New WotC Article - The Role of Skills

[NewJeffCT]

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.

 

[Andor]

I think... they are a little too hung up on "5e has stats! Look everyone! Stats!"

On the one hand if your primary DC driver is the stat, then it enables the flattened growth curve that I think will be a great benefit to the game. If your theoretical maximum possible skill check would be a 28 (+1d20) and the average would be 12-18 (+1d20) then you have a nice range of DCs from easy at (say) 20 and Heroic at 30 to legendary at 40.

Otoh the one thing that's starting to make me nervous about 5e is that even more than in earlier editions a character without high primary stats will be crippled. And that is saying something.

The skill tiers mentioned went from 0 (base stat) to +8 (master tier).

However stats range from 3-18 (ignoring possible bonuses from race/class/mojo)

This makes native talent almost twice as important as training can ever be. It kind of minimizes the impact of level too.

Frex lets assume that the best possible starting stat is a 20. And most likely you'll be able to get at least one apprentice tier skill training at 1st level.

So that optimzed characters peak skill roll is 20+3+(rolled) 20= 43

Should a first level character be capable of hitting that dc 40 legendary skill check?

Conversely his buddy Captain Average only has a stat of 10. Even with master skill tier at level 20 he's only capable of rolling 38, 2 points lower than his 1st level buddy could make even without his skill rank.

I'm not certain I find that desireable. I'm not certain I hate it either. I think I would need to see it in play. C'mon open playtest.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

I also noticed that the tiered method was in the lead. It makes sense. Each step is significant and easy to track, but it's more granular than just trained/untrained.

The one thing I want more than anything else involving skills is a unification of skills and weapon proficiency. 4E was close, in that being trained in a skill was very similar to being proficient in a weapon. I just want the next step. Make weapon proficiency a skill, and use identical tiers, ranks, or bonuses.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I don't think these are quite the right questions.

If ability scores do resolution, then the only open role for "skills" is character customization.

Asking "how many ways do you want to customize your character?" is kind of a useless question.

The question would probably more realistically be: "What do you want character customiztion to do?"

What elements of your character should be open to customization? How detailed do you want it? How heavy should it affect mechanics? What elements of gameplay should it interact with?

If we go forward with the "three pillars" D&D model, you find that in 3e and 4e, people use skills to differentiate how good a character was at the three pillars, and in different circumstances. A character who put points into Diplomacy or Bluff said "I am good at social encounters." A character who put points into Nature or Endurance said "I am good at exploration."

Into this was mixed some "specific use" skills, skills used to accomplish a specific mechanical trick (like feinting, or healing, or tracking, or disabling a lock, or sneaking).

If the mechanical tricks aren't enshrined in the skills system anymore, you only need three skills: let characters pick a pillar they get a +3 or so bonus to, let them fluff it however they want (Bluff? Diplomacy? Insight? Whatever, it's all of them), and call it a day.

 

[NewJeffCT]

I prefer 4E's overall skill system, including the lack of craft/profession skills (<3 Martial Practices), but I'd like to see the ranges toned down a bit so that we don't run into the auto-pass/auto-fail issue as much.

I've never really run into auto-fail in 4E, but it's very rare for my 4E group to fail skill checks or skill challenges - the recommended "Hard" DC is often easily achievable by those trained in the skill. (i.e., the party is at level 10 and the wizard in the party rarely fails to miss the DC:40 Arcana check he needs to summon a group of flying steeds for the party. He gets a couple of party member to do "aid another" and then the party elf can grant him a reroll with a +5 or +6 bonus if he does miss on the initial check)

 

[Melkor]

Let me just give you a little background on my own campaigns to clarify what I mean. I play D&D Basic/Expert usually, where most actions are resolved by one of three methods:
- A fixed chance-in-six to open a door, spot a secret door, avoid a trap, etc.
- The thief's d% chance to do something thiefy
- The ability check, rolled under the score on 1d20
For my own setting, I synthesized all of these different methods into an ad hoc skill system where there are twelve skills, and everything is handled by rolling 1d6, either rolling under your rank in a skill (which runs from 1 to 5) or rolling under 3 + your ability modifier, just like the Strength based "open doors" roll from D&D Basic.

Hey Jack,

Mind listing the 12 skills you use...And also, how do you insure that a Thief is always better at thief-specific skills than the average person who just picks those skills?

Thanks.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

It's an interesting and likely divisive subject.

I think I prefer something along the lines of what we've been hearing from the seminars, with the use of ability checks and skills being extra bumps to certain tasks. Though I think I'd prefer rerolls over training bonuses. (Like "Climb - When rolling Strength Checks to Climb, roll twice and take the better result") but I'm fine either way.

It would also be interesting to have skills that allow characters to roll the "wrong" ability (like "Scrambling Climb" - When rolling to Climb, You may roll Dexterity instead of Strength) Although that might step on the toes of feats, depending on how/if Feats wind up in the basic game.

I don't mind a long (maybe not unlimited) list of possible skills but I don't think individual characters should ever have more than about six, and usually around 3.

 

[Scribble]

I think I like the idea of unlimited based on stats, but a few that you can list as being "trained" in.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I think... they are a little too hung up on "5e has stats! Look everyone! Stats!"
So that optimzed characters peak skill roll is 20+3+(rolled) 20= 43

I think you have a misapprehension when it comes to the math. Certainly the stats are being used more overtly, but I'm nigh-on positive that they still use a modifier when it comes to d20 checks and not the whole stat. I'm also pretty sure that the modifier is still 1-for-every-2-stat-points-above-10.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Should a first level character be capable of hitting that dc 40 legendary skill check?

Conversely his buddy Captain Average only has a stat of 10. Even with master skill tier at level 20 he's only capable of rolling 38, 2 points lower than his 1st level buddy could make even without his skill rank.

I'm not certain I find that desireable. I'm not certain I hate it either. I think I would need to see it in play. C'mon open playtest.

I'm certain. If that is all there is too it, I will definitely hate it. I'm not even much prone to simulation concerns, and that manages to push my few sim buttons--nevermind the flaws I see in it for other reasons.

I can see such a system working well with staggered levels of competence, layered separately, similar to what Savage Wombat said above about tiers of mastery--and not at all unlike the earlier musings of M&M on apprentice, journeyman, expert, etc. skill levels. I don't mind a high stat making an apprentice wildy successful at those basic things he can do, while still being incapable of more "expert" tasks until he gets training.

Of course, anything that reduces something as inherently complicated as "skill" down to a d20+mod versus DC--is going to have some holes somewhere.