Li Shenron
Legend
It's not that off... A "Medicine" skill sounds more like a field of science. Clerics already have healing spells so they don't necessarily even have to bother studying medicine, they just activate their powerz and heal the wounded.
D&D 5E L&L Sept 16th . The Latest on Skills
- Thread starter Gundark
- Start date
It's not that off... A "Medicine" skill sounds more like a field of science. Clerics already have healing spells so they don't necessarily even have to bother studying medicine, they just activate their powerz and heal the wounded.
ExploderWizard
Hero
I like that skills are optional. The Expert thing is puzzling though. Creating that large a gap between expert/ non-expert is simply another expression of the haves and have-nots with regard to skill use. First, a claim is made that they want to keep bonuses and DCs strictly in check then go right ahead and create this designation that will put those with the expert skills into their old familliar position of being the only one attempting them.
If a certain class is supposed to be awesome at something then just make it a class feature. Thats why there are classes after all. This expert nonsense is just a re-worked way of giving some classes more skill points than others. It will result in the same thing in actual play-only the experts will be able to do very much OR tasks will be so easy that experts are nearly automatically successful.
If a certain class is supposed to be awesome at something then just make it a class feature. Thats why there are classes after all. This expert nonsense is just a re-worked way of giving some classes more skill points than others. It will result in the same thing in actual play-only the experts will be able to do very much OR tasks will be so easy that experts are nearly automatically successful.
What is wrong with it being easy for experts, is that not why they are experts?
Jeff Carlsen
Adventurer
Overall, I like the gist of this system, but with two caveats. First, I preferred the system when this was originally described, where expertise granted you double your proficiency bonus instead of a flat +5.
Also, while I didn't like the flat +10 from fields of lore, I otherwise really, really liked that mechanic. I'm cool with the lore skills being subsumed into the skill system, but I don't want to lose the granularity of lore skills (or the name, for that matter. Lore really feels like a D&Dism).
Perhaps fields of lore should work exactly like skills (with some background granting expertise), but still be a separate silo.
Also, while I didn't like the flat +10 from fields of lore, I otherwise really, really liked that mechanic. I'm cool with the lore skills being subsumed into the skill system, but I don't want to lose the granularity of lore skills (or the name, for that matter. Lore really feels like a D&Dism).
Perhaps fields of lore should work exactly like skills (with some background granting expertise), but still be a separate silo.
GX.Sigma
Adventurer
Boo. I really hoped I could play 5e without skills, feats, and all that extra nonsense. I guess we won't have that, since he used the phrase "here's where we ended up." That alternate system he was talking about (where you could say you're a sailor, and get your skill bonus on any check that makes sense for a sailor to be good at) sounds better for the basic game than a big ol' list of skills.
I suppose it still won't be too difficult to have a character on an index card: you just write down your proficiency bonus and list the skills you're proficient in (shouldn't be too many).
Pet peeve since 2008: What strength checks aren't "athletics" checks?
Pet peeve since 2000: How come some skills are verbs (sense motive) and some are nouns (nature)?
Edit: This sentence is interesting:
I suppose it still won't be too difficult to have a character on an index card: you just write down your proficiency bonus and list the skills you're proficient in (shouldn't be too many).
Pet peeve since 2008: What strength checks aren't "athletics" checks?
Pet peeve since 2000: How come some skills are verbs (sense motive) and some are nouns (nature)?
Edit: This sentence is interesting:
He doesn't mention saving throws. I thought saving throws were the whole reason for this level-based bonus. Maybe they're going for something like the target-based saving throw system Mike mentioned on Twitter a while ago?
Last edited:
zoroaster100
First Post
[MENTION=55604]Ard[/MENTION]aughter: Because every party is likely to have an expert, so if it is easy for experts to overcome challenges like traps, spotting something invisible, etc. then it is easy for the typical party to overcome these and it makes the available challenges a lot less varied and the game more boring. What is the point of a fantasy game where there is the possibility of facing an invisible enemy, or a strange acid spewing trap in a dungeon, if almost every party will include someone who can bypass the obstacle without a second thought? But if you make the DCs hard enough to make these things challenging for an expert, and the expert bonus is too high, then a party without a rogue, etc. is crippled against those challenges and the DM can't use the challenges against the party either without crushing the party without a reasonable chance of success.
Actually for the strongest man in the world no strength would not be an athletics check, it'd be a Perception check, sounds strange I know, but its true.
Anyways Mike has abunch of tweets out on skill checks and stuff.
One interesting thing, some stuff like Binders maybe prestiage classes depending on how multiclassing goes so that multiple classes can take it. Also unique genres and settings can gain there own skills, like in D&D modern.
Bunch of other cool interesting stuff as well.
I'm guessing that prestiage classes will be special subclasses that aren't tied to class.
Oh and the packet will be out later this week. No specific day has been mentioned sadly. I hope its tomorrow, but wedsnday or thursday is more likely.
Gundark
Explorer
Wait, any minute?!? You mean any day right?
There's a lot that is answered here, and some good possibilities for robust mechanisms.
(1) Tool Proficiencies are great for those skills that should just be on/off. Riding horses and climbing fell here in the last test pack, and I'm fine with that. The absence of swimming from the list suggests (rightly) that it too might become a tool proficiency. I'd like that a lot. At the point that it becomes interesting to roll, being untrained really does mean failure.
(2) A short skill list with 1 STR skill, 3 DEX skills, 3 CHA skills, 6 INT skills, and 4 WIS skills (with the acknowledgement that there are situations where a roll makes sense not using the primary ability).
Indeed, I'd pare it back further:
--> there is no need for Athletics: a straightforward STR roll should be fine. (GX.Sigma suggests as much just above)
--> there is no need for Perception: a straightforward WIS roll should be fine. This will also fix the problem of giving elves enhanced senses, which means that other characters can never catch up. It's so unhelpful, and it's not like elves are hurting for abilities anyways. Further, it is a skill that is rolled constantly (unlike the others), which makes it a skill that players need to invest in if they can, effectively reducing overall choice. best not to have it.
--> there is no need for Performance: that's not actually true, but the ability to perform and entertain is already being covered in backgrounds and (potentially) in tool proficiency. Adding a third mechanism for how well you play the tuba seems unhelpful. And it should be the skill (which scales with level) that goes, since it is the one that scales with level. The game is never going to model child prodigies or whatever well, but we know that measuring it as an on/off available at first level, or as a background trait to tie you to the surrounding society is more representative than this sort of skill system. The redundancy needs to be addressed, and this feels the best way (based only on the generalities in the article, of course).
--> is there a need for search? A basic INT roll should suffice on its own, I'd have thought, when working at this level of granularity.
(3) Some thoughts on Knowledge skills (History, Arcana, Religion, and Nature).
--> A lot is being rolled into history: heraldry, court-etiquette, military strategy. This will get rolled a lot, I expect.
--> I think there should be a skill for "forbidden lore" -- something about the other planes etc. requiring a separate set of knowledge than Arcana or Religion.
--> The absence of a dungeoneering skill is also a significant design choice.
--> there should be a means of knowing things about certain cultures/races. The last testpack had that in Ranger abilities (dragons, or goblinoids, or whatever). But it should be possible (and again, tool proficiency's on/off mechanism might be appropriate.
(1) Tool Proficiencies are great for those skills that should just be on/off. Riding horses and climbing fell here in the last test pack, and I'm fine with that. The absence of swimming from the list suggests (rightly) that it too might become a tool proficiency. I'd like that a lot. At the point that it becomes interesting to roll, being untrained really does mean failure.
(2) A short skill list with 1 STR skill, 3 DEX skills, 3 CHA skills, 6 INT skills, and 4 WIS skills (with the acknowledgement that there are situations where a roll makes sense not using the primary ability).
Indeed, I'd pare it back further:
--> there is no need for Athletics: a straightforward STR roll should be fine. (GX.Sigma suggests as much just above)
--> there is no need for Perception: a straightforward WIS roll should be fine. This will also fix the problem of giving elves enhanced senses, which means that other characters can never catch up. It's so unhelpful, and it's not like elves are hurting for abilities anyways. Further, it is a skill that is rolled constantly (unlike the others), which makes it a skill that players need to invest in if they can, effectively reducing overall choice. best not to have it.
--> there is no need for Performance: that's not actually true, but the ability to perform and entertain is already being covered in backgrounds and (potentially) in tool proficiency. Adding a third mechanism for how well you play the tuba seems unhelpful. And it should be the skill (which scales with level) that goes, since it is the one that scales with level. The game is never going to model child prodigies or whatever well, but we know that measuring it as an on/off available at first level, or as a background trait to tie you to the surrounding society is more representative than this sort of skill system. The redundancy needs to be addressed, and this feels the best way (based only on the generalities in the article, of course).
--> is there a need for search? A basic INT roll should suffice on its own, I'd have thought, when working at this level of granularity.
(3) Some thoughts on Knowledge skills (History, Arcana, Religion, and Nature).
--> A lot is being rolled into history: heraldry, court-etiquette, military strategy. This will get rolled a lot, I expect.
--> I think there should be a skill for "forbidden lore" -- something about the other planes etc. requiring a separate set of knowledge than Arcana or Religion.
--> The absence of a dungeoneering skill is also a significant design choice.
--> there should be a means of knowing things about certain cultures/races. The last testpack had that in Ranger abilities (dragons, or goblinoids, or whatever). But it should be possible (and again, tool proficiency's on/off mechanism might be appropriate.
