New WotC Article - The Role of Skills

[Minigiant]

I seriously want a good skill bonus for the trained. The trained should have a noticeable advantage over a talentless unskilled normal.

I don't know if I asked this question before but..
Imagine 4 PCs about to all perform the same action.

PC A lacks an appropriate ability bonus to the action nor has training in it. (a 10 Dex wizard attempting to be stealthy)
PC B has a bonus to the appropriate ability for the action but has no training in it. (a Dex +3 Dex fighter attempting to be stealthy)
PC C doesn't have a bonus to the appropriate ability for the action but does have maximum training in it. (a 10 Dex cleric of the night deity attempting to be stealthy)
PC D has a bonus to the appropriate ability for the action and has mastery in the action. (a Dex +3 rogue attempting to be stealthy)

How would you like the bonuses of this characters look?

For me

At the 1st/5th/10th/20th levels
A: +0/0/2/2
B: +3/3/6/7
C: +3/5/10/12
D: +6/8/14/17

Basically, everyone gets a pity +2 at level 10 for being experienced.
The skill bonus would go +3, +5, +8, +10. A raw natural talent character and a trained character would start close with both having access to a +3-5 bonus. Later the trained would surpass the natural unless the raw takes some training.

The natural and trained character would be way ahead though. Their bonus over the untrained unnatural would start at 30-40% better and escalate to 75-85% better.

 

[Mallus]

I don't want 5e's (default) skill system to be anything like 3e's or 4e's.

I'd be perfectly happy with the base being an ability check, with a small number of small, non-level-scaling modifiers.

I'm much more interested in "what does your PC do right now?!" than "how did you build your PC before/in between sessions?".

Both 3e and 4e place the emphasis outside of play: scouring the rules for ways of boosting your skill check modifiers. They also favor hyper-specialists over generalists, which leads to PCs sitting out of skill-use situations they aren't specifically built for. They also penalize --though this is much more true for 3e than 4e-- players who want to use skills-as-characterization (as opposed to skills-as-another-tool-for-overcoming-challenges). They also tie skills to level, which is unnecessary, and leads to, admittedly amusing, 15th level bakers who are as tough as mid-level heroic fantasy protagonists.

I want the opposite of that in 5e's baseline.

 

[Minigiant]

I don't want 5e's (default) skill system to be anything like 3e's or 4e's.

I'd be perfectly happy with the base being an ability check, with a small number of small, non-level-scaling modifiers.

I'm much more interested in "what does your PC do right now?!" than "how did you build your PC before/in between sessions?".

Both 3e and 4e place the emphasis outside of play: scouring the rules for ways of boosting your skill check modifiers. They also favor hyper-specialists over generalists, which leads to PCs sitting out of skill-use situations they aren't specifically built for. They also penalize --though this is much more true for 3e than 4e-- players who want to use skills-as-characterization (as opposed to skills-as-another-tool-for-overcoming-challenges). They also tie skills to level, which is unnecessary, and leads to, admittedly amusing, 15th level bakers who are as tough as mid-level heroic fantasy protagonists.

I want the opposite of that in 5e's baseline.

How exactly does ability bonuses and small skill bonuses discourage rules searches for bonuses?

How small is the skill bonus you seek?

Because if a player gives their character a background which states that they are better at something than a normal person. If the skill bonus is low like +2, than it encourages high ability max stat PCs as this is the only way to regularly hit a basic DC 10. That snatch every kiddy +2 one could find.

3e's +4+level max class skill and 4e's +5+½level let PCs get to +10 at low levels. They just didn't give enough class skills.

A ranger shouldn't have to max Wisdom to guide a group through a forest. A rogue shouldn't need 18 charisma to reliably bluff the town guards.

 

[Mallus]

How exactly does ability bonuses and small skill bonuses discourage rules searches for bonuses?

You also limit the number of applicable, non-situational bonuses. Get rid of synergies, item bonuses, etc. The kind of things that put the focus on the rule books, and not the situation at hand.

How small is the skill bonus you seek?

Small. I'd really like to move away from the numbers escalation found in 3e/Pathfinder/4e.

Because if a player gives their character a background which states that they are better at something than a normal person. If the skill bonus is low like +2, than it encourages high ability max stat PCs as this is the only way to regularly hit a basic DC 10.

I'd like to limit the resource-investment required to be reasonably good at a skill. In fact, I'd like to limit it to placing a 12+ in the relevant ability score.

That way, making a PC like a charming fighter would be a one-time investment of a single good-ish stat. Like in AD&D.

The drawback to this, of course, is losing a significant amount of mechanical differentiation between PCs. I'm willing to live with that -- in the current implementations, the D&D skill systems are better at describing what your PC *can't* do, rather than what they can (unlike the assumption of general competence found in pre-3e D&D).

A ranger shouldn't have to max Wisdom to guide a group through a forest. A rogue shouldn't need 18 charisma to reliably bluff the town guards.

Agreed. A 12 or 13 should be sufficient. And without the need to continually spend scant skill points to "keep up" with the DCs as the characters levels.

 

[Minigiant]

You also limit the number of applicable, non-situational bonuses. Get rid of synergies, item bonuses, etc. The kind of things that put the focus on the rule books, and not the situation at hand.


Small. I'd really like to move away from the numbers escalation found in 3e/Pathfinder/4e.


I'd like to limit the resource-investment required to be reasonably good at a skill. In fact, I'd like to limit it to placing a 12+ in the relevant ability score.

That way, making a PC like a charming fighter would be a one-time investment of a single good-ish stat. Like in AD&D.

The drawback to this, of course, is losing a significant amount of mechanical differentiation between PCs. I'm willing to live with that -- in the current implementations, the D&D skill systems are better at describing what your PC *can't* do, rather than what they can (unlike the assumption of general competence found in pre-3e D&D).


Agreed. A 12 or 13 should be sufficient. And without the need to continually spend scant skill points to "keep up" with the DCs as the characters levels.

My fear with small bonuses is that it will force the need for many high abilities to make a known archetype and my certain classes better at actions that experts of the class.

A cleric would be asked to forage for food or track footsteps rather the ranger because the cleric had high wisdom. Despite te fact that the cleric has spent years cloistered in a temple and rarely leaves the city. Or the wizard would have a better chance at disarming a trap than the rogue because he has 20 Int.

The only way to protect archetypes in a low numbers game is either to only let certain classes perform certain actions (ie Trapfinding) or to adding another resolution system into the mix that is stat independent (a HP system, rerolls, bonus dice). I prefer neither in core,

 

[BobTheNob]

I'm much more interested in "what does your PC do right now?!" than "how did you build your PC before/in between sessions?".

Ding Ding Ding! This is exactly what I dont like about the 3e/4e skill systems. I get em, I get why they are the way they are, but this effect is unraveling.

When skill system scale hard (i.e. if you invested in it, you can pull it off. If you didnt, you havent got a hope), they dictate what a character can do. Which means players have to make decisions about how to handle situations when they level up.

To me thats completely the wrong time. Players should decide how to handle situations when get get to the situation. In effect, hard scaling skills dont define what players CAN do, they define what they CANT do.

For a tabletop p&p game, where the key advantage is being able to "play on the fly" having a system which narrow bands capabilities is soul draining.

I agree that some form of differentiation in capability is part of character definition. They question is degree, what is the difference between someone focused and someone unfocused?

Thats why I like Stat bonus With a single +2(X?) "Proficiency"(/Focus/Training) modifier. It gives you the ability to define character capabilities without alienating player creativity at play time.

 

[BobTheNob]

My fear with small bonuses is that it will force the need for many high abilities to make a known archetype and my certain classes better at actions that experts of the class.

A cleric would be asked to forage for food or track footsteps rather the ranger because the cleric had high wisdom. Despite te fact that the cleric has spent years cloistered in a temple and rarely leaves the city. Or the wizard would have a better chance at disarming a trap than the rogue because he has 20 Int.

The only way to protect archetypes in a low numbers game is either to only let certain classes perform certain actions (ie Trapfinding) or to adding another resolution system into the mix that is stat independent (a HP system, rerolls, bonus dice). I prefer neither in core,

I do share this concern though. I noticed it a bit in 4e = the rogue who couldnt climb, the cleric party spotter.

I would point out though that the effect is not linked to "low scaling" or stat bonus as base number, its linked to use of stats, and particularly locking those stats against purpose. 4e had a "Skill as base then stat as bonus" and it still suffered from this effect.

I do appreciate your concern, but I feel that its not exclusive to a stat as base approach and different solutions can easily be derived such as (just examples)
* using skill options to allow "stat swapping" rather than a bonus. Like the rogue being allowed to use Dex to disarm traps
* Allowing for "hard base" numbers. Minimum's based on class (not a great idea...just spitballing)

 

[Primal]

One thing I really don't want is a return to the 2E NWP style, where you picked your NWPs and then had to roll under the ability score, with no regards to level or anything else.

My old DM used to say something like, "you're telling me that a level 1 human fighter trained in Brewing is going to be better at brewing than a level 15 dwarf fighter trained in Brewing just because the human has a 12 Wisdom vs 11 for the dwarf?"

If you could add 1/level or 1/2 per level, then it might work better.

IIRC, you could raise your NWP skill values in 2E; you earned more points as you leveled up, and you just spent them on existing skills instead of gaining new NWPs (which you did every 3 or 4 levels?).

 

[Minigiant]

I do share this concern though. I noticed it a bit in 4e = the rogue who couldnt climb, the cleric party spotter.

I would point out though that the effect is not linked to "low scaling" or stat bonus as base number, its linked to use of stats, and particularly locking those stats against purpose. 4e had a "Skill as base then stat as bonus" and it still suffered from this effect.

4e did have a low number problem. The part of the base was the level bonus that everyone got. The other part is the +5 for training, +3 for focus, or +2 for race.

Since most PCs ran 16 at least on primaries, the ability bonus negated the racial or focus gap. And once they hit 20, the trained gap was negated as well. So a 20 wisdom character spots better than perceptive races, classes, and experts with 10 wisdom regardless of fluff. To make a character noticeably better you'd have to combine aspects to bypass the need for high stats. Though it was bottom to bad since trained was +5.

4e real issue was the low amount of class skills and the only method to get more being using feats. But in 4e, anyone with the right primary or training could make the DC no matter how silly.

I do appreciate your concern, but I feel that its not exclusive to a stat as base approach and different solutions can easily be derived such as (just examples)
* using skill options to allow "stat swapping" rather than a bonus. Like the rogue being allowed to use Dex to disarm traps
* Allowing for "hard base" numbers. Minimum's based on class (not a great idea...just spitballing)

Stat swapping just adds more to my concern. When PCs start letting the 20 Str half orc barbarian start punch-disarming traps....

 

[Klaus]

I don't want 5e's (default) skill system to be anything like 3e's or 4e's.

I'd be perfectly happy with the base being an ability check, with a small number of small, non-level-scaling modifiers.

I'm much more interested in "what does your PC do right now?!" than "how did you build your PC before/in between sessions?".

Both 3e and 4e place the emphasis outside of play: scouring the rules for ways of boosting your skill check modifiers. They also favor hyper-specialists over generalists, which leads to PCs sitting out of skill-use situations they aren't specifically built for. They also penalize --though this is much more true for 3e than 4e-- players who want to use skills-as-characterization (as opposed to skills-as-another-tool-for-overcoming-challenges). They also tie skills to level, which is unnecessary, and leads to, admittedly amusing, 15th level bakers who are as tough as mid-level heroic fantasy protagonists.

I want the opposite of that in 5e's baseline.

Actually, 4e's skill system is *very* inclusive. All skills can be used untrained (with only a couple of specialized uses, like using Arcana to detect magic), and each skill has a list of examples on how to improvise with said skill, encouraging checks beyond the listed tasks. The lack of 3e's skill points leads to a "pick and move on" system, where you don't have to keep focusing on a skill once you are trained. It is rather counter-productive to invest many feats in a single skill. And getting more trained skills is rather easy, with Backgrounds, Themes, Skill Training and Multiclass feats.

3e's system, on the other hand, encouraged investing in a skill only enough to gain skill synergy at 5 ranks, or qualifying for a Prestige Class or feat.