New WotC Article - The Role of Skills

[drothgery]

It's also interesting that 10-14 skills seems to be winning the poll, because, well, that's less than 4e has (since I think 4e's skill list is about right, I checked that first, and there are seventeen), and 3.5 has about thirty named skills (and is technically unlimitted due to knowledge, craft, and profession skills). And 2e had almost seventy named non-weapon proficiencies listed in the Player's Handbook.

So I kind of think better options for the poll would have been something like this -- include the parentheticals to give a frame of reference:

- 6 skills (ability scores as skills)
- 7-12 skills (fewer than 4e)
- 13-24 skills (about as many as 4e)
- 25-35 skills (about as many as 3e/3.5e named skills)
- 35+ (2e had about 70 named nonweapon proficiencies)
- unlimited (technically, 3e skills and 2e nonweapon proficiencies were unlimited)

 

[Frostmarrow]

I'm intrigued by this idea, mainly because I like the idea of a spectrum of success and failure rather than a binary you succeed/you fail, which constantly drives me crazy.

What this makes me think of is a system in which certain tasks have a point value that has to be hit before the effect is complete. For example, a door may have 10 "breakdown points," and succeeding on a Strength check would let you roll your "break stuff" skill die. So we'd replace "Everyone makes a Strength check until someone hits the break DC of the door" with "Everyone who hits a certain DC weakens the door a bit until it breaks." This would let non-specialized characters participate more and could also be a way to differentiate levels of training-- untrained characters get a d4 for effect, trained characters get a +1 to the skill check and a d6 for effect, journeymen get a +2 and a d12 for effect, masters get a +3 and 2d6 (or something like that).

Overall, this would increase swinginess, but maybe that's a good thing as it would remove the entitlement issue of high-mod skill-monkeys walking all over every skill check. It could even replace skill challenges, as many skill checks (Diplomacy, e.g.) would take multiple rolls to earn the points needed to get the job done (the duke has 20 "convincing points" that get worn down as he's turned to your side of the argument). This would eliminate another pet peeve of mine, the super-high Diplomacy/Intimidate check that the players expect will just immediately sway the NPC's mind.

EDIT: In some situations, perhaps you could have a failed skill roll add a (smaller) effect die back to the difficulty of the task. So a failed Diplomacy check would add d4 back to the duke's "convincing points," making the task more difficult to finish out. And perhaps if the duke hit 30 points (having started at 20) he's so peeved that he shuts down negotiations and you've failed the complex skill check. Note that the points added on a failure would always be a smaller die than those removed on a success, to incentivize trying new things and not punish the untrained. Note also this wouldn't apply to everything; failing to break open a door won't really make it harder to break open, it'll just make you look silly in front of your friends.

However, I'm not convinced this implementation would work as intended in all situations-- if a door has 10 hp, why bother rolling a skill check when you could just attack it? But I guess that's always been true about doors.

Oh, and for those to whom this sounds like too much rolling, I hear that, and let us all repeat together as one: IT WOULD BE AN OPTIONAL MODULE!

Breaking something down creates a lot of noise. So, that is why you bother picking locks at all.

Every round a challenge is not beaten something bad happens. In case of the door the bad thing is "stays shut for one more minute" or it could be "25% chance of trap being sprung".

Simple/immediate tasks only have 1 hp.
Example: Spot Ambush 1 hp. Bad: Monsters gain initiative.

Complex tasks can have lots of hp.
Example: Sail Across The Narrow Sea. 100 hp. Bad: One day passes and one day's worth of rations are depleted. Boredom ensues.

Find Key Hidden in Room. 25 Hp. Bad: 25% chance of random encounter.

Convince Guard 8 hp. Bad: Another guard arrives demanding 1 gp tribute.

 

[Hassassin]

Given that class levels are primarily a way to measure combat ability, how else would you make the worlds leading martial artist besides class levels?

Unless you mean he might be a 20th level monk but have never left the Monestary or thrown a blow in anger, to which I reply: Sure. Who said you couldn't? I mean really, do apprentice bakers have to grind rats in the pantry to level up to journeyman? No.

Firstly, I think class levels should be a way to measure ability, but not necessarily/only combat ability. I would stat the martial artist as a monk (though maybe level 5-10 - high level NPCs aren't that common in my setting), but he wouldn't be an adventurer: he would have advanced much slower through experience gained from situations that weren't life-threatening.

The NPC classes in 3e were flawed, but IMO the concept was essentially correct. They should be a way to show how some NPCs (and maybe PCs!) are very focused on non-combat abilities. Maybe Expert should have a class ability that gives a higher skill bonus from Skill Focus, or something. If a level 3 Expert would be better at 1-3 skills than any 6th level PC, you could use it for "world best cook" without too much combat ability.

(The exception is Commoner: I think Commoner should have been a one-level class that made you a 0-level character. Most NPCs would advance to Expert or Warrior.)

 

[Frostmarrow]

Track Lost Child in The Woods 25 hp, Bad: Roll 1d6 and consult chart:
1. Child gets further lost. Add 1d6 hp to challenge.
2. Orcs ambush party.
3. Child starves and loses 1 hp (of 3).
4. The sun sets. One day passes.
5. Child is bruised and loses 1 hp (of 3).
6. Child finds cave (see map). Add +1 to further rolls on this table.

Map: U

 

[KarinsDad]

I disagree. They are still your natural potential and not part of training. However, they can increase (or decrease) just as they do in real life. But they are increases and decreases to general abilities, not specialized and specific skills.

Bonuses for skills are bonuses from "training".

Only in earlier D&D models.

Nothing says that starting ability scores CANNOT include training in a wide variety of skills by default. That would be a different model, but it could be the new status quo.

 

[KarinsDad]

Track Lost Child in The Woods 25 hp, Bad: Roll 1d6 and consult chart:
1. Child gets further lost. Add 1d6 hp to challenge.
2. Orcs ambush party.
3. Child starves and loses 1 hp (of 3).
4. The sun sets. One day passes.
5. Child is bruised and loses 1 hp (of 3).
6. Child finds cave (see map). Add +1 to further rolls on this table.

Map: U

Sounds too complex. It's a pain for a DM to create charts like these.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

I like the idea of tiers of competence, it's right in between 3e's skill points and 4e's trained/untrained.

Of course one thing is that we haven't completely seen the math of how things are being handled, or even ability checks themselves. I really doubt it's 2e's and before method of rolling lower than your ability score. They may have done something to 3e/4e's formula to (ABILITY-10)/2 for ability mods. And I haven't seen anything to suggest whether or not there's 4e's flat out level/2 bonus to everything.

 

[Frostmarrow]

Sounds too complex. It's a pain for a DM to create charts like these.

It was just an example of how it could be expanded upon in print.

Find kid 25 hp. –Improvise.

 

[KarinsDad]

It was just an example of how it could be expanded upon in print.

Find kid 25 hp. –Improvise.

Yeah, but there would still be a lot of rules in the game on how to do that improvisation (when to roll a D6, how many hp to give a task, what happens if the PCs don't go through all of the hps, etc.). It's just a different set of rules than a skill challenge, but the game would still have a bunch of rules because every situation is different and the game designers would want to have a lot of examples on how one different situation is handled differently than another.

Even something a simple as "bad: monster surprise PCs" is a rule that the designers would probably put into the game system.


Alternatively, I think that the game designers are going to want to add in skill rules that are both simple and intuitive, regardless of whether the DM makes it a single roll or multiple rolls.

 

[Frostmarrow]

Yeah, but there would still be a lot of rules in the game on how to do that improvisation (when to roll a D6, how many hp to give a task, what happens if the PCs don't go through all of the hps, etc.). It's just a different set of rules than a skill challenge, but the game would still have a bunch of rules because every situation is different and the game designers would want to have a lot of examples on how one different situation is handled differently than another.

Even something a simple as "bad: monster surprise PCs" is a rule that the designers would probably put into the game system.


Alternatively, I think that the game designers are going to want to add in skill rules that are both simple and intuitive, regardless of whether the DM makes it a single roll or multiple rolls.

Indeed. A lot of development is necessary. Thanks for listening.