tool proficiencies and backgrounds But maybe not, too early to tell.

They may be specific, but they cover a lot. They also make sense in a campaign (e.g. mine and those of DMs that I know) in which
1) World exploration is a big part and there are several nations and cultures. Characters may start from one of the various cultures (so not everyone is from the same culture), but they learn about other cultures as they explore and spend time in them. Having the skill Culture Lore which is just 3e knowledge: Local and Next's Societal Lore from one of the packages renamed, but applied to a particular race or culture (as per the last packet's Ranger subclasses). It covers knowledge of laws, mores, traditions, folklore, etc.; and

2)As for the individual Monster Skills by type, lets look at the TV Show Supernatural
a) In Supernatural, common knowledge about vampires (Culture Lore) is bogus (Culture Lore vs. Undead Lore).

b) Despite being experienced hunters with knowledge on common monsters- mostly undead (Undead Lore), demons (Demon Lore) and shapechangers/Lycanthropes, Sam and Dean often turned to Bobby for help in the field. Usually, Bobby knew what they are fighting and how to kill it just from the description. Other times, he has to turn to books and research

3) Hunters gain new lore types over time. Hunters know that demons, ghosts and werewolves are real. Vampires were thought killed off, but later found to still exist.
Angels, are believed to be myth until they encounter Castiel. The hunters learn Angels are real and more about Angels and what is going on as they deal with them. Religion or a Culture lore might have some of the basics covered (names of angels, the Apocalypse, etc), but some of it is wrong. A lot of the knowledge is more specific to Celestials (Celestial Lore) as opposed to religion as a whole. A similar thing occurs with the Leviathan.
Fey Lore in one of the episodes (and Dragon Lore in another) which they didn't have while some non-hunters had some knowledge in the particular Lore.
4. Monster lore is not complete and develops over time by encounters with the creature. see Sam and Dean know Wights exist, can change appearance and are harmed by silver. They learn how the monster functions (by the end of the episode.

Well, the bonus is linked to level, but it does not increase every level, and is roughly comparable to an increasing die roll. It's possible you can still choose a new skill at those levels, it's unclear what options will be available as they're just trying to outline the basic default assumptions.

My issue is with a set bonus based on level. I don't want characters picking up a new skill and , automatically, getting a high bonus, because they are of higher level than someone taking it at another level (and, if characters are not able to pick up new skills, I will consider it a failure). I want them to start at the lowest bonus regardless of the level they learn the skill an then develop it through use or, in the case of specific monsters and cultures encountering them on travels/adventures.
This is why I prefer 3e skill points and gaining points each level. As a player, I can reflect this development by placing points based on adventures and development. As a DM, I can limit using points on specific skills and knowledge skills I can limit development in certain areas as campaign appropriate when necessary. When bonuses are set to a predetermined automatic progression, it interferes with modeling development in this way.

 

[Weather Report]

So, the max bonus to hit with a weapon will be +11 (+5 ability score, +6 proficiency), I wonder what the progression is for the +2 to +6.

1st level: +2; 5th level: +3; 10th level: + 4; 15th level: +5; 20th level: +6?

 

[jodyjohnson]

1st +2, 5th +3, 9th +4, 13th +5, 17th +6

Not hitting +6 until 20th just seems anti-climactic. Yea! +6 to hit, and by the way we're restarting next week.

If the feats are 4,8,12,16 the bump comes next level.

Edit:
The current Fighter progression is +2 to +6
1st +2, 3rd +3 8th +4, 13th +5, 18th +6

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

My issue is with a set bonus based on level. I don't want characters picking up a new skill and , automatically, getting a high bonus, because they are of higher level than someone taking it at another level (and, if characters are not able to pick up new skills, I will consider it a failure). I want them to start at the lowest bonus regardless of the level they learn the skill an then develop it through use or, in the case of specific monsters and cultures encountering them on travels/adventures.

This is why I prefer 3e skill points and gaining points each level. As a player, I can reflect this development by placing points based on adventures and development. As a DM, I can limit using points on specific skills and knowledge skills I can limit development in certain areas as campaign appropriate when necessary. When bonuses are set to a predetermined automatic progression, it interferes with modeling development in this way.

This is a valid point, but it also sheds light on a problem with mixing skills in a class based system.

When you choose a class, you aren't choosing what you know, but what your emphasis is. Skill points are declarations of what you know, and how much you know it. The one counteracts the advantages of the other.

The proficiency bonus mechanic is intended to work like classes. They represent the fields of study your character cares about, and are determined by your race, class, and background. When you create a character, you set his path in motion. You occasionally make choices to refine or divert that path, but only a handful to character choices are specific abilities (mostly spells and equipment).

As a default set of rules, I think its great, though it does provide the problem you pointed out, which is that there's no difference between a skill or weapon that a character just started learning, and one he's been studying for ten levels.

I'd be willing to rationalize that away as saying that greater experience helps you pick up skills faster, but I may also add a house rule that you only get half your proficiency bonus for at least a level.

Another fantastic feature of the proficiency bonus mechanic is that it is easily replaceable on a per character basis. One player could use skill points. Another could have a five rank system. It may even be possible to put a FATE style aspect system in its place.

And not just for skills. You could also create weapon skills to replace weapon proficiencies because everything uses the same mechanic to represent skill.

For these reasons, this is possibly the single best development in D&D Next. It's simple to understand, flexible, and amenable to modularity, all while building on D&D traditions.

Now, if only expertise was a multiplier instead of a flat bonus.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

My issue is with a set bonus based on level. I don't want characters picking up a new skill and , automatically, getting a high bonus, because they are of higher level than someone taking it at another level (and, if characters are not able to pick up new skills, I will consider it a failure). I want them to start at the lowest bonus regardless of the level they learn the skill an then develop it through use or, in the case of specific monsters and cultures encountering them on travels/adventures.
This is why I prefer 3e skill points and gaining points each level. As a player, I can reflect this development by placing points based on adventures and development. As a DM, I can limit using points on specific skills and knowledge skills I can limit development in certain areas as campaign appropriate when necessary. When bonuses are set to a predetermined automatic progression, it interferes with modeling development in this way.

Bonus points for referencing Supernatural!

An easy module to convert to 3E-style skill points is to just hand out the total skill proficiency bonuses as points. E.g. let's say a 1st-level PC gets 4 skills. Give the player 8 proficiency points to spread as they wish. Set the limit at +2 or allow for greater focus by upping the limit if you wish. When they hit a level that increases their proficiency bonus give them 4 more points to spend on new or exisiting skills.

 

[1of3]

Even easier would be to have new skills increase by use until they arrive at their full proficiency bonus. +1 for every failed roll or so.