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

[Remathilis]

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

Why not resolve weapon attacks the same way?

 

[Remathilis]

Really, what it comes down to is that your class/race/background gives you a bunch of proficiencies. If you are proficient in something, you get a scaling bonus (+2-+6) to that check. If you're not, you just use your raw talent (attribute modifier).

You can become proficient in weapons (which grant a bonus to attack rolls), tools (healer kits, thief tools) and skills (stealth, athletics, perception).

Hmmm... proficiency in weapons and non-weapons granting bonuses to attribute checks...

Where have I seen that before?

 

[TwoSix]

You can become proficient in weapons (which grant a bonus to attack rolls), tools (healer kits, thief tools) and skills (stealth, athletics, perception).

Hmmm... proficiency in weapons and non-weapons granting bonuses to attribute checks...

Melee (Str)
Ranged (Dex)

Some characters, most notably fighters, can become experts in these skills.

 

[am181d]

The problem is that static modifiers on a d20 are not a good way to model proficiency. You either have small modifiers and a largely random result or you have larger modifiers and a largely pre-determined result.

Rolls that rely on more dice are better, because there's less swing. Make everybody roll 3d6 instead of a d20 and suddenly the smaller modifiers are much more meaningful.

 

[Klaus]

Hmmm... proficiency in weapons and non-weapons granting bonuses to attribute checks...

Proficiency in weapons giving bonuses to attribute checks? 4e.

Nonweapon Proficiency in 2e had many varying subsystems, but none was just a bonus to attribute checks.

 

[Li Shenron]

(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).

...

--> 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.

...

--> 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.

I also like the proficiency idea, or actually I am intrigued by it, I want to see where it leads, then when I see it in play I'll decide if I like it

But... you raise good points about skills we don't "need", however the whole point about skills is you need NONE of them in the game. You don't need to have skills in your game. Then, if you want to have specialized PCs you need a skills system. Once you have it, the list of skills can be short or long, once again it depends if you want broad specializations or narrow specializations. My preference is for the latter, which is why I liked 3.0 skills. But I think I can manage with broader ones, and eventually if it's not enough I'll split them down as a house rule.

On the specific cases of Search and Dungeoneering, I agree with you. Unless they expand Search to "Investigation" (which would include also noticing important details, finding clues/proofs, basically some kind of detective specialty), this skill is always going to be narrow and overlapping with Perception, so why not just rolling it into Perception? The real reason for keeping them separate is only that Perception is Wisdom-based for reason of simulation/realism, while Search must remain Int-based to allow Rogues to be good at it without having to raise up another stat. Dungeoneering is a bit wrong IMHO because for a lot of people D&D largely takes place in dungeons, so it sounds like the ultimate skill for being good at everything useful down there...

OTOH I disagree about Forbidden Lore. First of all, if it's "forbidden", then how come everyone can pick it up? It sounds like knowledge about very bad things, but then if it covers the planes and other not so bad things, it becomes a bit redundant with Arcana and Religion. I am not completely against having such hybrid skill, in fact I think it's totally OK to come up with hybrid and overlapping fields of lore (as long as the DM manages to keep them balance against each other), but I just think we don't really need them much in the PHB.

The problem is that static modifiers on a d20 are not a good way to model proficiency. You either have small modifiers and a largely random result or you have larger modifiers and a largely pre-determined result.

Rolls that rely on more dice are better, because there's less swing. Make everybody roll 3d6 instead of a d20 and suddenly the smaller modifiers are much more meaningful.

Yeah, unfortunately the d20 is great for attacks and ST, or everything else that has (mostly) a binary outcome, but skills are different because the result changes a lot what you can do. Between a roll of 1 and a roll of 20 might lie the difference between the same character swimming out of a whirlpool and drowning in the bathtub.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

@Ardaughter: 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.

First off I see this as more a problem of DM guidelines and not a thing to addressed by the task resolution system directly. I really do not see how traps are detected or resolved as having a bearing on this. It can be a problem in any system. If the party have no capacity in dealing with traps and the DM throws a lot traps at them ( a problematic adventure design in my opinion) then the the party will rapidly acquire the capacity to deal with traps.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Unless they expand Search to "Investigation" (which would include also noticing important details, finding clues/proofs, basically some kind of detective specialty), this skill is always going to be narrow and overlapping with Perception, so why not just rolling it into Perception?

In my current 4E game, I indeed have 'Investigation' and 'Observation' split up. And Investigation covers all the things like searching for secret doors, searching for traps, searching for clues, research in a library etc. etc. Any active perception is Investigation (usually using INT) and Observation is passive spot/listen (usually using WIS). It's been working well.

 

[jrowland]

Re: +5 for Experts

I think this is simply another way of saying "Reduce the difficulty for experts by one category". If Picking a Lock is DC15, eg, that's a "Hard" DC vs a DC10 "Average" DC. The +5 for experts bridges that gap. Things that are Hard for most people are Average for experts. That's not too big a jump and fits in that context. I am not so keen on the level-based proficiency adjustment (the +2 to +6) as I don't think the experience system accounts for skill improvement in a realistic way. I'd rather keep it static and only improve with explicit character choices (ie feats, built into some classes like rogue, etc) such that one "invests" in skills versus other things. But whatever, I can live with it.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

Re: +5 for Experts

I think this is simply another way of saying "Reduce the difficulty for experts by one category". If Picking a Lock is DC15, eg, that's a "Hard" DC vs a DC10 "Average" DC. The +5 for experts bridges that gap. Things that are Hard for most people are Average for experts. That's not too big a jump and fits in that context. I am not so keen on the level-based proficiency adjustment (the +2 to +6) as I don't think the experience system accounts for skill improvement in a realistic way. I'd rather keep it static and only improve with explicit character choices (ie feats, built into some classes like rogue, etc) such that one "invests" in skills versus other things. But whatever, I can live with it.

Yeah. I'm pretty sure that was the idea. It just feels odd and a bit out of place. Double your proficiency bonus has a sort of symmetry to it. It doesn't feel arbitrary.

Of course, the +2 to +6 feels a bit odd, but I see it as being a deliberate attempt to keep the skill die as an option, which I'm cool with. Plus, it's exactly double the range of magic weapons, which range from +1 to +3.