Seminar Transcript - Reimagining Skills and Ability Scores

[Ichneumon]

We haven't yet seen what wizards who choose to forgo the at-will feats get. They might gain equally compelling feats or class features, which would turn this aspect of the game from a tax to a choice.

 

[Lanefan]

Not me. I positively hate reskinning. It's lazy design.

Who cares if it's lazy design, as long as it's effective?

In fact, effective design that takes minimal-to-no effort is the best kind!

And this is in Pathfunder, not 4E.

Pathfunder? Does that mean it's making too much money?

As for the rest of the transcript:

- Two big thumbs up for rolling for abilities!

- Those who are worried about people over-focusing on ability scores might want to tone down the worry until we know what ability scores are going to give what bonuses. If the bonus curve is flattened out it won't matter nearly as much: for example, in 3e the 3-18 curve held a -4 to +4 bonus range; and stats could very easily go outside that range in both directions. But if in 5e the same 3-18 bonuses only go from -2 to +2 and it becomes much harder for stats to get outside 3-18 (which is what it's beginning to sound like) then who cares?

- I'm not at all excited to see feats staying around - all they seem to do is add two unnecessary things: complication, and power bloat. A feat each level is fine if there's only 10 or 12 widely-spaced levels to the game, but if it goes 1-30 I for one don't want to have to remember all those bloody feats I have at 27th! (I found when playing mid-level warrior-types in 3e I either -A- constantly forgot what feats I had, or -B- spent too much time referring to my character sheet and thus losing focus on what was actually going on in the game)

- Two thumbs way up if 2e ability checks are to replace (most if not all) skills. Much simpler!

- Charisma representing courage makes sense if courage is looked at as an offshoot of willpower, which the game by definition seems to want Charisma to reflect. I don't agree with it, but I can see their line of logic. Personally, as courage can be sort-of reflected in a way by every stat except Str and Dex, I think I'd prefer to see fear saves/checks based on a best-of, or worst-of, or average-of the other 4 stats. (nice side effects: instant difficulty scaling, also instant variations on types of fear)

Lan-"testing the floor with a 10-feat pole"-efan

 

[DaveMage]

Not much that impressed me in the report except:

1. electrum pieces
2. Great Wheel

Maybe the fluff will be worth a look even if the rules don't do anything for me.

 

[Starglyte]

A halfling barbarian should be DEX based. A half orc barbarian should be STR based. Both should be equally viable. The half orc should be obviously stronger and the halfling obviously nimbler.

That's not penalising. Both are equally effective - but in different ways. It's differentiation, not penalization.

If you mean Barbarian as a theme, then I agree with you. But if you mean Barbarian as a class, while I can see different class builds using separate pirmary abilities, I am not convinced that worked out the way they wanted it too in 4E.

 

[Rechan]

The attacker makes a check and that sets the DC for your saving throw.

Ewww. Instead of resolving things with one action, now you have to add a second action? That's going to add double the time just to resolve something.

This also means that monster ability scores are really important. Something that I haven't been giving my monsters in a long time (not bothering doing the math/balancing to give them scores).

I really dislike the significance of Ability scores. Earlier editions you needed really high ability scores to be competent in your class's features (hitting, spellcasting), now it's also important to just do things like jumping over pits et al. That means that if you're like me and like somewhat balanced ability, you're not going be good at anything.

 

[stonegod]

Never cared much for the Great Wheel ("Cheese Wheel of Alignments" in our group). It's a story element, not a mechanical one, and should be represented as such.

 

[RoboCheney]

I like the emphasis on themes and backgrounds, but the bit on stats and skills just seem like bad ideas.

4e has pretty much the right skill list for D&D--its lean, condensed, and covers about everything you'll encounter on the average adventure. So . . . that's getting trading for tons of little conditional modifiers?

If I'm a rogue, am I only as good as my ability scores?

With stats being so essential, I'll feel bad for anyone unlucky with their dice on character creation night!

I hope this all fits together in the playtest docs, right now D&D Next is looking like a serious regression from the lessons learned in the last decade of RPG design.

OK, enough being negative, everyone carry on . . .

 

[Warunsun]

Not much that impressed me in the report except:
1. electrum pieces
2. Great Wheel
Maybe the fluff will be worth a look even if the rules don't do anything for me.

Happy to see the return on the electrum piece. I have used it in all of my Greyhawk games regardless of it's absence in some editions. I also used it in a Forgotten Realms campaign in 3E.

While the traditions of the missing planes from the Great Wheel are important to me and the classic setup was very special to D&D I have to admit that the new setup for the Astral Sea a.k.a. The Astral Plane in The Plane Above: Secrets of the Astral Sea is amazing. That book is worthy of reading by a Dungeon Master of any AD&D edition. It has a lot of informational bits on locations and ideas instead of numbers. There are mechanical numbers too but not as much as your average 4E book. I really like the description and feel of the Astral Plane in 4E. It is really strong. If you haven't read it let me summarize that they have married the best aspects of Spelljammer from 2E and Planescape to create a wonderful way to get around on the plane. So much more interesting than the stereo instructions given by the 1st edition Manual of the Planes about a grey endless void. They also jettisoned all the stupid crap from Spelljammer so while you sail the Astral sea on boats you don't worry about crystal spheres, phlogiston, or outer space.

Another thing missing from 4E planes is lackluster support of Asgard. Odin or Thor might smite the folks that decided that.

So I guess I am saying I want to see all of the original D&D classic planes return. However, there is still room for the Astral Sea, Elemental Chaos, the Shadowfell, and even the Feywild. And I would like a less rigid structure. Astral Sea works well.

 

[mach1.9pants]

[/SIZE]Ewww. Instead of resolving things with one action, now you have to add a second action? That's going to add double the time just to resolve something.

This also means that monster ability scores are really important. Something that I haven't been giving my monsters in a long time (not bothering doing the math/balancing to give them scores).

I really dislike the significance of Ability scores. Earlier editions you needed really high ability scores to be competent in your class's features (hitting, spellcasting), now it's also important to just do things like jumping over pits et al. That means that if you're like me and like somewhat balanced ability, you're not going be good at anything.

I will reserve judgement about both of these
1. Many RPGs have opposed rolls for most things and are quick enough
2. Until we see the ability score bonuses/penalties and the 'DCs' (or whatever they maybe) it could well be that someone with a good spread of abilities is optimal because he can still pretty much achieve everything in a way that doesn't work in 3E. If the abilities are pretty much all equally important in the 3 main areas of DnD (combat, social, exploration) then if you min/max you may well be a huge disadvantage

Not that this is relevant when you roll your abilities: everything based on abilities and rolling for them? Recipe for some very OP and UP PCs!

 

[Rechan]

1. Many RPGs have opposed rolls for most things and are quick enough

I've only encountered 3 RPGs that had roll/counter-roll, and they always felt slow to me. So perhaps there are some out there which are quick and have it, but I've never seen them do both in play.

2. Until we see the ability score bonuses/penalties and the 'DCs' (or whatever they maybe) it could well be that someone with a good spread of abilities is optimal because he can still pretty much achieve everything in a way that doesn't work in 3E. If the abilities are pretty much all equally important in the 3 main areas of DnD (combat, social, exploration) then if you min/max you may well be a huge disadvantage

That's the other side of the coin - MAD. Whenever ability scores are so prevelent, you either get MAD or you get 'the highest primary score at the detriment of all else".