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

[Jeff Carlsen]

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.

I agree that we don't need athletics. I'd like to get rid of perception, but the interaction between perception and stealth kind of mandates it. I don't think search needs to be a skill at all unless it is expanded to include information gathering, appraisal, and research.

I'm okay with having a performance skill, though I can see it being an equipment proficiency, if you're willing accept that oration, singing, and dance are in the same category.

As for the lore skills, the more time passes, the more I want the broad list of lore back. Lore should be something that characters can obtain a lot of over time.

 

[Salamandyr]

Wow. I can't prove it (I didn't write a prediction down anywhere), but that's pretty much exactly what I expected them to wind up doing, and pretty close to exactly what I wanted.

So, I guess...Yay?

 

[Remathilis]

(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.

Swimming (along with climbing and perhaps jumping) will be part of athletics. I don't see a "tool" being needed for swimming, unless you mean snorkel and fins.

(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).

Actually, a decent mix. Keeping in mind tools will cover skills like Craft, Disable Device, Musical Instrument, and Riding.

--> there is no need for Athletics: a straightforward STR roll should be fine. (GX.Sigma suggests as much just above)

It IS! Its a Strength check, and if you have trained to be an athlete, you get a bonus to it. How cool is that?

--> 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.

Actually, I LIKE the idea some races and people are far more perceptive than others. Training in Perception is good to simulate guards, detectives, and watchmen.

--> 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).

Tuba yes, but what about bards who want to sing, dance, tell jokes, recite poetry, or act dramatically? There is more to performance than musical instruments.

--> 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.

That makes wizards, not rogues, the best trapfinders. No me gusta. And don't link it to perception either; that skill is already powerful enough (in 4e and Pathfinder) without making it the search for traps/clues/secret doors roll too.

--> A lot is being rolled into history: heraldry, court-etiquette, military strategy. This will get rolled a lot, I expect.

Possible. I wouldn't mind a generic "Lore" skill that Players can define as they want. I have Lore in Nobility or Tactics, for example.

--> 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.

Well, Arcana is doing some heavy lifting now, but I can see this.

--> The absence of a dungeoneering skill is also a significant design choice.

Odd choice. Perhaps forgotten?

--> 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.

I'm shocked there isn't a Streetwise skill (combining local lore and gather info) like there was in 4e. Still time though, right?

 

[Kobold Stew]

I'd like to get rid of perception, but the interaction between perception and stealth kind of mandates it.

That's an argument to get rid of stealth, not to add perception.

Swimming (along with climbing and perhaps jumping) will be part of athletics. I don't see a "tool" being needed for swimming, unless you mean snorkel and fins.

No. Swimming is something one needs to learn, and if you don't know how, you can't discover by trying or by being strong or dextrous. It is exactly what makes the on/off proficiency currently being modelled by tools exactly right.

Actually, I LIKE the idea some races and people are far more perceptive than others. Training in Perception is good to simulate guards, detectives, and watchmen.

Except that it's not some people, and the bonus given to all races (in the testpacks we've seen so far, and in some previous editions) mean that the best a human can do is reach the typical standard of every single elf ever. It's a bad imbalance especially for something invoked as often as it is.

Tuba yes, but what about bards who want to sing, dance, tell jokes, recite poetry, or act dramatically? There is more to performance than musical instruments.

That is, indeed, my point. And so you gain proficiency in the specific technique of entertainment (an instrument, or joke-telling), but you don't have the same skill roll in all of them, and you don't have a cascade skill. Backgrounds and tool proficiency accomplish what needs to be there by themselves. A third mechanism is both distracting and extraneous.

Odd choice. Perhaps forgotten?

Perhaps.

Thanks for the feedback!

 

[Salamandyr]

I wouldn't get too invested in the idea that swimming is going to be a proficiency. I think it's going to be a lot like literacy. The default is you know how.

 

[Salamandyr]

Pet peeve since 2008: What strength checks aren't "athletics" checks?

Here's why you need an athletics skill; otherwise, you have the same DC meaning different levels of difficulty depending on whether it's a "skill" check, or an "attribute" check. Without an athletics skill, a DM has to remember that a DC 15 door opening check is a lot harder than a DC 15 stealth check.

 

[GX.Sigma]

Here's why you need an athletics skill; otherwise, you have the same DC meaning different levels of difficulty depending on whether it's a "skill" check, or an "attribute" check. Without an athletics skill, a DM has to remember that a DC 15 door opening check is a lot harder than a DC 15 stealth check.

But why don't you just say you can take proficiency in Strength (removing the need for a skill)? Or, if you do need every task to be a skill, why isn't there an Endurance skill?

 

[Salamandyr]

But why don't you just say you can take proficiency in Strength (removing the need for a skill)? Or, if you do need every task to be a skill, why isn't there an Endurance skill?

If they chose to go with a "proficiency" system that gave a bonus with strength checks in much the same manner as an athletics check, that would be fine with me. You could have a "strength" proficiency and a "dexterity" proficiency and they would do the same thing having skills do...make the math work out right. It's okay with me.

And yes, you're right. There ought to be an endurance skill-for the same reason there's an athletics skill.

 

[TwoSix]

Here's why you need an athletics skill; otherwise, you have the same DC meaning different levels of difficulty depending on whether it's a "skill" check, or an "attribute" check. Without an athletics skill, a DM has to remember that a DC 15 door opening check is a lot harder than a DC 15 stealth check.

Which is one reason I'd rather have a skill give advantage to the attribute check, rather than add to it.

 

[Salamandyr]

Which is one reason I'd rather have a skill give advantage to the attribute check, rather than add to it.

What I actively wanted was for noncombat task resolution to use a different resolution method than "d20+modifiers", but that wasn't going to happen. So I think having a "skill bonus" or "proficiency bonus" or whatevery you want to call it, analogous to the base attack bonus is perfectly fine with me.

It also tracks closer with what has gone before, and with other parts of the game. So there's that advantage too.

Keep Advantage for situational bonuses.