Monte Cook's first Legends and Lore is up

[Nemesis Destiny]

Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (Very Perceptive)

Monte Cook takes over from Mike Mearls in this column. He basically introduces himself, then talks again about the skill resolution system he came up with and gave to Mearls to share, this time focusing on Perception and how it can be used to reward smart play.

 

[Dice4Hire]

Nice Post.

Actually this is something I would like to see in the future. With 4E not having ranks, I think we are moving away from the d20 roll for skills, and I support that. It would save a lot of trouble.

I just dislike the d20 sometimes, as it is such a huge range. +4 str and +0 strength is just not a huge amount of difference when rolling a d20

And it should be.

I would not mind some random rolling, like +2, +1 +0 -1 rank to keep it simple

 

[Incenjucar]

I'm kind of worried about the following statement: "That's the straightforward, active perception issue, but what about what I like to call "passive perception?"

I know that a lot of players don't actually read the rules or study their character sheets since the CB does the work for them, but designers...

 

[Mengu]

I like the rank ideas that have come up a couple times now.

Currently, I don't think the system sufficiently rewards training. For instance, if your dragonborn warlord wants to be the commando type, and trains in stealth, while this gives him a +5, a +5 on top of nothing, still feels like nothing. The untrained gnome might still beat your stealth after your armor penalties.

This creates the current stale approach of training only the skills that line up with your stats, draining most color from characters. Even some things I'd consider in line with a character's training don't work. Why does the trained rogue have to suck at dungeoneering, while the untrained druid rocks it out? Why does a cleric have to depend on luck for a good religion check while the swordmage excels at it?

If ranks in a skill start to mean something, I'd be all for that.

 

[Grydan]

Like I said in the other thread, nothing in this column really looks like anything other than the existing system.

Sure, he refers to ranks instead of your Perception skill modifier, but that's just hiding the math, not changing the system.

- Passive perception already exists, and already is called that.
- The system is already set up that you don't need to roll if your passive perception is high enough.
- It's also already set up that if it's impossible for the best possible roll to pass the check that the DM doesn't bother to have you roll and just says "you don't find anything".

[MENTION=65726]Mengu[/MENTION] : Don't underestimate the impact of being trained in a skill, even in one tied to a low stat. It's the equivalent of having an ability score that's 10 higher, after all. Sure, the untrained gnome in light armour might still beat your stealth, but he's a gnome, he's supposed to be hard to spot. It's his race's main shtick. Invest one more feat to focus on your stealth, and the armour check is countered by a +3 bonus. Another feat (or two, if using a shield, which doesn't strike me as very commando) on top of that and you can remove the penalty itself. Is that a lot of resources? Sure, but doesn't it make sense that it takes a lot of effort and training for a 6'5" dragon-man in heavy armour to be sneaky?

 

[darkwing]

For pure exploration (finding interesting clues and secret passages), dice rolls just get in the way. If the dm made it, the players, if they have picked up on any clues whatsoever, should find it.

For traps, sure, go with dice rolls. In the case of traps, the players will find it one way or another

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Nice Post.

Actually this is something I would like to see in the future. With 4E not having ranks, I think we are moving away from the d20 roll for skills, and I support that. It would save a lot of trouble.

I just dislike the d20 sometimes, as it is such a huge range. +4 str and +0 strength is just not a huge amount of difference when rolling a d20

And it should be.

I would not mind some random rolling, like +2, +1 +0 -1 rank to keep it simple

Actually when you look at 3.5 rules it is a simple look at appropriate tables why the +4 bonus of strength matters:

Strength check to break open

Simple wooden door 13

Small chest 17

Good wooden door 18

Treasure chest 23

Strong wooden door 23


A character with 16 strength can smash down a simple wooden door by taking 10. A character with less strength can´t... but can make it open in some more tries...

A character with 16 strength can smash down a strong wooden door by taking 20 and a character with less strength than that has no chance at all.

So with a list that assumes taking 10 and taking 20 almost al the time, a +1 bonus from an attribute and maybe good circumstances (giving a +2 bonus) may be all that matters...
you could easily read it as a rank system: if you can make a 10 with take 10, you are a novice, if you can make a 15, you are an adept, with 20 you are an expert...

Looking at 3.x with that in mind makes this skill system better than any skill system thereafter...
what broke the skill system down however is the possibility of using all your skillpoints to maximize a few skills. And actually some skills needed to be maxed because the system assumed it (bards and perform, wizards and arcana), usually making some classes skillpoint starved... and making the starting attributes not matter a lot from level 5 on or so...

So a rank system, which makes the bonus from skill training and having a good attribute independent, and makes good roleplaying always matter (the little +2 bonus often didn´t suffice to let you take ten instead of take 20) should be an improvement...
a small improvement over the 3.0 System, but a big improvement over the 4e system, which actually embraces the wrong assumption about how to use the 3.0 system...
(They saw how the system was played, and made that playstyle easier instead of remembering how the system was thought to be used... actually it also took me 5 years to realize...)
So having monte cook back, to explain them what his intentions were when designing the 3.0 system is a great thing for them.

 

[Samurai]

I'm kind of worried about the following statement: "That's the straightforward, active perception issue, but what about what I like to call "passive perception?"

I know that a lot of players don't actually read the rules or study their character sheets since the CB does the work for them, but designers...

Well, remember that Cook has not been a 4e designer until now, he may not know 4e all that well yet. Most of the people I play Pathfinder with have not read 4e and probably don't know about Passive Perception and Insight.

 

[Nyronus]

Well, remember that Cook has not been a 4e designer until now, he may not know 4e all that well yet. Most of the people I play Pathfinder with have not read 4e and probably don't know about Passive Perception and Insight.

Yeah, but your Pathfinder buddies aren't being paid to help design new content or be the voice of R&D.

... I'll assume the passive perception thing for now was him referencing the existing mechanic and not him being stupid, and, like, I said, give him a fair shake, but when your first act to present yourself, is to tell me the best way to make the game I love now better is to chain it to a past I am not nearly as fond of, you don't exactly inspire confidence. At least from one loyal customer.

Just saying.

 

[wedgeski]

Oh dear... did no-one proof the article before it went online?

"Uh, Monte? Hi! Yeah, we already did that in 4E."