New WotC Article - The Role of Skills

[MoonSong]

If you have a central mechanic based in some way on integrating the Class choice + Level of the character + Ability scores, (as C&C did, kinda), then this would be the real innovation for D&D. It's not realistic (but then neither are elves and dragons), but it would be fast and fun, in my view.

Except for skill monkeys like me that like to specialize on three different instruments at different levels of competency or actually max minning to create diplomatic and highly social fighters, or very sneaky and acrobatic clerics. Personally I like it when my character is good at different things at different rates, it makes it feel more organic and life-like than just being outright excell or suck

 

[TrippyHippy]

ANYWAY the point is to say that my Dexterity score isn't universally high or low. I'm a lousy dancer and acrobat, for example. So based on what we've heard of 5e skills so far, maybe I'd have an average Dex of 10, with a +2 to use my hands and a stacking +2 to playing guitar.

I would support something freeform like that - what I'm trying to get away from is prescribed lists of skills.

 

[trancejeremy]

At first I liked the d20 skill system, but the more I played, the more disenchanted I grew.

I think there needs to be some sort of limiter on skills, so that as the skill level gets up, it gets harder to learn. And there is a maximum in a skill. Otherwise you have exploding DCs and everyone just puts skill points into the same skills every level to keep up.

And non-combat skills should not really be tied to levels. There was an Star Wars adventure where you had to escort around the best starship designer in the galaxy. But since in d20, skills were tied to combat level, he would have been like a 20th level Expert (if not Epic) and thus pretty tough.

 

[GM Dave]

A few things;

1> When they speak of using attributes, I believe they are speaking of the pre-3e way of handling 'skill' checks. The DM asked you to roll a d20 and see if you rolled equal or less than your attribute. A modifier was sometimes applied to the attribute depending on how difficult or unusual was the request.

If a player wanted to know what their character might know on early Dragon History then the GM would have them roll a d20 against Int. A player with some sort of back story or justification might roll on straight Int while a player with just a hope of a random tale known might have a -5 to Int to make the roll.

2> I voted for 'none of the above' when it came to the skill modifier and for and unlimited number of skills.

I'd rather having a skill be a 'free pass' to do what it is related. If you have a skill called 'Draconic Histories' then the GM would simply tell you what you should know. If you have 'Stealth' then the GM will allow you to place yourself somewhere in the next scene (provided you can justify how you got there ahead of the rest of the group ~ much like in most stories and movies where the action just happens ~ FATE works this way).

I also feel that any list of skills is going to incomplete. I also find lists of words to be limiting to how a player thinks. Give a list of suggestions but don't have a limit on what could or couldn't be a skill. If a player wants to have a skill like Pegasus riding then they should have that skill (a fantasy world is going to be full of skills that we would not normally conceive of). I also don't want to stop a player from being Hairstylist or a Chef because the game designers didn't feel these were 'adventuring skills' and left them off the list.

3> I would handle the 'free pass' skill system with opposing skills (stealth verses dragon alertness) by possibly having a few levels of competence that can be acquired at various levels of advancement. If the levels are tied then the defender skill trumps the aggressor skill. This keeps it simple and speeds the pace of the game.

4> PF actually uses a staged bonus to competence. Skill focus gives +2 for people with only a few skill ranks in the skill, +4 if you have more skill ranks (several of the feats have similar modifiers).

 

[fuindordm]

I'm perfectly happy with Ability Score or equivalent as the default system.

What I want out of a skill system:

1. Probability of success is obvious, easy for player to calculate. Check.
2. Players feel permitted to try things not listed on their sheet. Check.
3. Training and specialization are rewarded. (Depends on the bonus. +3/+5/+8 sounds OK.)
4. Training opens up new skill uses. (e.g. masterwork sword, moving through opponent's space) It would be nice if several of these were in the rules.

Skill ranks could be an optional module for players who like things more fiddly. It would probably need a little tweaking to match to the DC scale of 5E, that's all.

I'm indifferent regarding a codified skill list vs. a free-form skill list. I'm sure that in the latter case, several skills that players commonly have will quickly become 'canonical' with situational modifiers and benchmark DCs.

But in any system, if a player really wants to put points in Gibbon Wrangling, I'm happy to comply.

 

[fuindordm]

I just had another thought:

If ability scores are used for skill resolution, it means they represent your "basic training" and not just intrinsic talent.

Then we can finally get away from the paradigm where your ability scores are your character's immutable soul, increasing seldom if ever.

If 5E had a system where I could use skill/build points to increase my ability scores, I would find it pretty cool!

Imagine (putting aside the issue of combat/magic bonuses for now) a version of 3.5/PF where you could spend 6 skill points on six skill ranks, or else increase any stat by one point. One character trains up their specializations, the other is training up their foundations.

Obviously, high-SP classes would become very attractive in such a game, it might make sense to give every class 4 "universal" skill points per level that could be used for ability scores, skills, or (why not?) feats. Then skill monkeys could get dedicated points that could only go towards specialized skills, or warriors could get dedicated points that only go towards physical ability score training or combat feats.

 

[Sammael]

They're talking about having skills as a bonus to ability scores.

Given as that's... umm... what skills are (in both 3e and 4e) I think you're seeing a far larger difference than is actually there.

Nope, that's not what skills were in 3.x (I can't speak for 4E).

Consider: In 3.x, the largest ability modifier a starting character can have is +5. At the same time, the same character will very likely have 4 ranks in a plethora of skills, as well as a multitude of other bonuses coming from class, race, feats, and equipment. It is quite feasible for a starting character to have +6 or +7 to several skills, not counting the ability modifiers. After a level or two, the ability modifiers' influence is further reduced, and after level 7 or so, ability modifiers become even less important as players now gain access to minor magic items that grant +5 to skills.

In other words, ability modifiers indicate your character's untrained, natural potential, which becomes less and less important as your character's training, learned abilities, and gear take over.

Saying that skills are nothing but optional add-ons to the ability scores COMPLETELY changes the paradigm of the game. I don't mind making the ability scores a little more important, but what they are doing here is not my cup of tea. It's as much of a dealbreaker as the powers system in 4e was.

And I didn't even go into the whole matter of trained-only skill uses and such. Should a smart person who's never seen a computer in his or her whole life be able to sit down at the keyboard and hack someone's Facebook account?

 

[Frostmarrow]

I'd like to point out that the core mechanic of D&D is not 1d20+mod vs DC. In fact it is 1d20+mod vs DC followed by a dX for effect. Where a dagger does 1d4 damage I think lockpicks should do d6 points worth of opening a lock and map should do 1d8 points of travelling cross-country.

Skills must rely on gear just as combat relies on weapons. We lose something when skills solve problems with a handwave and a die roll.

 

[Guest 85555]

I'd like to point out that the core mechanic of D&D is not 1d20+mod vs DC. In fact it is 1d20+mod vs DC followed by a dX for effect. Where a dagger does 1d4 damage I think lockpicks should do d6 points worth of opening a lock and map should do 1d8 points of travelling cross-country.

Skills must rely on gear just as combat relies on weapons. We lose something when skills solve problems with a handwave and a die roll.

Not all skills rely on gear though. Plus i dont know if it creates a better result for the game. Just because mecanics can brought into sinc(for instance combat rolls and skill rolls), i am not sure they always should be.

 

[grimslade]

I just want a skill system that flattens out the DCs and skill ranks. If I never have to see a DC 45 tumble chance or +47 to hide again, I will be happy.
I want the base system to be simple. Ability check and maybe an Apprentice, Journeyman, Master sort of bonus system for crafting/perform.
Now a skill rank option with skill lists and points should keep close to the base math. There might be a soft cap of auto-success that represents mastery and yields a unique skill trick.
A player using the skill options should be able to sit at the table with a base player and only have more options not more power. And yes options are power, but you can throttle it.