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

[thedroid]

How about this for a "no skills" skill system:

Associate each potential skill or action with an ability. The player gets to add the character's ability bonus to any attempt to use that skill. So an attempt to persuade gets a bonus for high Charisma.

Each character class has a predetermined "primary" ability. For skills associated with it, the character gets a 2/level bonus. So if a Bard's primary ability is Charisma, he gets a 2/level bonus to his attempts to persuade in addition to any ability bonuses.

Let each player choose two secondary abilities for his character. For skills associated with those, the character gets a 3/level bonus. So if my fighter has Charisma as a secondary ability, he adds his Charisma bonus and a 3/level bonus to persuade attempts.

For skills associated with one of the remaining three attributes, that character doesn't improve in those skills. So my thief who didn't choose Charisma as a secondary ability will never get any better at persuading people, but he will always get his Charisma bonus if he has one.

So basically you get a set of skills assigned to each class, and then a choice of two more skill sets that you will improve in -- but not as quickly as you improve in the skill set belonging to your class.

Some can opt for a full skill system if they want total customization: I want my thief to be skilled in Persuasion, but I don't want him to have other Charisma skills, like Performing or Leadership.

 

[kerleth]

I like the idea of skills as bonuses to ability checks that was proposed a long time ago, and am mostly okay with the current packet's solution. (Now that I've typed that wizards will immediately release the next packet so noone will know which one I'm talking about, lol). The no skills and just ability checks idea can work to. There is one problem with it though, and I call it The Cleric.

The cleric is going to want a decent to great wisdom due to it being tied to their spellcasting. In fact, wisdom is likely to be more important to them than it is to a ranger, rogue, or other typically scout character. This means that the party member most likely to spot an ambush is the cleric. This works for some archetypes of cleric but for many it is jarring. Perception/spot and listen, survival, and track, have all been associated with wisdom in the past, and it is likely much of them will be in next. Now the current packet makes tracking a feat and gives it to the ranger (though based on the description of ability scores it should be intelligence, but that's another issue), and finding food and not getting lost is in as a background trait. That still leaves the spot/listen/perception issue though. I honestly believe that the cleric makes a lot more sense being charisma based.

I find it easier to accept a mild mannered cleric skilled with intimidate(you are stil channeling the might of a god), an honest cleric that could be good with bluff (having to reassure others in times of trouble), a cloistered, anti-social monk with diplomacy/pursuade (his position makes him respected and people are more willing to listen), than a cleric with no combat or exploration training who is a star at spotting ambushes, hearing whispered conversations, etc. (divine guidance?)

Also, a character who COULD be good at bluffing or intimidating can refrain from doing so based on his own code. He can still be pursuasive and diplomatic, but fights but avoids using options he finds distateful due to his own personal code of honor. This makes sense in the fiction and is not jarring for a player. A cleric with good wisdom simply choosing to not pay attention to his surroundings is a bit more jarring in my opinion. One is a choice of WHICH way to handle a situation, while the other is a choice to handwave away a useful benefit for nothing in return just because.

Spellcasting using charisma is just as easily explained as being based on his faith in his deity, his confidence that he has chosen the right path, etc. as it is using wisdom based explanations. In fact, this probably fits better with much of the accompanying fluff from stories and characters who have "struggled with their faith" than wisdom does.

I mention this because any "no skill" or "skill based" system has to deal with these sorts of incongruities. Does that mean that they should warp the whole system around it? No. But if these issues aren't addressed at all, then little things like that add up and can create a feeling of "it's just not quite right" for players.

 

[Sadrik]

I completely agree. If wisdom is fully converted to the awareness/perception ability then it does two things: it makes wisdom vs. charisma saves very clear. It makes clerical spell casting much more appropriately attached to charisma.

 

[Weather Report]

I completely agree. If wisdom is fully converted to the awareness/perception ability then it does two things: it makes wisdom vs. charisma saves very clear. It makes clerical spell casting much more appropriately attached to charisma.

Not sure if Cha being the cleric's casting stat sits right, that will get the cleric/paladin overlap team in a frenzy.

Though I would like them to more properly define which abilities are used to save against what, and to spread them out some more, not just the Dex/Con/Wis triumvirate.

 

[gyor]

No Wisdom makes the most sense for the Cleric because perception is key to the Clerics use of magic.

To use his magic the Cleric needs to both observe and percieve the world around him looking for senses and more imporantly to atune his awareness at times to his God's essence and will, achieving a higher state of perception, a kind of gnosis. Oneness.

In the Paladin's case while still spiritual and a caster of divine magic, the Paladin is more worldly, a knight of the realms in service to both King and the Gods. A God's church will never be lead by a Paladin, but the kingdom might be ruled by the Paladin with the blessing of the Gods. So as a leader of men Charisma makes sense for the Paladin. In a way the Paladin is closer to the Warlock in the how of the magic, even if its a different type of magic, as both in a sense make a deal, the Warlock his pact, the Paladin his Oath, whwer

 

[thedroid]

I like the idea of skills as bonuses to ability checks that was proposed a long time ago, and am mostly okay with the current packet's solution. (Now that I've typed that wizards will immediately release the next packet so noone will know which one I'm talking about, lol). The no skills and just ability checks idea can work to. There is one problem with it though, and I call it The Cleric.

The cleric is going to want a decent to great wisdom due to it being tied to their spellcasting. In fact, wisdom is likely to be more important to them than it is to a ranger, rogue, or other typically scout character. This means that the party member most likely to spot an ambush is the cleric. This works for some archetypes of cleric but for many it is jarring. Perception/spot and listen, survival, and track, have all been associated with wisdom in the past, and it is likely much of them will be in next. Now the current packet makes tracking a feat and gives it to the ranger (though based on the description of ability scores it should be intelligence, but that's another issue), and finding food and not getting lost is in as a background trait. That still leaves the spot/listen/perception issue though. I honestly believe that the cleric makes a lot more sense being charisma based.

I find it easier to accept a mild mannered cleric skilled with intimidate(you are stil channeling the might of a god), an honest cleric that could be good with bluff (having to reassure others in times of trouble), a cloistered, anti-social monk with diplomacy/pursuade (his position makes him respected and people are more willing to listen), than a cleric with no combat or exploration training who is a star at spotting ambushes, hearing whispered conversations, etc. (divine guidance?)

Also, a character who COULD be good at bluffing or intimidating can refrain from doing so based on his own code. He can still be pursuasive and diplomatic, but fights but avoids using options he finds distateful due to his own personal code of honor. This makes sense in the fiction and is not jarring for a player. A cleric with good wisdom simply choosing to not pay attention to his surroundings is a bit more jarring in my opinion. One is a choice of WHICH way to handle a situation, while the other is a choice to handwave away a useful benefit for nothing in return just because.

Spellcasting using charisma is just as easily explained as being based on his faith in his deity, his confidence that he has chosen the right path, etc. as it is using wisdom based explanations. In fact, this probably fits better with much of the accompanying fluff from stories and characters who have "struggled with their faith" than wisdom does.

I mention this because any "no skill" or "skill based" system has to deal with these sorts of incongruities. Does that mean that they should warp the whole system around it? No. But if these issues aren't addressed at all, then little things like that add up and can create a feeling of "it's just not quite right" for players.

Totally agree. Wisdom got stuck being the Perception trait because the need for one was apparent, and Wisdom had nothing else going for it.

 

[kerleth]

No Wisdom makes the most sense for the Cleric because perception is key to the Clerics use of magic.

To use his magic the Cleric needs to both observe and percieve the world around him looking for senses and more imporantly to atune his awareness at times to his God's essence and will, achieving a higher state of perception, a kind of gnosis. Oneness.

The idea of "oneness" does not fit all clerics. Your explanation of why the cleric uses wisdom for spellcasting is a valid one. However, it is no more valid than saying that they gain their powers from their unwavering faith and confidence in their deity. That they act as a channel for their deity's will, and speak empowered by their deity's voice. This would better represent a fanatic, or an orator who spread the word of his religion. Either wisdom or charisma would do a good job of a "sheperd of their flock" as they need to be attentive and pursuasive. Either explanation of fluff would fit right into a generic fantasy world. Specific settings might lean more one way than the other. I ask you, however, which one of the following seems more jarring/inappropriate.

1) A cleric who has never left the city, and lives on the temple grounds. He has received what combat training he has from sparring and self defense lessons performed as exercise and tradition at the temple. In general he relies on his spells (such as the at-will cantrip lance of faith) to see him through combat. (Wisdom primary score) Though there might be a little bit of intrigue at the temple, but he never has to worry about being LITERALLY stabbed in the back or sleeping with one eye open. The temple doesn't have any particularly large problems from thieves, as the most valuable objects are too large to easily steal or guarded carefully when they are brought forth. He becomes mixed up with a party of adventurers, and spots the goblins waiting in ambush before the ranger (who had to worry about his physical scores more since he couldn't rely on spells in combat).

2) A meek priest who mostly keeps to himself, cloistered in a temple studying sacred texts. He is in fair shape due to a similar regimen as the first cleric, but like that cleric he depends mostly on his spells in any sort of dangerous combat situation (charisma prioritized). The cleric becomes mixed up with another group of adventurers and sets out into the city with them. Coming across a belligerent gangmember that the party's rogue just can't seem to fast talk his way past, the cleric finally speaks up and asks the gangmember how his auntie is doing? "She's always disappointed when we don't see you at church. It would break my heart to have to tell her what you've been spending your time doing instead." After a moment of indecision, the gangmember mutters under his breath and lets them past.


@Weather Report
Actually, I think the paladin and cleric sharing charisma would be a good thing. The druid and ranger both share wisdom, but there is no outcry there. If the paladin and cleric shared charisma it might force the design of the paladin to make itself more unique and seperate from the cleric.


My overall point was two things.
1) The cleric should be charisma cause it fits better into MY personal conception of the world, and THAT'S THAT.

2) Any skill system has to be approached from more than one direction. The more "minimalist" it is, the less dials you have to adjust, and the more important it is to get it spot on. Sometimes a discovery about a problem with skills might prompt a change in class features, or backgrounds, or some other part of the game instead as the best way to solve that problem.


I certainly don't want to derail this thread with my opinions about the cleric, so I think I'll let that topic lie with a good natured "Play what you like."

 

[variant]

If the skill system is something that is really divisive, maybe it is best that they include a couple different systems, all in the DMG.

 

[lkj]

If the skill system is something that is really divisive, maybe it is best that they include a couple different systems, all in the DMG.

Agreed.

AD

 

[kerleth]

That seems like the best option.