D&D 5E Our 5 Session Playtest

[Connorsrpg]

[MENTION=7175]jadrax[/MENTION]

Thanks I was hoping to return the XP favour for your kind words, but alas, we must share similar views eleswhere too

I wish I could actually get players! The players I have had going in my hometown for MANY years have all dropped out. Things only happen when I make them, and I have put it on them to initiate things. Been waiting since November last year

Anyway, the other group I play with are friends from a town 2 hours away. That was the majority of our playtest, plus one other player who used to game with us years ago (but might also join that group now ).

So, our games are about 1/month when we convene in the central place (2 hours from me). No gaming where all my stuff is unfortunately. If only I could welcome new players?! You aren't from northwest Victoria in Australia are you ?

 

[WSmith]

How would I handle things? Probably with Constitution checks. I would probably remove their access to Hit Dice (like surges), and, especially for water, they act with disadvantage. Once hit die go, a failed save = Death.

Ah, I didn't think of that. Good call. I will have to remember the hindrance on HD, cumulative with disadvantage somehow.

We did have a couple of PCs struggle with the heat. On a Warm day I asked for one easy CON check (DC 10) if they travelled during the heat. Failed checks had disadvantage on all checks until rested and watered. For hot days I called for 2 checks. That seemed a solid off-the-cuff call (though looking back I could have limited access to Hit Dice instead or as well as a cumulative thing). When a player explained how a skill of theirs would help (like Survival) I allowed them to add that to the roll.

Excellent! I really like how this works. I am planing on a lot of overland travel so keeping track of food, water, and supplies is something I am looking to figure out.

 

[jadrax]

[MENTION=7175]You aren't from northwest Victoria in Australia are you ?

Yeah, sadly I am kind of 10,500 miles away. Which is a bit far to travel to a game.

 

[Balesir]

We (and I hope my players might back this up...I could be wrong) thought the skill system was very elegant and spoke volumes to character. Along with 'bounded accuracy' and DCs that make sense and don't scale = perfect. (I should have mentioned both as parts we liked).

Obviously, "perception is everything", but I really don't see the skill system presented in the playtest as different from 4e's except that the "trained" bonus is lower. You have a list of skills (including a set that are just the "default" of the attribute modifier) to use for all "skill based" rolls.

The real issue I forsee with the skills as presented I don't think will come up in early playtests - and maybe not in any playtests. It's that the skill "list" is unbounded - if you need a skill for a background, you just make one up. I think this risks not only skill "bloat", but also the sort of issues evident in 3.X and 4e with feats. I think in time we will see "obsolete" skills and "overpowered" skills and all that stuff, as well as "skill bloat". In a limited playtest (sub)set, though, this will not be evident at all.

RE a dwarf in plate sneaking around - I would have thought that a problem no matter the system. In any case I 'picture' it as difficult, so I like that it is.

We did have a couple of PCs struggle with the heat. On a Warm day I asked for one easy CON check (DC 10) if they travelled during the heat. Failed checks had disadvantage on all checks until rested and watered. For hot days I called for 2 checks. That seemed a solid off-the-cuff call (though looking back I could have limited access to Hit Dice instead or as well as a cumulative thing). When a player explained how a skill of theirs would help (like Survival) I allowed them to add that to the roll.

Both of these examples reinforce, for me, how neat the "Advantage/Disadvantage" concept is - I'm liking it more and more. Sneaking in plate armour? Take a disadvantage! Travelling in hot weather in plate harness? Take a disadvantage on your CON roll! Got a survival skill? Gain advantage!

Make it a sliding scale/stacking concept, so that 2 advatages + 1 disadvantage = 1 advantage, and maybe make it so that 1 (dis)advantage = roll 2 dice, 2 (dis)advantages = roll 3 dice and I think this might be a superb interface with the "bounded accuracy" (or, more generally, "bounded d20 rolls") system. The point being that you get real advantages and disadvantages without sliding over the extreme probabilities - if you want to roll 10+, rolling twice and taking the best is a big advantage (equivalent to a modifier of +5), but if you need to roll a 20 rolling twice only roughly doubles the chance (equivalent to a modifier of +1).

Yeah, sadly I am kind of 10,500 miles away. Which is a bit far to travel to a game.

I note you are in Middlesbrough - I'm in Saltburn, just out on the coast!

 

[jadrax]

The real issue I forsee with the skills as presented I don't think will come up in early playtests - and maybe not in any playtests. It's that the skill "list" is unbounded - if you need a skill for a background, you just make one up.

I am not sure this is true, I am pretty sure Mike Mearl's said there was a finite Skill list on twitter, but it seems to be broken at the moment so I can't read his past tweets.

Of course, that does mean that someone thought having 'Wilderness lore' and 'Nature Lore' as separate skills was somehow a good idea.

I note you are in Middlesbrough - I'm in Saltburn, just out on the coast!

I used to go LARPing in Saltburn woods when I was younger. Great place, don't believe anyone who tells you its just like Innsmouth.

 

[Balesir]

I am not sure this is true, I am pretty sure Mike Mearl's said there was a finite Skill list on twitter, but it seems to be broken at the moment so I can't read his past tweets.

Of course, that does mean that someone thought having 'Wilderness lore' and 'Nature Lore' as separate skills was somehow a good idea.

OK - that's not the impression I got (partly based on the pair of "skills" you mention), but it is a playtest, and there's plenty of time, yet. Of course, a limited skill list would make it almost the exact same system as 4e...

I used to go LARPing in Saltburn woods when I was younger. Great place, don't believe anyone who tells you its just like Innsmouth.

Nah - you're thinking of Skinningrove for the "Lovecraft Country" bit. The doorway in our cellars just opens onto a cupboard. Honest...

 

[Connorsrpg]

More On Skills

[MENTION=27160]Balesir[/MENTION] & [MENTION=7175]jadrax[/MENTION]

Thanks for your contribution guys...oh, and I am glad my thread got 2 gamers in touch that live 'close' to each other (Wish it could happen to me now ).

On skills - I was of the opposite opinion re 'limiting lists'. I believe removing the skill 'system' was done so you could make up any skill that suits your background and I love it. No longer searching for a skill to fit what you want, no very cool and flavoursome skills getting ignored for ones that can be used all the time, and most importantly, keeping the +'s in check. I guess the bounded accuracy was what really made skills shine.

I like the modifiers. Just enough to feel like you are good, but not over the top such that others are left behind (again - the new DCs help there too). Along with natural talent (ability score bonuses) I really enjoyed what the players did.

I would call for a check and they would then ask whether 'this skill could be used'. I found it very satisying, but I wanred them up front (and we are very comfortable with this style anyway) that don't just yell out all skills when doing something. I kept a very close eye on what skills could be used.

I did not like the idea of there being Wilderness Lore, Nature Knowledge and Survival at first either (when I read the PC sheets), but in play it was actually cool. Who cares what it is called (in fact this lead to better discussions than every one checking for training in Nature). Even those slightly different names along with background descriptions meant each player put a little bit of thought into how they learnt it. (One player stated his wilderness lore was to do with the fact he grew up fishing).

Honestly, in play, I would rather they kept exactly what they have now. I was very happy with it as opposed to a codified list. You opinion may differ (though mine was fully changed after a decent play test - that is what this is about after all ).

 

[jadrax]

Ok, Twitter working on a different browser.

Question: 'Do you think we will ever see a defined list if skills in ‪#dndnext ‬?'

'Yes. We'd like to avoid a sprawling list that just causes confusion.' - Mike Mearls, Twitter, 01/06/12


Must admit, I can't say I am particularly fussed one way or the other.

 

[pemerton]

The real issue I forsee with the skills as presented I don't think will come up in early playtests - and maybe not in any playtests. It's that the skill "list" is unbounded - if you need a skill for a background, you just make one up. I think this risks not only skill "bloat", but also the sort of issues evident in 3.X and 4e with feats. I think in time we will see "obsolete" skills and "overpowered" skills and all that stuff, as well as "skill bloat".

This is an issue in any system that allows natural language descriptors to be brought in as mechanical elements.

HeroQuest revised has good advice on how to handle this - namely, first ascertain the breadth of a descriptor relevant to the total pool of PCs descriptors, and second relativise DCs to that ascertained breadth. So when a caber needs to be tossed, the PC with a "Strong Descriptor" faces a higher DC than a PC with a "Champion caber tosser" descriptor.

Because this is overtly metagamey, though, I don't think D&Dnext will use this sort of system.

If they are going for a finite list instead, though, then I for one would like to see Natural Lore, Wilderness Lore, Survival and Animal Handling merged - partly, at least, if not completely. These are needless points of distinction in a system where each PC has only a handful of skills.

 

[Connorsrpg]

Skills Too

[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]

The Heroquest stuff sounds interesting. That is what I am hoping for. More advice for the DM on how to adjudicate the skills.

But I don't want to go back to a set list, where everything must be thought of first up. I would like more description of when these 'skill bonues' are applied.

And, yes, if they are going to have skills doing the same thing, they should be rolled into one 'name'. But I prefer a backstep to 3E/2E of NOT rolling actual skills in together.

A teamster for a merchant caravan doesn't necessarily gain knowledge of all things wilderness, dealing with wild animals, surviving harsh elements, herbalism, etc, BUT I could certainly see a bonus for handling animals for eg.

A Teamster 'could' learn to survive harsh conditions and that may be a good second skill. I am just not in favour of rolling too many into one (may as well just have Ability checks on their own - looking at you Athletics, Nature, etc ).

Without Skills being so much as a system on their own, there is the chance to really diversify here and make some interesting backgrounds...and characters with different skills - not all the same ones.

I understand this will be easier with our group, b/c BG's will be well developed and a mutual understanding of their skills will be easy to establish. But the ability to put 'any' skill with your BG that makes sense is an absolute win for me.

 

[pemerton]

The Heroquest stuff sounds interesting. That is what I am hoping for. More advice for the DM on how to adjudicate the skills.

<snip>

Without Skills being so much as a system on their own, there is the chance to really diversify here and make some interesting backgrounds...and characters with different skills

If they are going this way (and it sounds like they may not be) I would prefer them to go "all the way", as it were. So rather than your background giving you a list of skills at +3, your background is your background, and you get a +3 to any ability check in which your background comes into play.

So if your background is "Trained in the grand army of Karameikos", then any time that is relevant - pitching a tent, palling it up with Karmeikian NCOs, etc - you get to add +3. If your background is "Apprenticed as a wizard of the Spiral Tower", then you have a different backstory to draw on to get your +3.

One advantage of going this way, I think, is that players who push hard to broaden their skills will also have to give the GM the necessary backstory narrative to hang that on - which then gives the GM new material on the basis of which to introduce complications or challenges for that PC, and the group more generally. So it is at least a bit more self-regulating as far as balance is concerned.

 

[Connorsrpg]

[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]

Yeah, I reckon you are right in a way, but I still don't mind 'naming' a few skills for that +3, BUT of course if you were in some army and you were doing checks for the army stuff, as a DM I would simply say 'yes, of course you can add +3'. It will be hard to name everything (and I guess that is your concern). But I am still okay with a few skills being highlighted.

Oh, and that is another part I like about this system. Skills don't line up with Abilities. So the DM calls for a certain check and then asks if anyone has relevant skills to add to the check. I love that

 

[Balesir]

HeroQuest revised has good advice on how to handle this - namely, first ascertain the breadth of a descriptor relevant to the total pool of PCs descriptors, and second relativise DCs to that ascertained breadth. So when a caber needs to be tossed, the PC with a "Strong Descriptor" faces a higher DC than a PC with a "Champion caber tosser" descriptor.

Yes, that's an alternative - or just have a skill give +1, +2, +3 or +4 (say), depending on how "broad" it is.

Another alternative is the way PrimeTime Adventures handles backgrounds. Here, you can describe any sort of background, skill areas and things like contacts that you want, but there is a hard limit on how many times you get to use the bonuses from them in an "episode". In D&D this would translate as the use of skill bonuses being a "vancian power" - i.e. you can use the bonus only X times, with those "slots" recharging when you rest (extended rest or maybe some recovery on a short rest?). This would work well with the "roll a characteristic" system we see in the playtest, actually, since you get your attribute bonus anyway - it's only the +3 skill bonus that you have limited uses of. It also keeps things balanced between skills (you could name skills, backgrounds or even contacts and resources like laboratories and spy networks as potential "advantages"). Rogues could get extra "slots" per day to use. Just a thought.

 

[jadrax]

So rather than your background giving you a list of skills at +3, your background is your background, and you get a +3 to any ability check in which your background comes into play.

I have played five or six systems that do this now, and tbh they not been a huge success.

We had a lot of problems over deciding what activities should or should not be part of a background, often because in D&D its quite fantastical so words can be taken different ways. Is a 'Spy' M'Lady or James Bond, or even both? Should they have knowledge of explosives?

The other problem we had was players just not asking for bonuses because they had much more limited view of what the background meant. So to my mind, a 'Pirate' is probably good at climbing, they spend a lot of time at height with no hand holds. So when making a climb check it should probably grant a bonus, but the player did not ask for one because they were not on board a ship.

You can obviously work through all this, but having a few set examples of what a Background entails seems a much better starting point from my experience.

 

[Connorsrpg]

Honestly, other than how/where they were on the PC Sheet, I thought the skills as presented were a strength of the new rules. The BGs added flavour with some specific mechanics (skills) and they were a lot of fun and really shaped the PCs. Players even elaborated on how they got the skills.

I wish I had included skills as one of the things we loved. I would not mind at all if they went through as is. (If people want a thread for 'making them better' or 'alternate methods', here probably isn't the place, as we were very happy with them in the playtest.

So, GMs out there (especially those looking to run the Playtest) any questions, things we can help with, or resources I can provide?

 

[pemerton]

Another alternative is the way PrimeTime Adventures handles backgrounds. Here, you can describe any sort of background, skill areas and things like contacts that you want, but there is a hard limit on how many times you get to use the bonuses from them in an "episode". In D&D this would translate as the use of skill bonuses being a "vancian power" - i.e. you can use the bonus only X times, with those "slots" recharging when you rest (extended rest or maybe some recovery on a short rest?).

<snip>

Rogues could get extra "slots" per day to use. Just a thought.

A good thought, but strikes me as too "4e-ish" for D&Dnext.

 

[Sadras]

(snip)
and you get a +3 to any ability check in which your background comes into play.
(snip)
One advantage of going this way, I think, is that players who push hard to broaden their skills will also have to give the GM the necessary backstory narrative to hang that on - which then gives the GM new material on the basis of which to introduce complications or challenges for that PC, and the group more generally...

This is similar to the RPG Summerland, where a characters provide one word or phrase for their backstory/background. For instance "It was a dark night"
And during intense encounters, the PC can elaborate on his/her background to gain a benefit on the die roll, but then in so doing their backstory expands. For instance during a late evening, the PCs face off a pack of brigands, the character can expand his backstory to
"It was a dark night, and I was surrounded"

So he is matching current events with a particular backstory/incident...In Summerland your character is a drifter and has suffered some trauma or something bad in the past. Your goal is to obtain redemption - inner peace.
A character can expand on his backstory for a bonus to die, if he can fit the current setting with that particular moment in his past. As he does that he attempts to deal with his issues reaching him ever closer to redemption.

In a similar vein making a DnD character's backstory open-ended has the same effect - bonus to die. It suits Summerland more, due to the theme/mood, but if they were to implement something on these lines
it could get heavily abused and certainly some limits would have to be implemented to safegaurd DMs.

 

[Connorsrpg]

Skill Ideas

Hey guys, there are some interesting ideas for skills listed in this thread. I don't mean to sound harsh at all, but for our Playtest the skills worked fine.

I don't favour changing that, although a lot of ideas listed are interesting and perhaps others will join the debate if you started a thread on them. Again, I am not unhappy at what anyone has said, just thought you might get more responses/traction if there was a thread for Skill Options.

From what I see, there are some solid ideas, but unfortunately, not ideas I would like to be core to DnD. We liked what was there. Cheers.

 

[Balesir]

Hey guys, there are some interesting ideas for skills listed in this thread. I don't mean to sound harsh at all, but for our Playtest the skills worked fine.

I don't favour changing that, although a lot of ideas listed are interesting and perhaps others will join the debate if you started a thread on them. Again, I am not unhappy at what anyone has said, just thought you might get more responses/traction if there was a thread for Skill Options.

This is a good idea, so I have done just that here.

 

[Steely_Dan]

Now that is playtesting!

As for the light...it burns...it burns...

Total, my buddy and I started casually play-testing at around 1:00pm...11 hours later...