Legends & Lore: The Loyal Opposition

[howandwhy99]

This week's Mike Mearls article - found here

===

It sounds like they are moving some skills to the ability list. Think movement speed not needing a skill check. But each ability comes with a "training rank".
He uses STR as an example. It would have a Score, Modifier, & Rank. 4E's athletics, swim, and climb skills could be removed [presumably they could come back for more complex games]

Opposed checks are also mentioned.

Only one roll is made, this by the active player. The passive player/character uses their Rank to set the other's DC (or target number).

His examples include sneaking, listening, and spotting. And players actions can raise or lower the rank / DC as mentioned in last week's column.

My comments: This sounds like a skill system with leveling tied into each skill. Personally, I don't care for skill systems at all, but it will be interesting to learn how ranks are advanced and if they are tied to character levels or class levels.

 

[Sammael]

This week's L&L is anticlimactic, I think Mike didn't really have much time to spend on the column.

Anyways, I still strongly disagree with the idea that we can do away with all skills and just have "Strength training" and "Wisdom training." I honestly wouldn't want to play in a system that didn't have an additional level of granularity added. Even under 2e, I always used NWPs, and I really enjoyed the additional proficiency rules that came under Skills & Powers.

The rest is pretty much identical to the last week's column, so no additional comments there. Opposed checks are handled logically, but I think they are much more prone to player bickering than regular checks. "My character was really paying attention" is something that DMs using this system will likely hear. A lot.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

This week's Mike Mearls article - found here

It sounds like they are moving some skills to the ability list. Think movement speed not needing a skill check. But each ability comes with a "training rank".
He uses STR as an example. It would have a Score, Modifier, & Rank. 4E's athletics, swim, and climb skills could be removed [presumably they could come back for more complex games]

Opposed checks are also mentioned.

Only one roll is made, this by the active player. The passive player/character uses their Rank to set the other's DC (or target number).

His examples include sneaking, listening, and spotting. And players actions can raise or lower the rank / DC as mentioned in last week's column.

My comments: This sounds like a skill system with leveling tied into each skill. Personally, I don't care for skill systems at all, but it will be interesting to learn how ranks are advanced and if they are tied to character levels or class levels.

Oh! I like this one: Time I think for an Unearther Arcana for 4e

 

[Greg K]

Not a fan of what he is describing. Then again, the last thing that I liked of his was the Book of Iron Might.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

This week's L&L is anticlimactic, I think Mike didn't really have much time to spend on the column.

Anyways, I still strongly disagree with the idea that we can do away with all skills and just have "Strength training" and "Wisdom training." I honestly wouldn't want to play in a system that didn't have an additional level of granularity added. Even under 2e, I always used NWPs, and I really enjoyed the additional proficiency rules that came under Skills & Powers.

I do not see it that way. As described you have natural ability based on attribute. So everybody can climb (to some extend bar being crippled in some fashion) so everybody by default is a novice climber and can climb a tree but probably not a rockwall. That would require at least journeyman level.
By implication there are things that cannot be attempted without training. Blacksmithing for instance would require training before becomming even a novice. So depending on setting or even campaign the DM could decide what people can do by default and what required training before anything can be attempted. These are the kind of distinctions that I like. I also like the distinction between being able to attempt something at a rudiamentary level by virtue of natural talent and the ability to invest resources in becoming good at something.
The only caveat I would have is that somethings (perception, streetwise, perhaps nature and dungeoneering - to use 4e terms) should also improve as a direct result of experience.

The rest is pretty much identical to the last week's column, so no additional comments there. Opposed checks are handled logically, but I think they are much more prone to player bickering than regular checks. "My character was really paying attention" is something that DMs using this system will likely hear. A lot.

To be honest with you back in the day, "I was really paying attention" cut no ice with any DM I had. Unless you very clearly stated that one was paying attention and to what and before anything untward ocured would the DM give any leeway from the "I was paying attention line"

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Agree with ardoughter. I said in the commentary on the last one that under this systems skill levels were, "You must be this tall," mechanics. (You must have expert arcana to do certain arcana-ish things.) Nothing in this column changes my mind.

 

[Sammael]

I do not see it that way. As described you have natural ability based on attribute. So everybody can climb (to some extend bar being crippled in some fashion) so everybody by default is a novice climber and can climb a tree but probably not a rockwall. That would require at least journeyman level.

Sure, but it's journeyman level in "Strength Training."

By implication there are things that cannot be attempted without training. Blacksmithing for instance would require training before becomming even a novice. So depending on setting or even campaign the DM could decide what people can do by default and what required training before anything can be attempted. These are the kind of distinctions that I like. I also like the distinction between being able to attempt something at a rudiamentary level by virtue of natural talent and the ability to invest resources in becoming good at something.

Unfortunately, you cannot build a ruleset around the idea that every DM will have to decide these things for himself.

For instance, if the system has no skills by default, then adding skills would require the DM to rework every single creature statblock in the game. And let me tell you, that's a huge PITA (I know, I'm doing it for my own system revision).

The only caveat I would have is that somethings (perception, streetwise, perhaps nature and dungeoneering - to use 4e terms) should also improve as a direct result of experience.

This I agree with 100%.

To be honest with you back in the day, "I was really paying attention" cut no ice with any DM I had. Unless you very clearly stated that one was paying attention and to what and before anything untward ocured would the DM give any leeway from the "I was paying attention line"

Players today have an irritating sense of entitlement.

 

[Mark CMG]

Seems overly complicated for little in-game advantage, just slowing down the game. Things could be simplified and tied to Ability Scores with no real loss in gameplay fun. Perhaps having a number of skills that require training, or have an advantage when trained, then one mechanic that works across the board in a unified fashion for when someone wants to go beyond ability and bring real skilled training to bear on a situation. Simple and quick with little loss of roleplaying immersion.

 

[howandwhy99]

Coupla ideas...

1. What if PC actions to move the DC / Rank of the skill check was a limited resource? It wouldn't need to be absolute, though it could be, it may simply be time specific to the encounter.

For instance, sneaking up on a creature would require alterations made before the sneak attempt, but turns will continue to pass as these are made. OTOH, a searching PC could roll searches multiple times, but each attempt would cost another turn of time spent. The cost is weighed against the possibility of wandering monsters or some other threat.

This keeps players from bogging down the game with endless attempts to lower the DC for every check made.

2. Some abilities are NPC-only because some skills aren't PC class related. NPC classes have these skills and their rank would limit the amount of goods or services they could provide.

This brings back in NPC hirelings as important to players. Henchmen may even adventure with the PCs again. Need a good sword? Hire an NPC with ranks enough to forge one, but perhaps not the grandmaster swordsmith in the city so it won't cost too much. Perhaps the trade off is in time, durability, or salable value?

I understand recent game design is focused on PCs being able to become high level in everything conceivable, but I think this diffuses the focus of the game when my PC is all about being a grandmaster or 30th level beekeeper. Why adventure at all? Being a beekeeping would be the focus of the game for me. I think this idea keeps the game class and adventurer focused instead.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Sure, but it's journeyman level in "Strength Training."

Not necessarily; A high strength score could give you novice automatically in climb and athletics but you have to buy your novice in swim.

Unfortunately, you cannot build a ruleset around the idea that every DM will have to decide these things for himself.

I do not see "Nobody gets to swim untrained" a very onerous house rule.

For instance, if the system has no skills by default, then adding skills would require the DM to rework every single creature statblock in the game. And let me tell you, that's a huge PITA (I know, I'm doing it for my own system revision).

First off I must state that I am really not a fan of using the pc generation rules for creating npc's unless the PC rules are very simple. And I do not see the relevance for skill. If I as DM want an NPC to be able to swim up Niagara Falls then he bloody well can and that is pretty much that.

The PC may or may not be able to duplicate the feat. It might be that he is the son of Poseidon.

Players today have an irritating sense of entitlement.

Bah! they can take their sense of entitlement and shove it.....

OK, maybe I am not quite that old skool but outside of con/organised play the DM and players should know each other and if there is not that much trust then they have no business playing together.