New Legends and Lore:Difficulty Class Warfare

[Gundark]

Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (Difficulty Class Warfare)

New Legends and Lore

Discuss

 

[Mark CMG]

The Skill gap is as much a function of the increase in levels over editions as anything else, IMO. The more levels a game tries to incorporate, whether for faux-increased length of playability or because you can fit more supplements into the pipeline of such an extended formula, or both, the wider the gap can become. Finding a way to gives perks between levels rather than only at level milestones, and reducing the number of levels the game encompasses, would be a good way to bring that back into check. It also increases the variety of challenges that can be faced at any given level without having to resort to making multiple portmanteau-named versions of everything under the sun so that each level of challenges feels populated.

 

[GSHamster]

Apparently Monte Cooke and I are on the exact same wavelength. This is spooky.

Posted this last week: http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/309970-skill-system-idea.html

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Now that Mike is actually starting to give some actual details, are there people still thinking this line of articles is showing that D&D is heading back in the direction of earlier editions? Between this and the previous article, I'm seeing a game that is even less like 1E/2E/3E.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

The Skill gap is as much a function of the increase in levels over editions as anything else, IMO. The more levels a game tries to incorporate, whether for faux-increased length of playability or because you can fit more supplements into the pipeline of such an extended formula, or both, the wider the gap can become. Finding a way to gives perks between levels rather than only at level milestones, and reducing the number of levels the game encompasses, would be a good way to bring that back into check. It also increases the variety of challenges that can be faced at any given level without having to resort to making multiple portmanteau-named versions of everything under the sun so that each level of challenges feels populated.

And yet there is no mention of level in the system Mike describes here. Possibly the skill system is going to be divorced from level.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Assuming that we keep the d20 for resolution (and in D&D, I guess we should), then I like it as the basis for a skill system.

Besides the advantages listed in the article, it also provides a platform for you to be as general or as specific as you want with modular skill bonuses. If you want to play a simple game where the ability checks serve as skills, then any boosts you pick up might be like super feats, that give you a broad bonus. For example, you get to shift one category with your Dex checks that involve balance in any form--because you are a 7th level rogue and that's what you get.

If you want a more detailed game, you can have smaller bonuses, probably granted more often (more feats, class abilities, items, etc.) that shift in more narrow circumstances. You can take one feat that lets you shift difficulty when sneaking with cover, an elven cloak that that lets you shift when sneaking in the woods, and a ranger might have a class ability that lets them do it faster.

That's more detailed than I'd probably want, but that does give an idea of the range that can be supported by the same base system without breaking it.

 

[AeroDm]

One of the problems with what Mearls is describing and his previous articles is his mention of decoupling actions from skills. That is, he previously didn't want actions like Balance to be subordinated to a skill Balance. As soon as you start giving individual actions ranks, if you don't also have a coordinate skill with a rank that becomes incredibly hard to manage.

GSHamster's skill idea linked to up-thread is a more thorough (and probably better) method of what Mearls is describing, but it suffers from that same weakness. If you don't have an awesome skill list, the overall system is going to be wanting in some regard. You exchanged flexibility in one sphere for ease of play in another sphere. A month or two ago, I commented that Mearls' articles were great but a tiche naive, and nothing I've seen since has changed that. I love the direction and the goal, but I've yet to see how he hopes to achieve it in a way that doesn't make sacrifices beyond the gains.

 

[FireLance]

I like the idea of the auto-success, but I'm not too keen on the idea of the auto-failure. I guess the reason for that is to make impossible tasks always impossible, but I would rather give that flexibility to the DM: i.e. the DM can always rule that some things are impossible and not even bother with setting a DC.

I think a good way to model the system he is describing is to just allow the characters to always take 10 on a skill check. Or, to put it in more formal language: if taking 10 would allow you to succeed on a skill check, you are aware of that fact and you may always choose to take 10.

 

[WheresMyD20]

Now that Mike is actually starting to give some actual details, are there people still thinking this line of articles is showing that D&D is heading back in the direction of earlier editions? Between this and the previous article, I'm seeing a game that is even less like 1E/2E/3E.

This skill system sounds a bit like a more formalized version of how old-school is played. An action is either an auto-success, an auto-failure, or you need to make an ability score check. The DM takes your background/skill set into account when deciding which of the three it is.

 

[AeroDm]

Now that Mike is actually starting to give some actual details, are there people still thinking this line of articles is showing that D&D is heading back in the direction of earlier editions? Between this and the previous article, I'm seeing a game that is even less like 1E/2E/3E.

I think it has some of the spirit of older editions but not the implementation. I don't think most gamers would be *willing* to go back to the implementation of older editions. Imagine if a new PHB simple used secondary skills and gave the variant that your character was good at whatever you were good at. The designers would be torn apart, yet this was 2e. The spirit, though, was a simple, quick, more binary resolution mechanic.

More specifically, I think the game is moving towards treating characters differently without relying on numbers. A +2 bonus is great, but after enough +2 bonuses the game breaks down. You need ways to make characters feel unique without relying on numbers, and this is a step in that direction.