My group and I don't want a "Sub-System" for dealing with out of combat scenarios.

[pemerton]

Isn't the base assumption for D&D out-of-combat just basic skill checks.

Maybe they will do what they did in 3e and have that big list of different doors and their stats.

This is what worries me a bit. I've got nothing against basic skill checks, and use them in my 4e game all the time, but they aren't conflict resolution. They're devices for quickly resolving minor questions within the fiction so we can get to the good stuff. For example, "There's a weird statue - it looks like blah blah blah." "Cool, my guys got +20 History and Arcana, do I recognise it" *roll*, *beats DC* 'Sure, its Omech the blah blah blah" - and then the real action of play is the players (and their PCs) thinking about who this Omech character might be and what Omech's importance is in the context of the evolving situation.

I think to make the three pillars contribute meaningfully to the balance of PC building and of play more generally, more than this is needed (assuming we're talking about balance at the mechanical level).

I have much more pressing issues - I don't want spells that have duration expressed in minutes, hours, seconds or rounds.

But I get the feeling I am more out of luck then you are.

Well I worry about those things too. And I think they're related - skill challenges are all about scene-based resolution, and nothing kills scene-based resolution like the treatment of ingame time that is implied by those sorts of spell durations (and corresponding stuff in healing, torches, movement rates, etc). This is one thing that 4e really got right (relative to my gaming purposes).

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Well I worry about those things too. And I think they're related - skill challenges are all about scene-based resolution, and nothing kills scene-based resolution like the treatment of ingame time that is implied by those sorts of spell durations (and corresponding stuff in healing, torches, movement rates, etc). This is one thing that 4e really got right (relative to my gaming purposes).

We should make a club or something.

 

[pemerton]

We should make a club or something.

"BADD" used to mean "Bothered about Dungeons & Dragons", didn't it? Then it became "Bothered about Disposable Dragons". We could repurpose it as "Bothered about Dicky Durations".

Catchy?

 

[delericho]

My group and I discussed that fact that we did not like "Skill Challenges" at all because we felt that a "sub-system" for out of combat situations was unnecessary.

As I said over on the other thread, I really like the concept of Skill Challenges, but feel that the rules as presented have some fundamental flaws. What I would like to see for 5e would be for WotC to present a big toolkit for building custom non-combat challenges, complete with advice on how best to use each of the tools.

I want D&D Next to present the rules without any mini-games going on and let us decide how we will use the abilities that we are given. I don't like the three successes vs three failures rule, nor has anyone in my group.

Philosophical question: is "I don't like it" enough reason to drop something from the rules, especially a rules subsystem like Skill Challenges that can be trivially ignored by those who don't want it?

(And, honestly, I don't accept that size is an issue. If we're still looking at the 3-book model, that's nearly 1,000 pages they have to fill. The Skill Challenge rules took up maybe 15 pages, even with the bloated font size and excessive white-space of 4e. Given 5e's much-simplified core, there should easily be room for a complex "Skills Module" of that sort of size.)

(Of course, if they went for my preferred 250ish-page single Core Rulebook, then I'd agree that such a "Skills Module" shouldn't make the cut.)

 

[Minigiant]

This is what worries me a bit. I've got nothing against basic skill checks, and use them in my 4e game all the time, but they aren't conflict resolution. They're devices for quickly resolving minor questions within the fiction so we can get to the good stuff. For example, "There's a weird statue - it looks like blah blah blah." "Cool, my guys got +20 History and Arcana, do I recognise it" *roll*, *beats DC* 'Sure, its Omech the blah blah blah" - and then the real action of play is the players (and their PCs) thinking about who this Omech character might be and what Omech's importance is in the context of the evolving situation.

I think to make the three pillars contribute meaningfully to the balance of PC building and of play more generally, more than this is needed (assuming we're talking about balance at the mechanical level).

Oh I agree

 

[rkwoodard]

My group and I discussed that fact that we did not like "Skill Challenges" at all because we felt that a "sub-system" for out of combat situations was unnecessary.

Having a "mini-game" taking place is not our idea of an out of combat experience. We actually like the 3rd edition/Pathfinder method where it's usually up to the players and the DM's to find out of combat uses with the rules at present.

Abilities such as Turn Undead, Charm Person etc can be used in combat or it can just as easily be used out of combat. I like the fact that I can create a combat sorcerer or I can create a purely non combat one without the book needing to build it for me and calling it a "non combat" build.

I want D&D Next to present the rules without any mini-games going on and let us decide how we will use the abilities that we are given. I don't like the three successes vs three failures rule, nor has anyone in my group.

This method would have been okay if it has been presented as just one way that a skill challenge could be handled.

This is an honest question, are you not the person that also lamented about not having enough Out of Combat stuff in the rules?

If the core is a fairly simple engine (D20+ability mod +skill vs TN), and there are no sub-systems, what will they put in for non-combat ?

Is there not a fine line between skills and feats being too detailed before you are looking a sub-system or mini-game?

I completely agree with making it broad enough so we can determine use, but I think that will make most of the book combat oriented.

RK

 

[Neonchameleon]

You don't like skill challenges because you feel they don't help you.

Guess what. I don't like leeks and don't think that they ever make food taste better. This doesn't mean that I want leeks to be removed from the supermarket shelves. Instead I refuse to buy them and I don't cook with them or order food with them.

Why can't you do the same? The skill challenge rules will take up maybe a page. Just ignore that page. Or does other people getting what they want out of the game as well as you actively lower your enjoyment?

If skill challenges are in you don't have to use them. They are the DM's choice. If skill challenges are out no one can use them.

Likewise random dungeons. I have never run or played a random dungeon. I have never wanted to run or play a random dungeon. But if there is even an entire chapter on building one in 5e I simply won't care. It's a tool some people will use and I'm happy for them. Me, I'll just skim over it. And be happy for anyone who likes the tool presented.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

"BADD" used to mean "Bothered about Dungeons & Dragons", didn't it? Then it became "Bothered about Disposable Dragons". We could repurpose it as "Bothered about Dicky Durations".

Catchy?

Maybe, but there is an 4lternative. I was wondering today where Groups went, but they are now called Campaigns.

 

[Bedrockgames]

You don't like skill challenges because you feel they don't help you.

Guess what. I don't like leeks and don't think that they ever make food taste better. This doesn't mean that I want leeks to be removed from the supermarket shelves. Instead I refuse to buy them and I don't cook with them or order food with them.

.

No one is suggesting skill challenges be banned from the marketplace. But we are all at a pizza shop negotiating topings for our communal pie. All people are doing is expressing their preferences here. The designers will ultimately decide. It will be a simple numbers game. If the vast majority don't want skill challenges they wont be in the core.

While we don't want to see wholesale bans on leaks, they shouldn't be default topping just because a small number of people like them. Yes we caalways pick them off, but toppings always leave an imprint and impact the overal flavor.

 

[DEFCON 1]

One important boon that skill challenges provide is a format to help newer DMs create non-combat scenarios with actual cause-and-effect, action-and-results. And anything in the DMG that can aid the DM in learning, doing, and perfecting his job is a good thing.

So I see skill challenges in the same light as combat roles, challenge ratings/encounter levels, monster creation/adaption, refluffing, and advanced improv techniques. They are introductory lessons to help a player get started learning how to DM... before they become so comfortable with it that they don't feel like they have to use them anymore and can leave the rules behind. "You have to know the rules before you can break them", as they say.

Just because something doesn't seem useful to you, doesn't mean it's actually not useful to somebody.