New Mearls Article - Skills in D&D

[mkill]

When I saw that table Strength score -> climb speed in feet, I knew this kind of rules is not for me. If there is something I absolutely do not want to do as DM, it's memorize tables. Or worse, look them up during play. Also, I don't want to measure my game world in feet. I'm part of the metric conspiracy (i.e. not from the US), but I don't want to measure my game world in meters either. "Really really high" works fine enough.

For skill checks, a rule of thumb DC 25 = difficult for low-level heroes is all I need.

I'm also iffy about the climb talents. Maybe you want two or three of these skill talents, per character. But if you have four or five per skill, it's way too much clutter.

 

[Sammael]

Unfortunately, this design is about as far from what I want as possible.

About the only part I agree with is that the mechanics of climbing should not be buried within the skill chapter. That's it.

Let's see:

1. Requires complex and non-intuitive table to use = horrible design
2. Adds complexity via incredibly fiddly and highly circumstantial abilities = horrible design
3. Hand-waves climbing difficulty with a call for DM fiat = horrible design

Aside from that, I also have a problem with the assumption that everyone should be equally good at climbing by default (but that's not necessarily horrible design, just something I personally disagree with).

 

[P1NBACK]

When I saw that table Strength score -> climb speed in feet, I knew this kind of rules is not for me. If there is something I absolutely do not want to do as DM, it's memorize tables. Or worse, look them up during play.

You would look this up once. At character creation. And, as a DM, you wouldn't have to.

I don't see the problem. So, you're against the table for ability score modifiers too right? And, character experience tables?

 

[P1NBACK]

1. Requires complex and non-intuitive table to use = horrible design

Where's that? I can't find it.

2. Adds complexity via incredibly fiddly and highly circumstantial abilities = horrible design

You mean, like feats do now?

Feats = horrible design?

3. Hand-waves climbing difficulty with a call for DM fiat = horrible design

You mean, like every single game in the world does? Tell me, what's the climbing DC of a rogue latched to the back of an animated giant statue with chipped shoulders, moving across country in high winds and rain?

Show me the calculation you arrived at for that DC, and tell me it's not a DM judgment call.

 

[amethal]

Agree, absolutes are generally bad.

I'd go even further and say absolutes are always bad ....

After all, only the Sith deal in absolutes.

 

[Sammael]

Where's that? I can't find it.

What, your browser is not showing a table that presents the range of Strength scores and their relation to the climb speed?

You mean, like feats do now?

Feats = horrible design?

Overly circumstantial feats are indeed horrible design.

You mean, like every single game in the world does? Tell me, what's the climbing DC of a rogue latched to the back of an animated giant statue with chipped shoulders, moving across country in high winds and rain?

Show me the calculation you arrived at for that DC, and tell me it's not a DM judgment call.

In my own system, it would be 22 by RAW:

Base DC for this check is 7 (for climbing a rough wall with ledges, a knotted rope, or ship's rigging), modified as follows:

No ledges, few handholds and footholds: +10 (dungeon wall)

Slippery: +5 (rain)

However, I probably need to add the following rules

Object or creature you are trying to climb is moving at speed 10 or lower: +5

Object or creature you are trying to climb is moving at speed 11+ or lower: +10

Thanks for the great example!

 

[P1NBACK]

What, your browser is not showing a table that presents the range of Strength scores and their relation to the climb speed?

It indeed is. I'm just not seeing how that table is complex. Check your Str, look at your speed. The end.

How is that complex? It's the same as checking your Str, noting your modifier. A table can't get any simpler, man.

Overly circumstantial feats are indeed horrible design.

Overly circumstantial? Really? Climbing across horizontal surfaces instead of just vertical surfaces is overly circumstantial?

Weird. I'm not seeing that at all.

In my own system, it would be 22 by RAW:

Wait a minute. You just made a judgement call (i.e. DM fiat), that climbing on the back of an animated statue is DC 7 (it's certainly not the same as a ship's rigging or a knotted rope...).


DM fiat for the win!

Thanks for the great example!

No problem!

 

[Sammael]

There should be no table. It would be much better to state that every point of Str bonus increases your climb speed by 2 or something.

The base DC for climbing ANYTHING is 7, as defined by my RAW. Then it's modified by various modifiers. Ship's rigging, knotted rope, etc. are effectively +0.

 

[P1NBACK]

There should be no table. It would be much better to state that every point of Str bonus increases your climb speed by 2 or something.

I find tables far simpler than formulas... to each their own I guess.

The base DC for climbing ANYTHING is 7, as defined by my RAW. Then it's modified by various modifiers. Ship's rigging, knotted rope, etc. are effectively +0.

But... you're making a judgment call that an animated giant statues is "effectively" +0. How do you not see that? Or, do you have an animated giant statue modifier in your game? What about climbing up the slippery tentacle of a giant octopus? Or, the razor crags with the sun right in your eyes? Or, the brilliant marble tower slicked with elephant's blubber? Or, inside the sleeping god's nostril as he snores?

You have modifiers for all that? Awesome.

What's the sleeping god's snoring modifier?

 

[Yesway Jose]

Using "absolutes" is best avoided if at all possible.

Is there a game design way of changing "absolutes" into "suggestions" but still detailing those suggestions? Many DMs and players don't want to reinvent the wheel for every climb check; they want to have to guidelines ("oh, I never thought of that") and those guidelines can be incorporated by the DM behind-in-the-scenes into adventure writing.

Personally, I like the Climb description in the context of the article but I worry that the sum of so many similar rules block in a full system would get quite complex. I'd like to see a basic Climb rule in the core rules, and put the "absolutes" or "suggestions" in an optional package?