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

[Mistwell]

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.

I didn't say you can't use both a tool and a skill in the same act. I said without the tool you cannot use the proficiency with that tool, but you can use the skill without the tool.

 

[Paraxis]

I don't like the whole proficiency thing, they should just be skills. If you don't have the proper tools then you get a penalty or just can't make the roll.

Also not a fan of expertise unless everyone gets it.

 

[Mistwell]

Lores stuff

First, the list of skill you want is way too campaign-specific to be listed in the PHB, because the ramifications are a long long long list of skills, and the whole point here is to create a more streamlined game with plenty of room for the DM to tweak stuff for their specific campaigns. So no, you're not going to get seamanship, culture lore (specific), dragon lore, fey lore, forbidden lore, profession lore, and undead lore as all individual skills. Because that implies a huge list you didn't just list, and it's all campaign-specific. You mention Supernatural, which I agree is a fine show. But, now you need a similarly huge long list for a Grimm-themed game: Reaper Lore, Blutbaden Lote, Eisbiber Lore, Fuchsbau Lore, Zauberbiest Lore, Balam Lore, Bauerschwein Lore, Coyotl Lore, etc.. And then you need a list for Harry Potter type games, and Dresden Files games, and well you get the picture. It's all too campaign-specific.

Which is why we need broad categories to fit things in, and then if you want to drill down and be more specific to tailor the lores to your campaign, there should be good guidelines on how to do that in the DMG.

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.

3e didn't really handle it better either. You could take a single level in rogue, dump all those new skill points into one skill including trained-only skills, add that ability modifier that's been increasing every 4 levels, and bam you're an expert in something you couldn't even attempt the day before.

Any system will be a compromise, because gaining levels just doesn't mesh well with skill-systems where skills are always learned gradually. You're asking for sort of a multi-class system for just skills, and that's already a near-nightmare just for the classes themselves, much less for a sub-system of skills (where they already tried to eliminate that sub-system once because just the level of granularity from a single system was too much).

 

[the Jester]

Who said anything about multiple bonuses

Have proficiency bonus dictate your AC if you're in armor, while the armor itself will grant additional benefits, but not AC bonus.

The idea of being AC 10 while in magical plate mail strains my credulity way too much for that to work for me.

 

[Sage Genesis]

I didn't say you can't use both a tool and a skill in the same act. I said without the tool you cannot use the proficiency with that tool, but you can use the skill without the tool.

That's not really true, though. If it's a Wisdom/Athletics check to ascertain the difficulty of scaling a wall, then it's also a Wisdom/Blacksmithing check to inspect the quality of an item. And you wouldn't need a forge and anvil for that.

Furthermore, there are some cases where the line gets really blurred. Since you can't climb without an object to climb upon, does that mean Climb (or Athletics) ought to be rephrased as a proficiency with vertical obstacles? Is swimming not just proficiency with water, since you can't swim without a liquid body? What about handling animals? Why is that a skill instead of an (item) proficiency? Is picking a pocket a skill? Or is it a proficiency? They call those people "cutpurse" for a reason, namely that they used to literally cut your purse from its string. So shouldn't that be proficiency with knives? Or do they both exist in the game and you'd use whichever method suits you, even though they do the exact same thing?

Wait, why is Medicine a skill? Next has used the healing kit as an item since day 1, current packet even says it requires proficiency. So is this a skill that requires an item and proficiency, and yet isn't itself an item proficiency? Or what?

This whole debate can get rather silly if you go beyond the first, obvious cases. This entire issue could be dispelled with trivial ease if they'd just say: "Some attempted activities may require tools, raw materials, or skill training to perform at the DM's discretion." And then maybe a couple of examples. Takes care of the entire issue without all these preposterous corner cases.

 

[Mistwell]

That's not really true, though. If it's a Wisdom/Athletics check to ascertain the difficulty of scaling a wall, then it's also a Wisdom/Blacksmithing check to inspect the quality of an item. And you wouldn't need a forge and anvil for that.

I don't think proficiencies will work that way. Why would "inspection" be related to proficiency in blacksmithing tools? Inspection is a search/spot type ability. You know how to use the tool for its normal uses, not how to inspect tools for quality.

For example, my company makes graduation gowns, but I don't sew. I know how to inspect fabric for quality of that fabric, but I have no idea how to sew that fabric together, or how to cut it, or how to fold it for a proper seam, etc..

Furthermore, there are some cases where the line gets really blurred. Since you can't climb without an object to climb upon, does that mean Climb (or Athletics) ought to be rephrased as a proficiency with vertical obstacles?

Do you really think this is an issue? You really expect proficiency with vertical obstacles, and proficiency with water? Come on now. When you know what we're talking about, and there is already plenty to discuss, why look for excuses to stretch the examples to the silly?

This whole debate can get rather silly if you go beyond the first, obvious cases.

Indeed.

This entire issue could be dispelled with trivial ease if they'd just say: "Some attempted activities may require tools, raw materials, or skill training to perform at the DM's discretion." And then maybe a couple of examples. Takes care of the entire issue without all these preposterous corner cases.

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.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

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.

That's a bit different than the skill point method that was being discussed.

How is that easier exactly? And why would you become more proficient based on each failure? And wouldn't more astute players observe that they could sit around spamming certain skills, like trying to jump an really long distance over and over to increase their Athletics to max in about 5 minutes? I would think any system that tries to emulate a reality of training would acknowledge that the training would take a considerable amount of time. More time than most campaigns I've been in have lasted in in-game time.

 

[1of3]

That's not what I meant. You declare that you want to train a certain skill. We assume that requires a feat or other opportunity. Normally you would receive your skill at full proficiency instantly. That has been criticised, although it is the typical effect of a level based system.

So, if you really don't want that: Please, gimp your own character. Do whatever is required by the rules to get that skill, then don't use it immediately. Start with +1. The condition the skill then increases by, is totally up to you. When you succeed, when you fail, when you go the toilet.

 

[Greg K]

First, the list of skill you want is way too campaign-specific to be listed in the PHB, because the ramifications are a long long long list of skills, and the whole point here is to create a more streamlined game with plenty of room for the DM to tweak stuff for their specific campaigns. So no, you're not going to get seamanship, culture lore (specific), dragon lore, fey lore, forbidden lore, profession lore, and undead lore as all individual skills. Because that implies a huge list you didn't just list, and it's all campaign-specific. You mention Supernatural, which I agree is a fine show. But, now you need a similarly huge long list for a Grimm-themed game: Reaper Lore, Blutbaden Lote, Eisbiber Lore, Fuchsbau Lore, Zauberbiest Lore, Balam Lore, Bauerschwein Lore, Coyotl Lore, etc.. And then you need a list for Harry Potter type games, and Dresden Files games, and well you get the picture. It's all too campaign-specific.

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.

Which is why we need broad categories to fit things in, and then if you want to drill down and be more specific to tailor the lores to your campaign, there should be good guidelines on how to do that in the DMG.

hopefully.

3e didn't really handle it better either. You could take a single level in rogue, dump all those new skill points into one skill including trained-only skills, add that ability modifier that's been increasing every 4 levels, and bam you're an expert in something you couldn't even attempt the day before.

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.

You're asking for sort of a multi-class system for just skills, and that's already a near-nightmare just for the classes themselves, much less for a sub-system of skills (where they already tried to eliminate that sub-system once because just the level of granularity from a single system was too much).

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.

 

[Szatany]

The idea of being AC 10 while in magical plate mail strains my credulity way too much for that to work for me.

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.

We know what AC is now - a chance to avoid being hit in a meaningful way.
But if AC was instead your skill to utilize armor you wear to better protect yourself? There is a difference. If you are heavily armored, not only are you harder to hit, but you can take some otherwise risky moves because you know you will be protected anyway. You can opt to ignore some possible attacks that would hit you in the plate anyway. Attacks you just coulnd't afford to ignore if you were unarmored. This would be nicely represented by proficiency bonus to AC while wearing armor. The armors themselves then could shift focus to various forms of damage reduction/resistance.
It's also nice dichotomy. Attacker's skill vs. defender's skill, and weapon's damage against armor's resistance.
Unfortunately I know this isn't going to happen, but I'm holding my breath for a module that works like that. Hell, when the game comes out, I'm gonna make it myself.