D&D 5E (2014) ,Q&A: New Skill system, Skill dice, and profiencies (May 2)

[gyor]

http://community.wizards.com/dndnex...next_qa:_skills,_skill_dice_and_proficiencies

 

[Zoombaba]

I think it's a bummer they can't get skills to work for both people who want them and people who don't. I don't mind skills, but I liked the idea of just asking for attribute checks. It seems very streamlined.

On the other hand, I think a set of people really need that added customization for their characters that skills bring, and just don't feel six numbers on the character really covers diversity and breadth they're looking for.

Still though, does that mean two different character sheets? One with skills, one without?

 

[GX.Sigma]

The last answer bugs me: "We want to give these out where it’s appropriate, and are not limiting them to coming from a single source."

To me, that says that the Thief background will give proficiency in thieves' tools, and the Rogue class will give proficiency in thieves' tools. So if you're a Rogue, and you take the Thief background (which will be a natural choice, and probably the recommended option), you will be wasting a benefit of the background.

I thought they knew this. I thought this is why they changed race and class skills.

Actually... it could work if proficiencies "stack" (e.g., if you have two proficiencies, you get advantage on the check).

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

This decision drives me nuts. They are so close. The answer it right in front of their noses.

The game has weapon proficiencies and an attack bonus.

They're adding skill proficiencies. They need an identical skill bonus.


Now, if I want a more complex skill system, a module replaces the skill bonus with skills and ranks. Even better, if I want a complex weapon system, it replaces the attack bonus with weapon skills and ranks. Everybody wins.

 

[GX.Sigma]

This decision drives me nuts. They are so close. The answer it right in front of their noses.

The game has weapon proficiencies and an attack bonus.

They're adding skill proficiencies. They need an identical skill bonus.


Now, if I want a more complex skill system, a module replaces the skill bonus with skills and ranks.

But this skill bonus (similar to attack bonus) system you propose is basically skills and ranks, isn't it?

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

But this skill bonus (similar to attack bonus) system you propose is basically skills and ranks, isn't it?

Not exactly. It should work exactly like the attack bonus. You would apply it to all ability checks.

Some more complex actions might require proficiency. If you aren't proficient, you have disadvantage on checks, but still apply the bonus.

 

[RangerWickett]

Hm. If it progressed at the same rate (like, +5 over 20 levels), that . . . hm, that actually seems too weenie. Ideally nigh-epic heroes should never be challenged by things that are mundane, at least when they're trained, but having +5 from a stat and +5 from 'skill bonus' (+10 total) means you, the paragon of heroic skill-y-ness, might still fail a DC 15 check.

Imagine Batman having a 20% chance of getting spotted every time he tries to sneak up on a modestly attentive bad guy.

This is why I advocate a less dice-based, more "rulings-based" system, which Mearls already proposed 2 years ago. https://www.wizards.com/dnd/article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20110816

 

[GX.Sigma]

You would apply it to all ability checks.

Why? That sounds the same as just adding +1/2 level to all checks.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Skill System: I see why they're making it a table decision, since it'd be hard to balance characters another way. Interesting thing to think about / discuss, though.

Skill Dice: Boo. Get rid of them (if I had my way). Do not like this over a static bonus.

Proficiencies: I don't mind there being ways to get them from backgrounds, class, race, and feats. That works for me.

Hm. If it progressed at the same rate (like, +5 over 20 levels), that . . . hm, that actually seems too weenie. Ideally nigh-epic heroes should never be challenged by things that are mundane, at least when they're trained, but having +5 from a stat and +5 from 'skill bonus' (+10 total) means you, the paragon of heroic skill-y-ness, might still fail a DC 15 check.

Imagine Batman having a 20% chance of getting spotted every time he tries to sneak up on a modestly attentive bad guy.

One, I imagine Batman has been spotted by a modestly attentive bad guy from time to time.

Two, this could be solved by having a minimum roll, based on your bonus (this has been talked about on these boards a number of times). For example, at +1, the minimum roll you can get is a 4; at +2, it's a 6; at +3, it's an 8; at +4, it's a 10; and at +5, it's a 12 (I think people usually end around minimum of 14, but I always thought that was too high).

But, that's certainly a way to deal with it, for people who want the added nuance of skills. As always, play what you like

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

Why? That sounds the same as just adding +1/2 level to all checks.

There are three reasons.

First, uniformity in the system. The core mechanic is always d20 + ability modifier + training (ranging from +0 to +5). DCs and Armor Class have the same range of numbers.

Second, modularity, as I mentioned above. You can trade out one system of training for something more detailed without altering the balance of the game.

Third, representation of your character getting better at adventuring.

It is a bit like the 1/2 level bonus, but broken into larger categories: Attacks, Spellcasting, and Skills.

Perhaps even better would be if each pillar got its own bonus: Attack Bonus, Exploration Bonus, and Interaction Bonus.