New WotC Article - The Role of Skills

[NewJeffCT]

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?).

NWPs were very precious in 2E, and if you doubled up on something, you'd only get an additional +1 bonus, if I recall.

I think you got one every 3rd level - so, you'd get a new one at level 3, 6 and 9.

 

[pemerton]

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.

In general I'm against excessive scaling, but otherwise don't have a strong view on whether specialisation should be rewarded or dissuaded. What I do want, though, is advice on encounter design and action resolution to help make it impossible for non-specialist PCs to sit out encounters (just as even wimpy mages and thieves can't just sit out combat - the orcs try and hit them too!).

The minimum elements of advice required, I think, are (i) on how to build non-combat encounters that, as with most combats, engage all the PCs and put pressure on all of them to participate whether they would prefer to or not, and (ii) on how to ensure that the participation of the non-diplomancing dwarf barbarian in the social situation doesn't just hose the players, but rather - whether the check ultimately succeeds or fails - takes the encounter in a direction that is unexpected and interesting, and that reflects the fact that it was that PC, and not some other, that was participating in the action resolution.

 

[Starfox]

I can easily imagine situations, where perception can be based on wisdom (intuition, awareness) or int (drawing logical conclusions)
You can easily see something, and don´t actually see it.

Or situations, where climbing is dependant on strength or on dexterity. Where hiding actually is basically: hold your breath or breathe very flat and lower your heartbeat (Constitution), instead of don´t step on the twigs (dexterity)... which actually is step on the twigs and leaves like animals do it, so you make a sound, but it is not considered dangerous by your enemy (Wisdom on both accounts).

What you are saying here is that the attribute each skill depends on should be based on the situation and determined in play? I can see merits in suich a system, but find the drawbacks dominate:

* Unreliability: The rogue that suddenly fins Hide based on Con and fails what the player thought was a sure bet - making him loathe to try again later and generally despondent about his characters abilities.

* Interactivity slowing play - Each skill check becomes a little negotiation between DM and player, which slows down play and lets charismatic players (as opposed to characters) get their way in every situation.

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 agree this is a problem, and think that allowing the player to choose among a range of stats for each skill is at least a partial solution - tough I admit it is a bit complex for the basic game. Unlike you, I am also willing to accept niche protection for certain tasks (Trapfinding), tough I prefer such niche protection to be tied to feats/background rather than class.

 

[GM Dave]

Recently, I've been thinking of skills in RL because I annually get a flood of people that are trying to learn to do taxes and be the new help for the season.

After seven years, I've grown in my own skill as I know more on the topic and problems because I have dealt with these situations.

The difficulty of things that used to take time and effort for me are now routine.

Some things that were beyond me are still beyond me.

I have shifted from needing help with 80 to 90% of situations that came through the door to being the 'tax guru' (though I know other people in the company that I go to for solutions to things that are in specialties that I have yet to learn).

How does this relate to skills in games?

I don't think a skill rank system would properly reflect things.

A skill rank system has never given 'the feel' for task resolution that I feel is appropriate.

I know how to drive a car. That doesn't mean I should be anywhere near a race track or working as stunt driver (even if I were to roll a 'critical' I'm still not getting my car to ski on two car wheels). Yet, there are people that these tasks are routine and part of their daily tasks.

There is danger for the race driver being on the track but it is managed to the point that for them they are confident in handling it. Other forces need to act on them to push them beyond treating the race track as routine.

Tasks tend to come in a series of levels.

Routine tasks are things that we do every day and we don't think of really as tasks. For me these things are adding up columns of numbers, writing coherent thoughts, driving to work, explaining to people the impact of their choices. I do these things several times a day. I often do several of these tasks simultaneously (I can now drive and keep up a conversation or drink a beverage without major adverse effects in reasonable weather).

Focused tasks are things that we would likely treat as routine but don't encounter them enough and require us to pay more attention to what we are doing. Some people have taxes that just involve more paperwork do to the volume of information meaning I have to pay attention more to make sure I don't miss key information. Some have situations like owning a business that I only see a dozen times a year (though over the years I now am fairly comfortable with this type of problem). What are Focused tasks for me would be pushing a new person to the limit of their skill.

Tasks on the limit. These are things that I can still do but they often take me more time to complete because they require specialized knowledge. I don't know the specific rules for how each country interacts with my own countries task code. I know the general rules and points that I need to look up but I still need to research those points when a situation comes up. I often see these kinds of situations once or twice a year for a particular country or need to look up some fact because it is only needed once every few years to complete a tax return. I know the information exists and where to research the knowledge to complete the task. If I have time and the proper resources then I can complete the task correctly.

Tasks beyond me. There are things that are beyond my training and I know they are beyond my training. I know that I don't have the training to properly handle farms or taxes of foreign countries. I know people that can handle those tasks and I turn to those people for aid in these areas.

These levels are related to how much I know as things that I treat as routine are beyond other people.

I like using attributes as a base for determining skill.

I may treat driving as routine but my ability to park or go in reverse is still woefully poor compared to other people with better hand eye co-ordination.

This is why when I suggested that you learn a skill then you know that skill.

I do though think that there can be levels within that skill to represent how routine a task is to you and what specialized knowledge you have within that broad skill. Driving a car is a base level of skill. Driving a big rig trailer usually requires a person to first know how to drive a car. Knowing how to drive a police car in a chase requires a different specialty of skill. The big rig trailer driver is not going to know how to do pit maneuvers with a police car and a police officer is not going to be able to properly handle backing up a big rig to an entrance.

The measure of success at a task should use a comparison of roll to the person's skill. You can either use the Alternity idea of closer to the attribute or the closer to 1 as long as you have some idea that getting closer to one number signals getting closer to the bullseye.

You could even allow that people with more advanced level of skill doing something that they consider is routine get a free re-roll. This allows two rolls to compare against what is a good achievement (representing the fact that someone who is an expert brewer is more likely on average to make a better beer than an amateur but an amateur could still get lucky and have a decent batch).

 

[Mallus]

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.

Yeah, this is a concern, but there are several relatively simple ways to address it.

You could differentiate between core class skills and general skills. Some classes would get a small number of class skills which are superior to what non-class members can do, like thieving skills in AD&D/2e, or a 3e class's EX abilities.

EX: any PC can try to hide in the right circumstances, but a thief has a chance to hide that borders on the supernatural.

Likewise, any PC can attempt to track, but a ranger's ability to do so works in the most unfavorable conditions and can yield extraordinary results.

If you prefer a unified skills framework, you can get the same effect with class-based bonuses/penalties. 2e did this w/tracking. It was a warrior NWP, but non-rangers got a -6 penalty to their check.

Or, you could use something like the skill system I was noodling around with, which ditched most bonuses/penalties in favor of changing the DC/target number based on who was attempting the action, ie, a ranger tracking would roll against a DC of 10, whereas the priest from your example would roll against a DC 15 or 20, depending on how familiar they were with the outdoors-y activities.

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.

Well put!

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.

Nice and simple. Another idea: cap all non-situational modifiers at a low value like +2, ie, a PC might get a +2 to Spot from training, or +2 from being a elf, but a trained elf is still only +2.

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.

There's a lot I like about 4e's skill system, but it still suffers from too wide a variance between specialized/non-specialized characters, which makes setting DC's difficult -- parties end up split between the PCs who can barely make a check and those who can't fail. At least that's how it was in my 4e campaign.

I think 4e's skill system would benefit from having fewer ways to boost skill checks or a max bonus per level, or both.

In general I'm against excessive scaling, but otherwise don't have a strong view on whether specialisation should be rewarded or dissuaded.

What I'm finding playing Pathfinder and running AD&D, is that mechanical specialization of PCs is a fun and rewarding experience --I have gear-head tendencies, too-- outside of actual play. It's essentially a minigame.

But what works best in live play is a simpler framework which reduces the difference between specialists/non-specialists in core adventuring activities.

 

[Minigiant]

[MENTION=3887]Mallus[/MENTION]

My main wish is to have nature and nurture to be close in power. For raw talent and trained proficiency to grant similar bonuses.

I don't personality like hard niche protection like Trapfinding, Hide in Plain Sight, and Tracking unless it is available to everyone. When power is locked away for certain classes, it turns soft roles into hard roles.

I just want the charismatic sorceror and the rogue trained in bluffing to have similar odds.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

What you are saying here is that the attribute each skill depends on should be based on the situation and determined in play? I can see merits in suich a system, but find the drawbacks dominate:

* Unreliability: The rogue that suddenly fins Hide based on Con and fails what the player thought was a sure bet - making him loathe to try again later and generally despondent about his characters abilities.

* Interactivity slowing play - Each skill check becomes a little negotiation between DM and player, which slows down play and lets charismatic players (as opposed to characters) get their way in every situation.

@Unreliability: if DCs are low enough, there should be no problem. Also your average character will think twice about having dump stats, as every stat may play a role. Again, with low DCs reliability for those trained in stealth is still given.

@Interactivity: Never seen such a thing slow down the play. Usually if both DMs and Players are open minded, it can be even faster.
Also there is no problem with uncharismatic players, as I don´t play with strangers. And those I play with are all charismatic (from my point of view at least).

The only problem I can see is the fact that you have to add some values on the fly each time. It may sound a bit arrogant, but that is elementary school math.

 

[Primal]

NWPs were very precious in 2E, and if you doubled up on something, you'd only get an additional +1 bonus, if I recall.

I think you got one every 3rd level - so, you'd get a new one at level 3, 6 and 9.

Yeah, that's true; however, you initially got a few, and most of them weren't that good anyway (e.g. weather sense) or were too "expensive" to begin with, so occasionally it paid off to "boost" your existing scores. IIRC some classes got NWPs every 3rd level, and others got WPs at the same rate (and vice versa). It's been so long that I don't remember anymore...

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

What if situational adds where limited to rm discretion and maxed at +5...then class 'skills' granted a trick that can be used. This way the DC can be static and the classes can have unique abilities.

Examples might include reducing the action cost, so a rogue can bluff as a move action or a fighter can intimidate as part of an attack.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk