New WotC Article - The Role of Skills

[Frostmarrow]

I like this, though I think that it may not be applicable in all situations. Sometimes a "bad thing happens" would be appropriate, as in the examples you gave, and sometimes I think more of a "moving away from overall success" would be more appropriate, as in a diplomatic encounter. (Although adding points back on to the difficulty of the check could certainly be defined as a "bad thing.")

As for doors and locks, I should have been clearer-- I just meant "Why would you make Break Down Doors check when you could just attack it?" Although it raises an interesting idea (that would drive the simulationists nuts)-- what if a door, for example, were a DC 10 door that could be opened either by 10 Pick Locks points or 10 Break Down points? Obviously these wouldn't both take from the same pool, but it would be a quick way to set equivalent DCs for every approach. This is just a random thought; I'm not convinced by it, since you could certainly put a cheap lock on a tough door or vice versa.

Let's imagine the party wants to persuade a duke to order more troops into the borderlands (because the orcs are better equpped and better commanded than popular opinon dictates).

I'd boil it down to this:

Sway duke, 15 hp. Bad: The duke has 5 available units of troops. Every round he will, in his mind, assign one unit to another task.
(Caveat: I'd much rather role-play this.)

On the first note, I think it would be kind of cool if the 10 hp door turned out to be a mimic with 10 hp and attack! A guard could require 10 "progress" points to convince and have 10 hp in a fight. I think this would lead players to trying different methods of overcoming challenges.

* Immediate skills would have 1 hp and the bad stuff would lead to failure.
* When resources are at stake every round some of the resources are lost.
* When sneaking a round with zero progress would set off the alarm.

–That last item is pretty usable when groveling in Illithid, don't you think?

 

[KesselZero]

I suggest you just put in a deadline or urgency rating, which tells how many rounds the task needs to be resolved in.

This is a cool idea, but like the "bad things" idea, won't apply in every situation. As a DM I don't want to have to come up with time limits, or granular bad things, for every complex skill check. What might be interesting is to have multiple mechanics for failure. The two mentioned above would be options, but there would also be options for adding back skill HP on a failed check (making the task take longer, or even have a maximum limit at which the whole task is failed; e.g. the duke starts at 100 convince points and if he reaches 120, you lose) or having no chance to fail at all, just taking a shorter or longer period of time to complete a task (opening a locked door in combat, for example, where taking longer on the job is its own bad thing, even if you know you can get it done eventually).

A lot of interesting ideas floating around here. I definitely like the idea of lots of skill checks essentially having "1 HP"-- we wouldn't want to get so wrapped up in a nifty system that simple yes/no checks are totally forgotten about.

 

[Thaumaturge]

A lot of interesting ideas floating around here. I definitely like the idea of lots of skill checks essentially having "1 HP"-- we wouldn't want to get so wrapped up in a nifty system that simple yes/no checks are totally forgotten about.

I agree, most, basic, skill checks should only require 1 success point, or whatever. You are right- some failure mechanics are better for some situations, and others are better for other situations.

I think one problem with this system is determining what 'success points' represent. The hit point wars are bad enough, but if we had to debate what it meant to roll a 6 on a d8 against a 20 point lock, I might have to do something drastic like going outside to enjoy the sunshine.

Thaumaturge.

 

[KesselZero]

I think one problem with this system is determining what 'success points' represent. The hit point wars are bad enough, but if we had to debate what it meant to roll a 6 on a d8 against a 20 point lock, I might have to do something drastic like going outside to enjoy the sunshine.

For some reason the HP thing has never really bugged me, but I definitely see what you're saying. You can make up different explanations for the different complex skill checks-- for example, the duke is starting to be convinced, you've located how one or two pins of the lock should sit, you've climbed halfway up the wall, etc. etc.-- but that is definitely a bit of after-the-fact justification for a mechanical system. Nevertheless, I think the introduction of degrees of success would be worth it. I mean, sometimes you just get lucky and pop open the lock on your first try, and sometimes it takes some work.

 

[dangerous jack]

For some reason the HP thing has never really bugged me, but I definitely see what you're saying. You can make up different explanations for the different complex skill checks-- for example, the duke is starting to be convinced, you've located how one or two pins of the lock should sit, you've climbed halfway up the wall, etc. etc.-- but that is definitely a bit of after-the-fact justification for a mechanical system. Nevertheless, I think the introduction of degrees of success would be worth it. I mean, sometimes you just get lucky and pop open the lock on your first try, and sometimes it takes some work.

HP for health are supposed to be fairly abstract too, so transferring it to skills doesn't bother me in the slightest either. I think this type of system would open up a lot of interesting skill challenges and is certainly worth exploring. Even rolling a 20 would mean something more than just "one more success in the challenge" because it does "max damage" or "double damage".

Just going with the pick locks example, you could have:
* a high DC, low hp lock: an untrained character doesn't even know where to begin
* a low DC, high hp lock: representing the chest that's just wrapped up in a tangle of chains
* a low DC with regeneration: magical lock that continuously reconfigures itself

 

[BobTheNob]

Im all for stats being the roll with skills being a small bonus on top of it.

At the end of the day I want my players able to improvise. The problem with skill systems which scale hard (of the "big binary bonus") is the if you dont have the skill, your probably not going to succeed.

What this means is that whether your character can pull something off during an encounter is less to do with how they play the encounter and more to do with a decision they made when leveling up a couple of weeks ago. Not a very fun play experience IMO.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

My problem with a skill system that is basically attribute rolls with small bonuses tied in is with all the skills/stunts that could reasonably use more than one stat, depending on how you do it. Some examples:

Climbing: Str or Dex
Nature: Into or Wis
Poison use: Wis or Con or Dex

For this reason, I'd like to have some kind of feats, points that let you change what stat a particular stunt/skill is based on. Basically, the skill list could list two stats for each skill, and you can choose which one to use (possibly at the cost of a feat or equivalent).

This goes along very well with another idea that I like, feats as enablers. Say you want to be able to do something not everyone can do, like brew poison. This is an example of using the Medicine ability (which can be a skill or an attribute roll depending on your system) and adding a new ability to it trough a feat.

For an example of the opposite way to do things, I want to cite Earthdawn 1E (not read the later ones). It is a very intriguing system, but has a LOT of skill. Basically, each combat maneuver is a separate skill, with its own skill rank, xp cost, and so on. A much simpler way to do this would have been to have a limited selection of root skills, and then feats acting as enablers for what you can actually do.

((Sorry of this is very similar to my recent post in the "Classes based on the six ability scores" thread - I wrote that one first but the same idea applied here so I elaborated on it))

That is exactly what i consider the advantage of using ability scores. And the reason i don´t want feats in core.

feats as enabler don´t enable. They disable. It shifts the fokus from actual play to character building before play.

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).

 

[Frostmarrow]

HP for health are supposed to be fairly abstract too, so transferring it to skills doesn't bother me in the slightest either. I think this type of system would open up a lot of interesting skill challenges and is certainly worth exploring. Even rolling a 20 would mean something more than just "one more success in the challenge" because it does "max damage" or "double damage".

Just going with the pick locks example, you could have:
* a high DC, low hp lock: an untrained character doesn't even know where to begin
* a low DC, high hp lock: representing the chest that's just wrapped up in a tangle of chains
* a low DC with regeneration: magical lock that continuously reconfigures itself

If success points and hit points are in the same ballpark it's easy to appreciate the level of difficulty of an obstacle. This ties into the XP-system as well as opens up comparisons between different animals; the wall is as hard to climb as an ogre is to defeat. This ties into any CR-system (which I know we collectively abhor but deep down realise we need in some form or another).

Research Spell, 10 sp/spell level, Bad: Roll 1d4 and consult chart:
1. A week passes
2. 10 gp worth of components must be replenished.
3. Lab explosion, 3d6 fire damage.
4. Imp scries on wizard and learns one secret.
(Just having fun).

 

[RoboCheney]

I see this Stats instead of Skills being especially problematic for rogues. Specifically, their role as a skill monkey is pretty much obsolete. If Wisdom is used for noticing things, then the cleric is the one who searches for traps. Maybe he finds one, and calls the wizard to go disarm it (as an Int check). Or when you have to bluff the town guards, its the paladin's turn to shine. These sorts of tasks should require specialized training.

 

[Grazzt]

I see this Stats instead of Skills being especially problematic for rogues. Specifically, their role as a skill monkey is pretty much obsolete. If Wisdom is used for noticing things, then the cleric is the one who searches for traps. Maybe he finds one, and calls the wizard to go disarm it (as an Int check). Or when you have to bluff the town guards, its the paladin's turn to shine. These sorts of tasks should require specialized training.

If they grant a class bonus to the rogue for perception type skills, then it fixes the problem with the cleric and his high Wis. Same with granting the rogue a class bonus for disarming traps so he doesnt have to call in the high Int wizard.