New Mearls Article - Skills in D&D

[CuRoi]

Maybe this has been pointed out already, but this skill system is pretty similar to how the arcane magic DCs function in Fantasy Craft. Your DC I think is something like 10 + charisma mod + the number of Spell Feats you have.

Yeah, it's an inverse look at things (static DCs are being increased by number of feats in FC) while MM is talking about feats adding to your roll modifier. Same difference though.

Anyway, I'm not sure I care for the approach as presented for skills. For one, many players just seem to like to do silly things like assign skill points (I know this is highly subjective, but in my circle it at least adds to the feeling of customization.)

I'm also not thrilled that the basis for the system is "all players can do all of these things" approach of 4e. I really don't mind if the Wizard knows jack about Survival and feels lost in a game mechanics and RP sort of way if dropped in the middle of a desert without food and water. It doesn't bother me that the Ranger in the party keeps the group alive if this happens (cause the Wizard is going to most likely save their butt the following day). I also have no problem as the DM if the players find themselves "stuck" because they don't have a skill readily available (or failed a check) and I need to improvise some sort of plot device to keep things moving.

I think this whole modular approach may be doomed to fail because it might make PCs homgenized, generic, and self reliant enough to get by on most things without a "party". This sort of IMO defeats the purpose of negotiating with a party of characters with diverse skillsets and negotiating/exploring an imaginary game world where you may not always have the answer at your fingertips.

So as far as skill systems go, I'm fine with specialization. Any skill tricks are fine too, but if it just means "I climb prettier than you but you can do it to" I fail to see the point.

 

[Stalker0]

I like the idea that your strength score (or if you could make it your climb skill should that be the desire) determines your climb skill. That gives a nice, definite way to show how good each character is at climbing without making certain characters completely inept at the skill.

I'm personally fine with absolutes with skills up to a point. For example, its fine that a player can jump 30 feet with a check...that's not going to break the bank. But when a player can influence a 1st level commoner or a 30th level demigod with a diplomacy check...you start running into problems.

That said, I actually would love 5e to take a serious relook at diplomacy, bluff, sense motive, and intimidate. These areas could just scream for more sophisticated rules. Not more complex rules mind you, but just a better way of handling these very common situations then we have now.

 

[Pilgrim]

There has yet to be an edition of D&D in which it is assumed that a 1st level hero cannot swim. This has nothing to do with 4e. As I said, in 2e, the Swimming Nonweapon Proficiency merely improved your swimming. You didn't need it to swim.

That is incorrect. It specifically state under the Swimming NWP in the 2E PHB, that "Those without this proficiency cannot swim".

AD&D, however, does assume the PCs can swim unless encumbered by armor or against winds of 35mph or greater.